Campaign to repeal the blasphemy law

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

The Irish Times manages to find somebody willing to put pen to paper in support of Blasphemy. Enter, stage right, one David Thunder, a research fellow at the University of Navarra

Wikipedia wrote:

The University of Navarra is a private not-for-profit university located on the southeast border of Pamplona, Spain. It was founded in 1952 by St. Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, the founder of Opus Dei, as a corporate work of the apostolate of Opus Dei.

Anyway, David doesn't say much about blasphemy but does conclude that the main problem is self-described liberals silencing conservatives:

Not the first time a columnist in a national newspaper has complained about being silenced, without a shred of irony...

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The courts are protecting religious feelings

Of course they are, that's what the Austrian parliament legislated for.

The problem here doesn't lie in the ECtHR, or the Austrian courts.

TheChizler

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Going by wikipedia, the vast majority of muslim sources put her at 9-11 years when she consummated the marriage (the belief is that the consummation of the marriage didn't happen until her first menstruation).
I don't think most, if any, people would seriously argue that a 9-11 year old stops being a child simply because the have just had their first period. And while strictly speaking speaking there is a medical term for attraction to pubescent children rather than pre-pubescent children, Hebephilia, it's not used to differentiate sexual crimes against children and I'm not even sure it's used to differentiate treatment for people with that particular attraction over pre-pubescent paedophilia.

And saying that he only had sex with one child and is therefore not a paedophilia is pedantry to a meaningless extreme. He had sex with a child, she hardly raped him, therefore he wanted to do it.
Do you think if it happened today in Ireland that he would get anywhere with that defence?

Never said she wasn't a child, that it was in any way OK, or that it would be a defence today. It's just probably not that useful to use an entirely inaccurate term to describe the main figure of a religion when there are plenty of accurate terms.

Odhinn

According to the exit poll...

The referendum to delete the reference to blasphemy in the Constitution was, as expected, overwhelmingly passed, with the exit poll predicting that 69 per cent of voters have backed the proposal, while 31 per cent have voted to retain the blasphemy provision.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/irish-times-exit-poll-michael-d-higgins-on-course-for-decisive-first-count-victory-as-peter-casey-surges-into-second-place-1.3677340

Hotblack Desiato

RTE poll says 71 / 26 with the remainder not voting in the referendum or refusing to answer.

Goes to show that roughly a quarter of the electorate will vote against any change no matter what!

mcmoustache

Can we really be described as a Catholic country anymore?

I mean, it's pretty clear that the majority of voters over the past few years have been basically giving the Pope the finger every single time. And it's consistent too. It hasn't been like the divorce referendum where it was tight. It's a solid majority.

Mark Hamill

TheChizler wrote: »

Never said she wasn't a child, that it was in any way OK, or that it would be a defence today. It's just probably not that useful to use an entirely inaccurate term to describe the main figure of a religion when there are plenty of accurate terms.

Such as?

Mark Hamill

smacl wrote: »

It would be interesting to know if this was typical for people in that time and place or specific to Mo. AFAIK, average life expectancy in Egypt at that time was ~30 give or take. To give a bit of context, according to this link Mary was apparently 13-14 when she gave birth to Jesus. Just a guess, but it's seems likely that starting to have sex after a girl had her first period might not have been that unusual back then.

Religions like to claim absolute objective morality, so when it happened shouldn't matter to whether it was right or wrong to that religion. Not to mention, "it was a different time" argument is usually rebuked when used to defend the RCC historical wrong doings.
Also, average age might have been 30, but Mohammed married Aisha at ~50 and died 62/63.

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Religions like to claim absolute objective morality, so when it happened shouldn't matter to whether it was right or wrong to that religion. Not to mention, "it was a different time" argument is usually rebuked when used to defend the RCC historical wrong doings.
Also, average age might have been 30, but Mohammed married Aisha at ~50 and died 62/63.

