109:
And me: 'A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do you call that? Give me an example? What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?' Her: 'Well, one has to paraphrase it, say it in a more diplomatic way.' My sister is symptomatic . We have heard that so many times. 'Those were different times' – it wasn't okay back then, and it's not okay today. Full stop. And it is still happening today. One can never approve something like that. They all create their own reality because the truth is so cruel ...
162:, which campaigns on similar issues internationally, criticised the ruling as "fundamentally at odds with the spirit and tradition of free expression in Europe" expressed hope the case would be appealed and overturned in the Grand Chamber. It criticised the court's rationale in balancing the Article 10 right it is sworn to protect against "a previously nonexistent right to protection of one's 'religious feelings'". In a later speech on blasphemy laws before the
211:
the following paragraph (no. 15) of PACE Recommendation 1805 (2007) is potentially very important for any such new direction: "national law should only penalise expressions concerning religious matters which intentionally and severely disturb public order and call for public violence" (see paragraph 29 of the judgment).
183:, Simon Cottee expressed serious concerns about the judgment, saying "it has given legitimacy to what is in all but name an Austrian blasphemy law, and by invoking the slippery notion of "religious peace," it has effectively given a veto to those who would deploy violence in defense of their religious beliefs."
210:
The time has come to reassess this case-law. Which new direction should be taken? One new approach could be to examine all blasphemy-related restrictions on freedom of expression under
Article 10 exclusively in terms of the legitimate aim of protecting public order (religious peace). We consider that
108:
I remember my sister, I have said this several times already, when made her famous statement in Graz, my sister called me and asked: 'For God's sake. Did you tell that?' To which I answered: 'No, it wasn't me, but you can look it up, it's not really a secret.' And her: 'You can't say it like that!'
126:
The court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the applicant's statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child marriage),
134:
The court held further that even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with
Article 10 of the Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits
130:
Furthermore, the Court held that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled
Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience
186:
Reactions from academics were varied. Some authors outlined that with this judgment the
European Court of Human Right applied different standards to very similar situation ruled in the past. Moreover, no concrete offence to any individual was demonstrated, but only to the quite fuzzy and undefined
87:
On 15 February 2011, the Vienna
Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies, and convicted Mrs S. for disparaging religious doctrines. She was ordered to pay a fine of 480 euros and the costs of the proceedings. Mrs S. appealed but the
104:
The most important of all Hadith collections recognised by all legal schools: The most important is the Sahih Al-Bukhari. If a Hadith was quoted after
Bukhari, one can be sure that all Muslims will recognise it. And, unfortunately, in Al-Bukhari the thing with Aisha and child sex is written...
100:
One of the biggest problems we are facing today is that
Muhammad is seen as the ideal man, the perfect human, the perfect Muslim. That means that the highest commandment for a male Muslim is to imitate Muhammad, to live his life. This does not happen according to our social standards and laws.
131:
of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue. Hence, the court saw no reason to depart from the domestic courts' qualification of the impugned statements as value judgments which they had based on a detailed analysis of the statements made.
122:
went beyond the limits of a critical denial, and certainly where they were likely to incite religious intolerance, might a state legitimately consider them to be incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures.
205:
the Court ruled differently than in E.S. v
Austria, and ruled that Polish courts in a similar case concerning Catholicism "failed to identify and carefully weigh the competing interests at stake" and overturned a 2012 conviction for blasphemy. The court declared, among other things:
101:
Because he was a warlord, he had many women, to put it like this, and liked to do it with children. And according to our standards, he was not a perfect human. We have huge problems with that today, that
Muslims get into conflict with democracy and our value system ...
84:, which was consummated when she was nine. Inter alia, the applicant stated that Muhammad "liked to do it with children" and "... A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? ... What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?".
146:
The case was subject to criticism in public reporting, including the accusation that the judgment "imposed" a blasphemy law in Europe. Nevertheless, it was a source of concern for human rights commentators. The
485:
138:
The court's decision was unanimous without concurring opinion. In March 2019, the Grand
Chamber panel of five judges rejected the request for referral to the Grand Chamber. The decision became final.
279:
119:
155:
advocacy and repeal of blasphemy laws, was "frustrated" that the court did not uphold the complainant's Article 10 rights, criticising the court's "timidity".
76:
In October and November 2009, Mrs S. held two seminars entitled "Basic Information on Islam", in which she discussed the marriage between the Islamic prophet
344:
148:
366:
384:
171:
299:
437:
Andrea Gatti, "Freedom of Expression and Protection of Religious Peace in Europe: Considerations on E.S. v. Austria ECHR case law",
475:
228:"Worship" is the word used in the English version of the ruling, even though worshipping Muhammad (considering him divine) is
411:
63:
254:
66:(ECtHR) case where the court upheld a domestic court's fine on an Austrian woman who had called Mohammed a pedophile.
187:"religious peace" of Austria, and even that only potentially. For that reason it has been claimed that this judgment
70:
480:
340:
88:
Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011, confirming in essence the lower court's findings.
163:
127:
but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship.
201:
319:
152:
341:"IHEU 'frustrated', as European Court fails to overturn 'blasphemy' conviction in Austria"
469:
229:
26:
416:
179:
159:
174:, and to the spirit and purpose of human rights as an international enterprise."
