[One Degree]

No, you just have to give up the idea that ‘cultural diversity’ under one set of laws is achievable. It is only workable for those who do not have strong cultural beliefs. You can not demand you not be offended in a cultural diverse community or you end up with what you are suggesting. “My rights are not important enough to risk getting beaten up over.”
Chickenshit philosophy.

[Ter]

It is not a question of IF, it is s certainty that the religion of peace will use violence against Europeans until they stop saying that about him.

I respectfully disagree.
If they cannot stand free speech, or pork butchers, or Jews on the road, or whatever, they have no business being in Europe.

[Suntzu]

How could anyone assume that a fifty year old man who screw a 9 year old girl is a pedophile. The little girl's father was apparently happy with it.

[Rugoz]

The ECHR gives that stupid Austrian court decision a legal precedent for the whole of Europe.

It only sets a precedent insofar as that national courts are now allowed to limit free speech in such cases.

A militant judge in Austria, probably an Islamophile, made that ruling and now it is valid in the whole of Europe ?

No it's not.

Fuck the ECHR.

Fuck illiteracy too.

[Steve_American]

Steve_American wrote :
It is not a question of IF, it is a certainty that the religion of peace will use violence against Europeans until they stop saying that about him.

I respectfully disagree.
If they cannot stand free speech, or pork butchers, or Jews on the road, or whatever, they have no business being in Europe.

Look, I also think that it is a huge mistake to let a large number of Muslims into Europe. I wish the liberal parties would wake up to the reality and get many of them to leave.
Why do I want them out of Europe for the most part? The following are generalizations and don't apply to all Muslims, just most of them.
1] They do not believe in freedom of religion, apostates must be killed.
2] They don't believe in women's rights.
3] They don't believe in freedom of speech, you can't criticize Islam.
4] They don't believe in the tolerance that is required for democracy to work. Etc.

But, if you-all keep calling Mohammad a pedophile Muslims will keep killing Europeans because a] they are not peaceful, b] this point is insulting to them, and c] they can kill Europeans.

[Rancid]

This ruling sound rather ridiculous.

[One Degree]

@Steve_American
I understand what you are saying, but it seems to be based on the premise that if you appease them everything will be fine. Your own arguments show you don’t actually believe that will work. They will just insist on more concessions. What incentive are you offering them not to?

[Steve_American]

@Steve_American
I understand what you are saying, but it seems to be based on the premise that if you appease them everything will be fine. Your own arguments show you don’t actually believe that will work. They will just insist on more concessions. What incentive are you offering them not to?

You asked. OK I'll give you my off the cuff answer.
I believe in MMT. Therefore, I believe that the ECB could create a trillion euros and the nations of the EU could use the cash to bribe them (and the nations) to go to some North African or other African nation to live.

Those who don't go I would do the opposite that I understand the Liberals did do. Instead of letting them groom pubescent girls as prostitutes and have no go zones in cities; I would investigate every complaint and throw the book at them and I would use the Army if necessary to back up the police in their neighborhoods. I would provide the police with hats or helmets that have cameras-w/recorders on 4-sides so they have "eyes in the back of their heads". I would investigate every complaint about Islamic culture being imposed in a European city in violation of the law, and throw the book at them. I would deport all immigrant criminals after they serve their sentence.
Remember, with MMT money grows on trees not in the pockets of the rich;so they can easily pay for all this.

You asked.
.

[One Degree]

You asked. OK I'll give you my off the cuff answer.
I believe in MMT. Therefore, I believe that the ECB could create a trillion euros and the nations of the EU could use the cash to bribe them (and the nations) to go to some North African or other African nation to live.

Those who don't go I would do the opposite that I understand the Liberals did do. Instead of letting them groom pubescent girls as prostitutes and have no go zones in cities; I would investigate every complaint and throw the book at them and I would use the Army if necessary to back up the police in their neighborhoods. I would provide the police with hats or helmets that have cameras-w/recorders on 4-sides so they have "eyes in the back of their heads". I would investigate every complaint about Islamic culture being imposed in a European city in violation of the law, and throw the book at them. I would deport all immigrant criminals after they serve their sentence.
Remember, with MMT money grows on trees not in the pockets of the rich;so they can easily pay for all this.

You asked.
.

Thank you. I also have primary goals that dictate my position on other things.

[Pants-of-dog]

I would argue that laws designed to protect the feelings of religious people are conservative in nature.