That's fair enough, but I'm an atheist and don't subscribe to a primarily religiously informed notion of morality. I'm guessing the same holds true for many people on this forum. When we look at the wrongdoings of the past, we do actually temper our judgement based on the era in which they happened.

When referring to pedophilia in the time of Jesus and Mo, if most girls were getting married and having kids in their early teens, do we refer to the holy land as a nation of pedos and child molestors? I take your point that Mohammed was 53 and would be considered a deeply unpleasant child molestor by today's standards, but again would wonder whether that was unusual for men of his age, influence and power at in that time and place? I suspect we'd consider that entire society a bunch of barbaric savages when framed in a modern context.

FWIW, I have plenty of problems with Islam and believe we should be critical of it, but they're more contemporary in terms of attitudes to women in general and human rights in certain jurisdictions. I think off the cuff attacks on Islam based on Mo being a pedo are a purposefully used device to polarise opinion against muslims. My opinion is that this undermines more pertinent and objective criticism.

Odhinn

mcmoustache wrote: »

Can we really be described as a Catholic country anymore?

I mean, it's pretty clear that the majority of voters over the past few years have been basically giving the Pope the finger every single time. And it's consistent too. It hasn't been like the divorce referendum where it was tight. It's a solid majority.

All true. Yet roll on the census and you'll have the people who voted for divorce, "gay marriage", use contraception, voted to allow limited abortion and remove blasphemy, and who turn up at the church only for weddings, funerals, confirmations and communions ticking the "catholic" box.

Franz Von Peppercorn

smacl wrote: »

That's fair enough, but I'm an atheist and don't subscribe to a primarily religiously informed notion of morality. I'm guessing the same holds true for many people on this forum. When we look at the wrongdoings of the past, we do actually temper our judgement based on the era in which they happened.

When referring to pedophilia in the time of Jesus and Mo, if most girls were getting married and having kids in their early teens, do we refer to the holy land as a nation of pedos and child molestors? I take your point that Mohammed was 53 and would be considered a deeply unpleasant child molestor by today's standards, but again would wonder whether that was unusual for men of his age, influence and power at in that time and place? I suspect we'd consider that entire society a bunch of barbaric savages when framed in a modern context.

FWIW, I have plenty of problems with Islam and believe we should be critical of it, but they're more contemporary in terms of attitudes to women in general and human rights in certain jurisdictions. I think off the cuff attacks on Islam based on Mo being a pedo are a purposefully used device to polarise opinion against muslims. My opinion is that this undermines more pertinent and objective criticism.

The argument made by S (the complainant in the case taken by the ECHRC) is that it’s precisely because Muhammad is considered a “perfect man” that there is a problem. Laws in Islam are based on the Koran and the Hadith. The latter is based on the life and sayings of the prophet.

The pedantry about what constitutes exactly the description of pedophillia ignores this point and that there was no insult to Muslims in general here but an insult to the prophet.

No different to calling Moses a genocidalist or Jesus a zombie.

smacl

The best coverage of the case that I've been able dig up is here. I gather this went from originally being an incitement to hatred case to one of blasphemy;

From January 2008, Ms ES had held several seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam” at the right-wing Freedom Party Educational Institute [Bildungsinstitut der Freiheitlichen Partei Österreichs]. The seminars were publicly advertised and the head of the Freedom Party had distributed a leaflet specifically aimed at young voters, advertising them as “top seminars” in the framework of a “free education package” [7]. She was subsequently questioned by the police about statements she had made during the seminars directed against the doctrines of Islam, charged initially with inciting hatred (Verhetzung), under Article 283 of the Criminal Code but, ultimately, convicted of disparaging religious doctrines [Herabwürdigung religiöser Lehren] under Article 188 in a manner capable of arousing justified indignation [geeignet, berechtigtes Ärgernis zu erregen].

The question to the ECHR was whether the ECHR had violated Ms ES rights to freedom of expression under Article 10, which it apparently had not. As per my previous response, the issue is with Austrian law and not the ECHR. At the same time, Ms ES seems to be carefully skirting around incitement to hatred, so she's no sympathy from me.

