By Gary Raynaldo DIPLOMATIC TIMES
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a ruling last week that insulting Islam’s Prophet Muhammad is not protected by freedom of expression. The Strasbourg, France-based Human Rights Court ruled that defaming the Prophet “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate” and “could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace.” A seven-judge panel in Strasbourg rendered the decision after an Austrian national who is only identified in court documents as Mrs. S. held two seminars in 2009 in which she insulted the prophet. Mrs. S. file a lawsuit claiming her free speech was violated after she was convicted by an Austrian court in 2011 for criticizing Muhammad and fined 480 euros ($548). The judgment was upheld on two appeals. Then Mrs. S. took her case to the ECHR seeking “justice.”
Conviction For Calling Muhammad a Paedophile Is Not A Breach of Article 10: European Court Ruling
Credit: ECHR.int / Courtroom of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg
According to the ECHR: In October and November 2009, Mrs. S. held two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam”, in which she discussed the marriage between the Prophet Muhammad and a six-year old girl, Aisha, which allegedly 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?” In February 2011, the Vienna Regional Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had paedophilic tendencies and convicted Mrs. S. for disparaging religious doctrines.
In its ruling, the ECHR decided:
“The Court found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria. It held that by considering impugned statements as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate, and by classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace, the domestic courts put forward relevant and sufficient reasons.”
Mrs. S. had argued that her comments were intended to inform the public debate over the merits of different religious traditions. However, the Court ruled that her remarks lacked the proper historical context, do not fall under the shield of protected speech, and may be prosecuted.
