The European Court of Human Rights may have just overstepped the mark. Ruling against freedom of expression in favour of the freedom, not to be offended. It seems that a lady criticising one of history’s most well known paedophiles by actually referring to him as a ‘paedophile’ has triggered something of a debate.
In this case, a lady in Austria was convicted in an Austrian court because she called the Prophet of Islam a paedophile during a talk on Islam. She was recorded by an undercover reporter and reported to the police. Austria has what are essentially, blasphemy laws. They are supposedly to promote social cohesion and peaceful coexistence but are very likely misguided and likely to achieve anything but social cohesion. Throughout history, blasphemy laws and abandoning reasoned discussion has almost always had a negative effect.
It seems that, actual paedophilia is now fine according to the ECHR. So long as the abuser marries the victim and someone can be offended by you calling it what it is on religious grounds. Actually being a paedophile seems to be less of a problem than using the term to describe someone that is worshipped by some as sacred. On the basis that causes religious offence to someone. This right not to be offended, has now overridden a fundamental European freedom. That of freedom of expression.
Think about how fundamental that is! Western society could not emerged as it is without debate and discussion. Austria, now supported by the ECHR, just stopped that same process for taking place going forward.
What does this mean for those involved in the scandal rocking the catholic church? By the logic of the court, we are now forbidden from properly discussing those atrocities in normal language as well. There are people that regard those allegations deeply insulting to Catholics. That could be interesting because it seems to me that it has been open season on the Catholic church hierarchy within the mainstream media for months now. But there is a key difference, they don’t actually worship someone which anyone could reasonably describe as a paedophile.
For some reason, they just seem to employ too many. They haven’t used religion as an excuse for the behaviour. Whereas, as we know to our cost in the UK, this has been used in a large number of child abuse cases involving predominantly Pakistani grooming gangs. There is a very clear connection. Of course, it doesn’t mean that all Muslim’s are paedophiles or even reconcile themselves with this fact. Many chose to believe that this aspect of the texts are wrong or inaccurate or simply ignore aspects of the texts that they find impossible to reconcile with their own consciences.
But, this was a strange case. The fact that a 53 year old man raped a child was not disputed. It would be almost impossible to do so, as it is spoken of clearly in religious texts. Indeed, the child concerned was a daughter of one of Muhammad’s most loyal followers and much is known about her. “A’ishah” herself became quite powerful after the Prophet’s death when she was just 18 and was instrumental in collecting the words of his followers describing his deeds.
The national courts found that the accused had been subjective when she labelled Muhammad as a paedophile. The court’s logic for this was that, she should not have labelled a man, that had sex with a child, a ‘paedophile’ because it couldn’t be proven that this was his general sexual preference. Also, that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue.”
The ECHR stated that it was trying to find a balance, between freedom of expression, and the right not to be offended. They agreed that no religion should be exempt from criticism. But then entered into the bizarre gymnastics to justify that although that is the courts agreed position, the lady was still guilty and this group receives special protection because, it is especially sensitive? Well of course it is if you get special treatment for it!
The ruling has been widely criticised by a experts and comentators from a wide range of political backgrounds. Indeed, few seem to be pleased at the ruling.
Douglas Murray – Author, Former editor of the ‘Spectator’ and Chairman of the ‘Centre for Social Cohesion criticised the decision of the ECHR suggesting that criticism of Islam has become sacrosanct and has lead to the development of a two tier legal system in Europe.
Gerard Batten – Leader of UKIP Tweeted: “European Court of Human Rights rules that we cannot call a paedophile a paedophile.
Steve Peers, a professor of EU, Human Rights and World Trade Law at Essex University posted a relatively long article unpacking the circumstances and outcome of the case ultimately concluding that there was much indeed to criticise.
Ultimately, though, the problem with banning non violent criticism of religion isn’t just about tactics; it’s about the paradox of intolerance. It’s logically impossible to preach tolerance while saying that dissenting views should be banned – even if those views are not very tolerant themselves. Fundamentally, a good idea – whether religious or secular – should speak for itself, not shut its critics up.
The wording of the court papers seems to suggest that the abuse itself was mitigated in some way because the child in question stayed married to the prophet of Islam until his death (at which time she was 18). Which seems an almost insane basis for a ruling. Suggesting that a victim of abuse by a powerful leader is somehow not abused, despite being a child at the time, if they don’t escape leave seems to be to be utterly reprehensible. So, the victims of domestic abuse, paedophiles etc are basically somehow complicit if they are unable, or unwilling to leave?. In the case of this particular child, it was her father than gave her to her abuser! Where was she going to go? Especially at that time. If anyone had a reason to be afraid, I think most people would agree that, she did. So perhaps, she had no choice and made the best of it and somehow, found a way to turn it to her advantage when he died when, amassing significant power for herself at that time. It doesn’t change the fact of the abuse.
Seen in this context. this ruling, not only seems to support or denigrate the abuse of children, it set’s Europe on a worrying trajectory. If the courts aim is to promote cohesion, the worst possible thing that the courts could do is make rulings like this.
This lady did not criticise anyone in particular, she criticised an Ideology which contains some ideas which are pretty disgusting to the majority of people in society and which are themselves, illegal anywhere in the west. Many Muslim’s do not agree with everything in the Hadith or behind closed doors, in the Quran either in my experience.
Especially in the west where we have a lot of ‘a la carte’ Muslims, to borrow a phrase from the wonderful, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. If you have never seen or read anything from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I would strongly recommend it. A great thinker, a great scholar and an expert in matters pertaining to the ideology of Islam. Despite being Muslim herself, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is critical of much of the ‘bad ideas it contains’ and has suffered much personally because of it. Yet, she is very good at approaching the subject with thoughtful sensitivity. It doesn’t stop the death threats she receives but she is a font of knowledge both scholastic and based upon personal experience.
Criticising an ideology is necessary and healthy. Discussion and debate are absolutely necessary to social evolution. Bad ideas only multiply in closed dark corners of society which foster all sorts of extremism. This ruling was a step backwards for all sides in this debate, which will go on anyway, in secret dark places where the worst of bad actors get to control the discussion.