No different to calling Moses a genocidalist or Jesus a zombie.

Hmm, Pedo Mo, zombie Jesus or genocidal Moses is it? Not much to choose between them from where I'm sitting. Great that we ditched our blasphemy laws so we can do this with impunity, not that there was much risk previously. Hopefully the Austrians will follow suit.

TheChizler

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Such as?

Sexual child abuse like I said. I wouldn't consider it useful either based on what smacl said but at least it's accurate by today's standards.

expectationlost

mcmoustache wrote: »

Can we really be described as a Catholic country anymore?

I mean, it's pretty clear that the majority of voters over the past few years have been basically giving the Pope the finger every single time. And it's consistent too. It hasn't been like the divorce referendum where it was tight. It's a solid majority.

the president has to swear an oath to god

expectationlost

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Came across this Twitter post via a Facebook friend.
The point in it is that seemingly at least one minority religious group (a womens Muslim group) are going to vote No on the blasphemy referendum as they feel that the blasphemy legislation is the only thing to protect themselves against hate speech.
Now I know that the blasphemy law doesn't actually give any protection from hate speech, but I haven't really followed any of the debates or reports coming up to the referendum so I am wondering has this point been made by anyone in the media and if it has been responded to?

recedite wrote: »

Muslim women in "Muslims favour strict blasphemy laws" shocker
BTW although the notion that we do not have any protection against hate speech is constantly being peddled, that is just not true.


Here is the relevant legislation.
And as you already pointed out, its a separate issue to blasphemy anyway.

difference between incitement to hatred and and hate crime?

Mark Hamill

smacl wrote: »

That's fair enough, but I'm an atheist and don't subscribe to a primarily religiously informed notion of morality. I'm guessing the same holds true for many people on this forum. When we look at the wrongdoings of the past, we do actually temper our judgement based on the era in which they happened.

When referring to pedophilia in the time of Jesus and Mo, if most girls were getting married and having kids in their early teens, do we refer to the holy land as a nation of pedos and child molestors? I take your point that Mohammed was 53 and would be considered a deeply unpleasant child molestor by today's standards, but again would wonder whether that was unusual for men of his age, influence and power at in that time and place? I suspect we'd consider that entire society a bunch of barbaric savages when framed in a modern context.

FWIW, I have plenty of problems with Islam and believe we should be critical of it, but they're more contemporary in terms of attitudes to women in general and human rights in certain jurisdictions. I think off the cuff attacks on Islam based on Mo being a pedo are a purposefully used device to polarise opinion against muslims. My opinion is that this undermines more pertinent and objective criticism.

So he wasn't a paedophile because society at the time was paedophilic?

As an atheist, I can accept that he just was a person of his time who got some kind of power and challenged a lot of societally accepted customs at the time but followed others without criticism. You know, much like Jesus challenged his society in a lot of circumstances (forgiveness, met with poor and sick), but not in others (e.g. slavery).
But when followers nowadays hold up these flawed humans as objectively morally perfect, how is it not valid to point out their flaws? Pointing out that they were just people of their time doesn't make it any less "insulting" to these religions that they were flawed, it reinforces the flaw.

And maybe this is used mostly as an off the cuff attack. But it's accurate. And I have never heard a reasonable excuse for it, from a point of view that still justifies following his religion, so trying to use "it's offensive" as a way to silence the argument as a whole (i.e. partularly in examples were it is being put forward in genuine debate) is not valid to me.

Mark Hamill

TheChizler wrote: »

Sexual child abuse like I said. I wouldn't consider it useful either based on what smacl said but at least it's accurate by today's standards.

So he is a sexual child abuser, but not a paedophile?
Are there any courts which make that distinction?
Are there any medical dictionaries?
Does society at large?

Mark Hamill

expectationlost wrote: »

difference between incitement to hatred and and hate crime?

As far as I understand it:

If you say something to try and get people to attack a specific group - incitement to hatred (you are trying to incite hatred).