And this then is a victory for conservatives who think religious thought should be enshrined in law.

[One Degree]

I would argue that laws designed to protect the feelings of religious people are conservative in nature.

And this then is a victory for conservatives who think religious thought should be enshrined in law.

I don’t see any reason to argue against that since liberalism is being manipulated for authoritarian purposes.
You need to realize conservatives are not arguing about liberalism specifically, but where it is headed. It is liberals who ignore the actual arguments and pretend they are about racism, sexism, etc. That is the propaganda you are fed so you will be deaf to what we are actually saying.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don’t see any reason to argue against that since liberalism is being manipulated for authoritarian purposes.
You need to realize conservatives are not arguing about liberalism specifically, but where it is headed. It is liberals who ignore the actual arguments and pretend they are about racism, sexism, etc. That is the propaganda you are fed so you will be deaf to what we are actually saying.

There is no argument here, as far as I can see.

[foxdemon]

This ruling sound rather ridiculous.

I would describe it as rediculously ridiculous.

However, there is probably a rational explanation for this ruling. I suggest crack use amongst ECHR judges needs to be investigated as a possible cause.

[Nonsense]

One more reason that 'LEAVE' was the correct decision by the British people.

If any 'religion' was classed as what it really is, a 'BUSINESS', then, under any law it would be prosecuted for selling a product using a false description.

[Hindsite]

I respectfully disagree.
If they cannot stand free speech, or pork butchers, or Jews on the road, or whatever, they have no business being in Europe.

Islam consists of many mentally unstable people that want free speech for their points of view, but not for contrary points of view. That is why they spread vile lies and extreme hate about those that disagree with them to the point of even beheading them.

[Steve_American]

Thank you. I also have primary goals that dictate my position on other things.

I'm very sorry.
This one line post is confusing to me.
AS in I have no idea what you meant.
Although I hope is isn't deleted.
.

[The Sabbaticus]

Haven't read up on this issue, but it's a judgment on a specific case involving national laws and the interpretation as such under the convention. This judgment would only be relevant to other countries if they have similar national laws. Other than that, it damages the reputation of the ECHR and will contribute to further anti-EU sentiment, as the ECHR is seen as synonymous with the rabidly pro-MENA immigration/Islamophilic EU.

[One Degree]

I'm very sorry.
This one line post is confusing to me.
AS in I have no idea what you meant.
Although I hope is isn't deleted.
.

Your views seem to be based around MMT being the basis for solutions. My views are based around local autonomy being the basis for finding solutions.

[Pants-of-dog]

Why does Austria have anti-blasphemy laws?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I had never heard of the case when it was in court in Austria in 2011, but having looked it up now, it seems the ECHR pretty much followed the reasoning of the Austrian judge:

Für die Richterin wurde dem Religionsstifter damit "der sachlich völlig ungerechtfertigte der Vorwurf der Pädophilie" gemacht und somit ein "absolut unehrenhaftes Verhalten" vorgehalten, das geeignet war, ihn in der Öffentlichkeit herabzusetzen, wie sie in der Urteilsbegründung betonte. Die Äußerungen waren "geeignet, ein berechtigtes Ärgernis zu erregen", womit nach Dafürhalten des Gerichts der Tatbestand der Herabwürdigung religiöser Lehren erfüllt war.

She stated in her ruling that "the paedophilia accusation was completely unjustified", and hence derogatory.

On the other hand, statements such as "Islam is hostile", "the Koran is evil", and "Muslims want war, they hate us" are protected under freedom of speech according to the judge.

Demgegenüber lag nach Ansicht der Richterin keine Verhetzung vor, weil es sich bei den inkriminierten islamfeindlichen Passagen ("Der Islam ist feindselig", "der Koran ist böse", "Die Muslime wollen Krieg, sie hassen uns") um vom Grundrecht auf Meinungsfreiheit noch getragene Behauptungen handelte, die nicht auf die Erweckung von Hassgefühlen abgezielt hätten.

Why does Austria have anti-blasphemy laws?

Good question.

Speech is generally more restricted by law in Austria (and Central Europe).

Blasphemy convictions of lower courts often don't hold up on appeal, e.g. the conviction of the Austrian guy by a Greek court mentioned in the article I linked earlier was overturned on appeal, and most people probably thought this would be the case here as well, so it's certainly significant that the upper courts and the ECHR have gone along with it.