1/ I'm seeing a lot of tweets about the European Court of Human Rights judgment on an Austrian case involving the conviction for calling Muhammad a paedophile. The court found there was no breach of Article 10 (right to free expression). A few thoughts (short thread)
2/ I don't have time to do chapter on verse on this but I would highly recommend reading:
- The judgment (hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-1871…)
- The press release (hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=00…)
- More about the Court rightsinfo.org/brief-history-…
- The judgment (hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-1871…)
- The press release (hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=00…)
- More about the Court rightsinfo.org/brief-history-…
3/ This is the background. A woman convicted under Austrian law for "disparaging religious doctrines" as she said Mohammed married a nine-year-old. He “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?”
4/ The question in the case was whether the conviction breached her right to free speech (infographic via @rights_info) which amongst other things protects speech which offends, shocks or disturbs (see judgment para 42)
5/ Free speech is not unlimited and the Court has in certain instances said that speech that "incites religious intolerance" may not be protected. Also, speech which "seek to spread, incite or justify hatred based on intolerance" are not protected
6/ The Court gives a wide 'margin of appreciation' (discretion) to states handling these issues - basically because the ECHR applies to religiously diverse states (Spain, UK, Turkey...) it allows for quite difference balances between free speech and religious freedom
7/ I recommend reading this fact sheet for examples of previous similar cases. Most of them sound quite a bit more obviously inciting than this one tbh but this one is perhaps closest echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_H…
8/ The crux was that the court agreed with Austrian appeal courts that ES had been factually inaccurate about Mohammed. The key, I think, was she referred to Mohammed having sex with "children", though "child" defensible as he may have consummated a marriage with a 9-year-old
9/ This was the central bit of reasoning. It does fit with the Court's case law, more or less, but I'm not sure there is another case where the factual error was so slight. Also, it seems to hold ES to a very high standard of quality education about Islam.
10/ I'm inherently uncomfortable with judgments like this which seem to give a lot of leeway to states to clamp down on education which is critical and even scornful of religion. Wouldn't some of Richard Dawkins' tweets be caught by such a high standard?
11/ On the other hand, it's extremely important to protect religious groups - especially minorities - from incitement. And was there any point to these talks except to incite against Islam? On the other other hand, were the talks really inciting or were the just scorning?
12/ Anyway, I expect it may be for Grand Chamber (the second level of Court, final and only appeal). It is a highly sensitive area especially in more religious states, but it does raise important Charlie Hebdo-type free expression issues and I'm not sure they made the right call
13/ Equally, the Grand Chamber might well say that this is a very difficult case but we'll leave it to Austria to figure out exactly the right balance and we will just play a supervisory role. As this court did. Not sure!
14/ Anyway, have a peaceful weekend and follow @rights_info for human rights facts and analysis rightsinfo.org/subscribe
15/ Sorry, just noticed I used the wrong case for tweet 7 - should have been this one