If you personally attack a person or people from another specific group because they are members of that group - hate crime.

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So he wasn't a paedophile because society at the time was paedophilic?

As an atheist, I can accept that he just was a person of his time who got some kind of power and challenged a lot of societally accepted customs at the time but followed others without criticism. You know, much like Jesus challenged his society in a lot of circumstances (forgiveness, met with poor and sick), but not in others (e.g. slavery).
But when followers nowadays hold up these flawed humans as objectively morally perfect, how is it not valid to point out their flaws? Pointing out that they were just people of their time doesn't make it any less "insulting" to these religions that they were flawed, it reinforces the flaw.

And maybe this is used mostly as an off the cuff attack. But it's accurate. And I have never heard a reasonable excuse for it, from a point of view that still justifies following his religion, so trying to use "it's offensive" as a way to silence the argument as a whole (i.e. partularly in examples were it is being put forward in genuine debate) is not valid to me.

Hmmm, where to start? Religious people believing in gods, miracles and all sorts of other stuff that I consider total nonsense colours my judgement somewhat of the people from ancient history they choose to venerate. Latching on to a morality that is a couple of millennia past its sell by date is also something I find utterly bizarre. That said, given that most of my fellow Irish men and women apparently believe this stuff, to a greater or lesser extent, it's something I have to deal with, and in all honesty, most of the time it is no biggy. Muslims are pretty much the same, though more like Catholics from a few decades back. They have, what are in my opinion, some pretty fúcked up ideas, but once they don't try to shove them down my throat i honestly don't care. Winding them up purely for the sake of winding them up is divisive, and I suspect is done more as a tactic to marginalise immigrants and discourage immigration than anything else. If that's the case, and it is only an if, it is dishonest. My criticisms of Islam is based solely on how its followers behave today, not in what they choose to believe. I also have concerns about immigration but they're rather more involved than the religion of those involved.

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So he is a sexual child abuser, but not a paedophile?

Not is, was. Things have changed somewhat over the last couple of thousand years.

TheChizler

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So he is a sexual child abuser, but not a paedophile?
Are there any courts which make that distinction?
Are there any medical dictionaries?
Does society at large?

Paedophile is a word with a specific meaning which is often misunderstood and misused, quite often as an attack on someone in an effort to stir up emotional outrage. It's incorrect to use it in this case, that's all I'm getting at.

Hotblack Desiato

I never thought I'd see child rape apologia on A&A, but here we are.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Religions like to claim absolute objective morality . . .

Bit ironic, give the rather absolute objective morality exhibited by those who insist that Mohammed was a paedophile.

Just as not every man who has sex with a woman is straight, so not every adult who has sex with a child is a paedophile. Paedophilia isn't about who you have sex with, and particular it isn't about one selected person with whom you have sex; it's about your primary sexual attraction. People have sex for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with sexual attraction, including fear, intoxication, opportunistic reasons, social expectations, etc. Calling Mohammed a paedophile because he had sex with Aisha at an age that would now be a criminal offence is a bit like calling David Norris straight because has had sex with a woman*.

This was a factor in the judgment in ES v Austria. The statement about Mohammed complained of was not just that he was a paedophile, but also that he "liked to do it with children". (Plus there was a liberal dash of absolute morality - if it would be wrong today it must have been wrong then - "full stop".) Finally, the defendant explicitly attacked Muslims, because they venerated a "paedophile".

Because there is no evidence that Mohammed was sexually attracted to children and abundant (embarrassingly abundant, some would say) evidence that it wasn't his primary sexual attraction (and because, in the court proceedings, the defendant abandoned any attempt to maintain that any of this was true) the (Austrian) court held that what she said was not a statement of fact, but a derogatory value judgment, and that it was a "malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance, which was one of the bases of a democratic society". On appeal, still to an Austrian court, the appeal court found that the statements were not "merely provocative" but were "intended as an abusive attack".