451:
367:"European Court of Human Rights rules that Austria can keep its blasphemy law"
385:"Humanists UK challenges Austria blasphemy ruling at UN Human Rights Council"
77:
73:), is an Austrian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Vienna.
232:, a sin in Islam. Muslims venerate Muhammad but do not worship him.
281:
Religion in Austria: An Annotated Bibliography of 2020 Scholarship
81:
300:"Freedom of expression or criminal blasphemy?: ES v Austria"
170:
judgment as running "counter to the principles held by the
96:
The statement that the Austrian woman originally said was:
486:
European Court of Human Rights cases involving Austria
45:
37:
25:
20:
199:In September 2022, in the subsequent ECtHR case
208:
98:
320:"Grand Chamber Panel's decisions – March 2019"
8:
439:Revista General de Derecho Publico Comparado
287:. University of Vienna. pp. 302, 308.
412:"A Flawed European Ruling on Free Speech"
191:endorsed the use of anti-blasphemy laws.
345:International Humanist and Ethical Union
255:"HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights"
149:International Humanist and Ethical Union
245:
221:
456:HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights
17:
172:Universal Declaration of Human Rights
7:
298:Cranmer, Frank (26 October 2018).
14:
410:Cottee, Simon (31 October 2018).
322:. European Court of Human Rights
452:"CASE OF RABCZEWSKA v. POLAND"
64:European Court of Human Rights
1:
118:Only where expressions under
62:was a case held before the
502:
135:of freedom of expression.
71:Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
166:, Humanists UK cited the
151:, an INGO concerned with
80:and a six-year old girl,
50:
113:
476:Blasphemy law in Europe
278:Pokorny, Lukas (2020).
164:UN Human Rights Council
142:International reactions
213:
111:
195:Later related rulings
69:The applicant, E.S. (
51:Freedom of expression
458:. 15 September 2022.
202:Rabczewska v. Poland
158:The British charity
373:. 29 October 2018.
259:hudoc.echr.coe.int
92:Original statement
32:E.S. AS v. Austria
347:. 26 October 2018
55:
54:
493:
481:2018 in case law
460:
459:
448:
442:
435:
429:
428:
426:
424:
407:
401:
400:
398:
396:
381:
375:
374:
363:
357:
356:
354:
352:
337:
331:
330:
328:
327:
316:
310:
309:
307:
306:
295:
289:
288:
286:
275:
269:
268:
266:
265:
250:
233:
226:
114:Court's decision
18:
501:
500:
496:
495:
494:
492:
491:
490:
466:
465:
464:
463:
450:
449:
445:
436:
432:
422:
420:
409:
408:
404:
394:
392:
383:
382:
378:
365:
364:
360:
350:
348:
339:
338:
334:
325:
323:
318:
317:
313:
304:
302:
297:
296:
292:
284:
277:
276:
272:
263:
261:
252:
251:
247:
242:
237:
236:
227:
223:
218:
197:
144:
116:
94:
59:E.S. v. Austria
21:E.S. v. Austria
12:
11:
5:
499:
497:
489:
488:
483:
478:
468:
467:
462:
461:
443:
430:
402:
391:. 5 March 2019
376:
358:
332:
311:
290:
270:
244:
243:
241:
238:
235:
234:
220:
219:
217:
214:
196:
193:
143:
140:
115:
112:
93:
90:
53:
52:
48:
47:
43:
42:
39:
35:
34:
29:
27:Full case name
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
498:
487:
484:
482:
479:
477:
474:
473:
471:
457:
453:
447:
444:
440:
434:
431:
419:
418:
413:
406:
403:
390:
386:
380:
377:
372:
368:
362:
359:
346:
342:
336:
333:
321:
315:
312:
301:
294:
291:
283:
282:
274:
271:
260:
256:
249:
246:
239:
231:
225:
222:
215:
212:
207:
204:
203:
194:
192:
190:
184:
182:
181:
175:
173:
169:
165:
161:
156:
154:
150:
141:
139:
136:
132:
128:
124:
121:
110:
106:
102:
97:
91:
89:
85:
83:
79:
74:
72:
67:
65:
61:
60:
49:
44:
40:
36:
33:
30:
28:
24:
19:
16:
455:
446:
438:
433:
421:. Retrieved
417:The Atlantic
415:
405:
393:. Retrieved
389:Humanists UK
388:
379:
371:Humanists UK
370:
361:
349:. Retrieved
335:
324:. Retrieved
314:
303:. Retrieved
293:
280:
273:
262:. Retrieved
258:
248:
224:
209:
200:
198:
188:
185:
180:The Atlantic
178:
176:
167:
160:Humanists UK
157:
145:
137:
133:
129:
125:
117:
107:
103:
99:
95:
86:
75:
68:
58:
57:
56:
31:
15:
423:15 November
351:15 November
177:Writing in
470:Categories
326:2019-10-24
305:2018-10-31
264:2018-10-31
240:References
120:Article 10
189:de facto
153:humanist
78:Muhammad
46:Keywords
441:, 2018.
395:5 March
168:Austria
41:Chamber
38:Chamber
253:ECHR.
285:(PDF)
230:shirk
216:Notes
82:Aisha
425:2018
397:2019
353:2018
472::
454:.
414:.
387:.
369:.
343:.
257:.
427:.
399:.
355:.
329:.
308:.
267:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.