It was wrong and cowardice by the European Court of Human Rights to (in practice) agitate* for more Human Rightsphobia among muslims. And the reason is what Klevius calls the "Mishal Husain-syndrome"**.
* ECHR hid behind "margin of appreciation" (see below) and utilized some less elegant patterns of speech by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, hence again blinking the clear connection between islamic teachings and muslim assaults on "infidels" and Human Rights. Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff could have got away with calling Mohammad (not to be confused with Mohammad Salman) a pedophile by just saying it in a slightly different way (see ECHR verdict below). So in short, ECHR hid behind multiple barriers: 1) margin of appreciation 2) utilizing clumpsy wording by the accused 3) utilizing a diffuse "the rights of muslims (which muslims? not Mishal Husain I gather - Mohammad Salman?!) to have their religious feelings protected". Moreover, the fact that muslim sharia isn't compatible with Human Right is the very allure of true evil islam. because it paves the way for allowing open racism and sexism. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali used to say: We shouldn't tolerate intolerance.
** "Michal Husain-syndrome" stands for presenting islam and muslims as a Potemkin village, i.e. painting muslims and islam as something true sharia muslims/islam is not. Also compare the evil Saudi "prince" and "custodian of islam" and war criminal etc. muslim terrorist Mohammad Salman who wants to "justify" his Western way of life while calling himself a muslim and utilizing the world's muslims and islam for his hegemonic efforts. No wonder he since many years back has been called the word's most dangerous muslim".
However:
Annual Report on 2003 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, re. sharia incompatibilty with Human Rights:
Noting that the Welfare Party had pledged to set up a regime based on sharia law, the Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as set forth in the Convention. It considered that “sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it”. According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverged from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.
Three member countries of the Council of Europe have ratified both the European Convention on Human Rights and the Cairo Declaration, which is a declaration of Human Rights compatible with the sharia. These countries are Albania, Azerbaijan and Turkey. One must add that the Russian Federation and Bosnia and Herzegovina have not signed the Cairo Declaration but are members observers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and they have signed the ECHR.
OIC's Cairo Declaration of 5th August 1990 stipulates inter alia that “islam is the religion of unspoiled nature”. It does not contain a right to freedom of religion, does not confirm the equality before the law of all humans regardless of their sex, religion or no-religion, and Article 25 stipulates that “The islamic shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration”. In other words," Human Rights can go to Hell" as many muslims write on their posters.
Dear reader, if you wonder why Klevius doesn't use capitals on muslims and islam - take a look at BBC which doesn't use capitals for Atheism, although the latter is way closer to Human Rights moral than sharia muslims/islam. There are also technical/grammatical reasons but Klevius has no time right now to also explain that.
Many of the principles stated in muslim sharia contravene the principles which are recognized as Human Rights, and first of all, freedom of/from religion, women's rights and the one way marriage system which leads to ever more muslims through birth (compare Obama who is technically an apostate).
According to muslim sharia, a muslim does not have the right to change his religion to another religion or to Atheism. If he does so, he is an apostate, which generates his civil death (opening of his succession) and deserves a death penalty or in some muslim "communities" just expulsion, condemnation etc. racist/sexist abuse. When it comes to women it really doesn't matter if she is muslim or not except that she under sharia always has to foster the kids to become muslims.
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: On Thursday, 25 October 2018 the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) ruled that my conviction by an Austrian court for discussing the marriage between Prophet Mohammed and a six year old girl, Aisha, did not infringe my rights of freedom of speech.
I was not extended the courtesy of being told of this ruling. Like many others, I had to read it in the media.
The ECHR found there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and that right to expression needed to be balanced with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.
In other words, my right to speak freely is less important than protecting the religious feelings of others.
This should ring warning bells for my fellow citizens across the continent. We should all be extremely concerned that the rights of Muslims in Europe NOT to be offended are greater than my own rights, as a native European Christian woman, to speak freely.
I am proud to be the woman who has raised this alarm.
I am also optimistic. Since giving my seminars in Austria in 2009, we have come a very long way.
Ten years ago the press labeled me a “confused doom-monger” and I was compared to Osama Bin Laden. Now, Islam is being discussed in every sphere of life and people are waking up to the reality of a culture so opposed to our own.
The cultural and political threat posed by Islam to Western societies is now widely recognized and discussed. It is fair to say European society, as well as the political realm, is undergoing an enlightenment, as it is more awake than ever to the need to defend our own Judeo-Christian culture.
I believe my seminars in 2009, and subsequent work have contributed to strong push back against an Islamic culture which is so at odds with our own. And note with interest that only one sentence out of 12 hours of seminars on Islam was a prosecutable offense. I assume the remaining content is now officially sanctioned by our Establishment masters.
It is obvious to me that public education and discourse on the subject of Islam can have a fundamental and far-reaching impact, even if our state or supra-national authorities try to stifle or silence it, in order to appease a culture so foreign to our own.
This fight continues. My voice will not and cannot be silenced.
European Court of Human Rights and its decision which neglects the (negative*) rights of non-muslims to have their feelings protected - or no protection on an equal basis, which still would leave muslims with a problematic (religious) tendency to actively imply supremacy in accordance to Koranic interpretations and acts by Maohammad.
* see Klevius tutorial on Negative Human Rights.Background: ECHR judges are elected for a non-renewable nine-year term. The number of full-time judges sitting in the Court is equal to the number of contracting states to the European Convention on Human Rights, currently 47. Judges cannot hear or decide a case if they have a family or professional relationship with a party. So what about religion?
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.
Decision of the Court
Article 10 ((freedom of expression)
The Court noted that those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion under
Article 9 of the Convention could not expect to be exempt from criticism. They must tolerate and
accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs. Only where expressions under Article 10 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.