A key factor here was the truth of the statements complained of. Just as in a libel case in Ireland you can win by showing that what you said was true, so in Austria it helps to be acquitted of this particular offence if what you said is true, or at least arguably true. But "Mohammed was a paedophile;' is not even arguably true, unless you adopt a very, very non-standard definition of "paedophile". Undoubtedly this was a factor in the conviction.

* [Really, he has.]

TheChizler

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I never thought I'd see child rape apologia on A&A, but here we are.

Where? Or do we have an attempt of character assassination as well?

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Just as not every man who has sex with a woman is straight, so not every adult who has sex with a child is a paedophile. Paedophilia isn't about who you have sex with, and particular it isn't about one selected person with whom you have sex; it's about your primary sexual attraction. People have sex for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with sexual attraction, including fear, intoxication, opportunistic reasons, social expectations, etc. Calling Mohammed a paedophile because he had sex with Aisha at an age that would now be a criminal offence is a bit like calling David Norris straight because has had sex with a woman.

Or perhaps a bit like calling a happily married man a "rapist" just because he goes out in his van every second weekend and rapes a student on her way home from a night out.
I mean, its his "primary activity" that defines a man, is it not?

Peregrinus wrote: »

The (Austrian) court held that what she said was not a statement of fact, but a derogatory value judgment, and that it was a "malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance, which was one of the bases of a democratic society". On appeal, still to an Austrian court, the appeal court found that the statements were not "merely provocative" but were "intended as an abusive attack".

Now we are at the crux of the matter. Austria has a law that allows freedom of speech to be sacrificed "in the national interests" or to prevent discord or disruption to the peace of society. That is a very draconian law, because it can essentially be used to silence anybody who threatens the status quo, or in other words, to silence the opposition.
In this case the woman who was silenced was affiliated to the AfD, and so she was silenced because of who she was, not because the information she gave was untrue. All this nitpicking over whether a man having sex with a 9 year old constitutes paedohilia is a red herring. It was the intent of the information evening, and the nature of the sponsors, that brought the law down on them.


So now, we can say that Austria has a particular history, and the govt. there may feel justified in having certain laws that other countries would not have. Fair enough.


But when this woman brought her complaint to the ECHR saying that Austria's imposition of this law contravened her rights to freedom of speech, the ECHR should have ruled in her favour. If that had happened, Austria could simply have ignored the ruling, because a ECHR ruling is not binding on them anyway (unlike ECJ which is an EU institution)


What the ECHR has done here is to assert that your freedom of speech extends only to the point where you disagree with somebody else, or you risk offending them, which is a nonsense. They have undermined their own credibility with this ruling.


In one final bizarre coincidence, they made this ruling just as the Irish electorate were scrapping the whole notion of blasphemy.
Its as if the notion of blasphemy just refuses to die.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

In this case the woman who was silenced was affiliated to the AfD, and so she was silenced because of who she was, not because the information she gave was untrue.

So what you're saying here is that while encouraging discrimination against Islam she was being discriminated against? Ironic, no? :pac:

recedite

Not really ironic, because there is always a balance at play.
One persons freedom extends until it impinges on another persons freedom.
But there is a whole spectrum going from free speech, to hate speech and incitement to hatred, and finally to hate crime.

IMO alerting non-muslims to the activities that are "credited" to the founding hero of Islam by muslims falls into the first category, and not into the second or third ones.


Recedite The Embodiment of Peace

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

(Plus there was a liberal dash of absolute morality - if it would be wrong today it must have been wrong then - "full stop".)

That's strange, because religions claim absolute moral authority. If religion-inspired morality changes over time, then it's not absolute, and therefore the associated religious doctrine changes over time, therefore it's not absolute either. So how can anyone say any religious doctrine is right, if it's merely a product of the values of the society in which it arose at that time?

Finally, the defendant explicitly attacked Muslims, because they venerated a "paedophile".

Substitute "child abuser". Does that make it any better?

Because there is no evidence that Mohammed was sexually attracted to children

You could easily construct a priest child rape apologia using that argument. The priest was not a paedophile, he merely sought targets of opportunity. The fact he wasn't sexually attracted to the children he raped made it somehow more morally acceptable

Hotblack Desiato

I'm disappointed that the Austrian parliament enacted such a law - but that's a matter of concern for the Austrian electorate.

I'm rather a lot more disappointed that the ECtHR saw no fault in it - and that should be a matter of concern for all European citizens.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's strange, because religions claim absolute moral authority. If religion-inspired morality changes over time, then it's not absolute, and therefore the associated religious doctrine changes over time, therefore it's not absolute either. So how can anyone say any religious doctrine is right, if it's merely a product of the values of the society in which it arose at that time?

The issue in this case was not the morality offered by Islam, or by any particular religion, but the moral framework said to justify the criticism of Islam offered here. I think there's an irony in someone on the one hand criticising religions for teaching an absolute and invariant morality and at the same time appealing to an absolute and invariant morality to criticise Islam.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Substitute "child abuser". Does that make it any better?

It might have. Sadly for the defendant, if you're prosecuted for saying X, pointing out that you could perhaps legitimately have said Y isn't much of an defence.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You could easily construct a priest child rape apologia using that argument. The priest was not a paedophile, he merely sought targets of opportunity. The fact he wasn't sexually attracted to the children he raped made it somehow more morally acceptable

You are confused. Nobody is constructing an apologia for Muhammed; we're just exploring what can be truthfully said about him since, in this particular context, the truth of what was said was relevant to the legal issue.

To be clear: I'm not defending the Austrian law here; just trying to tease out the issues involved. We've just had a referendum to eliminate blasphemy in Ireland, of which I heartily approve, and if the Austrian law is just a disguised blasphemy law, then I disapprove of it too. On the other hand, one of the arguments deployed in Ireland was that we don't need a blasphemy law because (among other reasons) we have hate speech laws. And if the Austrian law is more akin to a hate speech law then maybe it deserves a second look.

Unless we take the (morally absolutist!) view that no infringment on free speech is ever justified for any reason, clearly the interest in free speech has to be balanced against other rights and freedoms. In looking at how well the Austrian law does that, it's relevant that the defendant in this case simply made derogatory stuff up about Muhammed, and this is what stymied her claim to be involved in criticism of Islam or of the historical phenomenon of child marriage, which would have been a protected exercise of free speech, and turned it into what the court saw as a malicious violation of democratic toleration.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'm disappointed that the Austrian parliament enacted such a law - but that's a matter of concern for the Austrian electorate.

I'm rather a lot more disappointed that the ECtHR saw no fault in it - and that should be a matter of concern for all European citizens.

FWIW, there's talk of the decision being appealed.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think there's an irony in someone on the one hand criticising religions for teaching an absolute and invariant morality and at the same time appealing to an absolute and invariant morality to criticise Islam.

I agree entirely, but I think the salient point is that those who do adopt an absolute and invariant morality would consider Mo a child abuser as his actions stand independently of historical context in such a framework. The case with ES as I see it is that she's basically saying that Muslims are generally sympathetic to paedophillia by association because of this, which is a sentiment that seems to be reflected here. I think it is this that the Austrian's took exception to as a form of incitement to hatred. I think it is certainly unreasonable incitement to prejudice, and that people should be judged on their behaviour rather than what we might think they think. We've seen a similar pattern before where Catholics and various other Christians on this board get criticised based on the contents of the bible of the dictates of the Vatican, whereas in fact the morality of most Catholics and Christians in this country is not dictated by their religion or religious leaders, as shown by recent referendums. I've no issue with criticisms of Islam or lampooning of Mo, but do take exception to rallies that are specifically designed to demonise a strata of society based on their purported beliefs. The original action against ES was incitement to hatred, and that the event appears to be on behalf of the Freedom party who are very strongly against Muslim immigration. I'm all for freedom of speech but reckon there is far more at play here.