The Court observed also that the subject matter of the instant case was of a particularly sensitive
nature, and that the (potential) effects of the impugned statements, to a certain degree, depended
on the situation in the respective country where the statements were made, at the time and in the
context they were made. Accordingly, it considered that the domestic authorities had a wide margin
of appreciation in the instant case, as they were in a better position to evaluate which statements
were likely to disturb the religious peace in their country.
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), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad
was not worthy of worship. It agreed with the domestic courts that Mrs S. must have been aware
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 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.
Klevius analysis of ECHR's ambiguous decision:
As Klevius has written since the early 1990s, ECHR's main jurisprudential fuse* is the problematic 'margin of appreciation' - see e.g. Angels of Antichrist (1996), several judgements were Klevius has represented the claimant, as well as many of Klevius articles on the subject. And perhaps most importantly, do read Klevius analysis in Demand for Resources (1992:50-51). Here's a short example where Peter Klevius sides with Jurgen Habermas in a match against misdirected state power:
* In Demand for Resources (Klevius 1992:43, ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter dealing with science and citations, jurisprudence is pointed out as "the perfect scientific project" due to the fact that it, instead of searching for answers, starts with an already existing answer, i.e. the law. And in difficulties interpreting the legislator most nations ask their Supreme Court which can either correct or send it back to the legislator for a better distinction. However, ECHR's fuse is "the margin of appreciation", i.e. to excuse themselves by referring to national law.
Original Swedish text from Demand for Resources (Klevius 1992, ISBN 9173288411):
Jag tar mig friheten att citera några lösryckta men i sammanhanget intressanta citat av Jurgen Habermas:
Habermas: "Det lidande som orsakas av kontingenserna i ett okontrollerat förlopp får en ny kvalitet i den mån vi tilltror oss förmågan att kunna ingripa förnuftigt i det. Detta lidande är då negativet till ett nytt behov."
Klevius: Denna process, d.v.s. följden av den till synes goda tanken att lägga tillrätta sociala fenomen som betraktas som oönskade, leder till nya, okontrollerade "motsvängningar" som i sin tur kräver nya insatser i en kumulerande, aldrig sinande ström.
Habermas: "Då eftersträvas nämligen överhuvudtaget inte längre en förnuftig konsensus medborgarna emellan om hur de praktiskt skall behärska sina livsvillkor. I dess ställe kommer försöket att på teknisk väg uppnå kontroll över historien i form av en fulländad förvaltning av samhället."
Klevius: Till detta ändamål styckas verkligheten upp i mer och mer sofistikerade utbildningslinjer i vars slutända tjänsteprofilen mejslas fram i symbios och växelverkan med lagstiftning.
Habermas: "Det ena värdets företräde framför det andra, alltså värdets anspråkpå att vara bindande för handling, kan helt enkelt inte berättigas. Ideologikritik på denna nivå bevisar ofrivilligt att en fortskridande erfarenhetsvetenskaplig rationalisering, som är begränsad till teknisk kontroll, betalas med en proportionell tillväxt av irrationalitet inom själva området för praxis."
Klevius: Irrationaliteten yttrar sig rent konkret i att verksamhetens nettoresultat blir negativt (vägt efter de värderingar som initierade processen).
Habermas: "Men eftersom fördomen hämtar sin egenartade objektivitet ur denna sammanbindning av undanhållen autonomi, förnekad frihet och förhindrad tillfredsställelse, kräver en kritisk upplösning av den existerande osanningen, av villfarelsen som substans, i sin tur något som går utöver den förnuftiga insikten. Framför allt krävs kardinaldygden mod."
Klevius: Verksamhetens negativa nettoresultat förnekas med hänvisningen till att verksamheten växt fram som en produkt av dess inneboende välvilja. Att kritiskt granska denna verksamhet blir följaktligen inopportunt (Klevius 1992:50-51).Google translation with just some minor corrections of the worst - Klevius is a lazy (or healthy, as he himself prefers to call it) guy. Btw, who will support a good English (and perhaps other languages as well) translation of the whole tiny book?:
I take the liberty of quoting some loose but in the context, interesting quotes by Jurgen Habermas:
Habermas: "The suffering caused by contingencies in an uncontrolled process is given a new quality to the extent that we think we have the ability to intervene sensibly in it. This suffering is then the negative for a new need."
Klevius: This process, i.e. the consequence of the seemingly good idea of correcting social phenomena considered unwanted leads to new, uncontrolled reactions which in turn require new efforts in a cumulative, never-ending stream.
Habermas: "At the very least, there is no longer a sensible consensus between the citizens as to how they will practically master their living conditions. Instead there's the attempt to technically gain control over history in the form of a total management of society."
Klevius: To this end, reality is split up into more and more sophisticated lines of education in which the final bureaucratic profile is hammered out in symbiosis and interaction with legislation.
Habermas: "The privilege of one value over an other, i.e. the claim about a value to necessitate action, simply can not be justified. Ideological criticism at this level will inevitably prove that progressive experiential rationalization, limited to technical control, leads to a proportional increase in irrationality in the very field of practice itself."
Klevius: This irrationality reveals itself in terms of a negative net result (weighted by and against the values that initiated the process).
Habermas: "But because the prejudice retrieves its peculiar objectivity from this interlink of retarded autonomy, denied freedom and prevented satisfaction, a critical dissolution of the existing misunderstanding, of the error as substance, in turn requires something beyond reasonable insight - it requires courage (here Google suggested that 'cardiovascular wear is required' - which is indeed an interesting point of view)."
Klevius: The negative net result of the activity is blinked by referring to the fact that the activity emerged as a product of inherent goodwill. Critically reviewing this activity therefore becomes inevitably unwelcomed (Klevius 1992: 50-51).
No comments:
Post a Comment