Algeria is using a decision by the European Court of Human Rights to justify sentencing a scholar to three years in prison for the denigration of Islam.
This is, of course, deeply ironic, and I might have made a sardonic joke about the case were it not for the fact that the precedent used by the Algerian court is the case of my good friend Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who was convicted in February of 2011 in an Austrian court for the “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion”. Elisabeth appealed her conviction for eight long years, until the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights — her highest possible level of appeal — refused to hear her case.
Her “crime” was to ask a rhetorical question about the marriage of Mohammed to 6-year-old Aisha: “What would you call it, if not pedophilia?”
The ruling of the ECtHR came in handy for the court in Algeria. I’m sure the ulama in Algiers were grateful to the grandees of Strasbourg for providing such a useful precedent.
Here’s the story from The Forum For Religious Freedom-Europe:
The European Court of Human Rights: Model For Algeria’s Repression Of Free Speech
by Forefeurope
November 8, 2021Statement by The Forum For Religious Freedom-Europe, Set My People Free, And Jubilee Campaign
Vienna and Stockholm, 9th Nov 2021 — A 2018 decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upholding the conviction of an Austrian citizen by a Vienna court for “disparaging religious doctrines” has been used by Algeria to defend the sentencing a scholar to three years in prison for “denigrating the dogma and the precepts of Islam.”
“The case illustrates how European jurisprudence criminalizing speech can harm the defense of human rights and freedoms in countries that look to Europe for positive examples,” according to Dr. Aaron Rhodes, President of the Forum for Religious Freedom-Europe (FOREF).
In April 2021, The Sidi Mohamed Court of First Instance in Algeria sentenced, under Article 144 of the Algerian Penal Code, for the “crime” of arguing that the sacrifice of sheep pre-dated Islam, and that Islamic scriptures do not mandate the marriage of pre-pubescent girls and the use of head coverings. Djabelkhir said these were “academic reflections.”
Local and international human rights groups have denounced the conviction, with a representative of Amnesty International stating, “It is outrageous that Saïd Djabelkhir is facing three years in prison simply for voicing his opinions about religious texts.”
The case drew the attention of United Nations Special Rapporteurs on freedom of religion and belief and freedom of opinion and expression. In a communication addressed to the Government of Algeria the Special Rapporteurs outlined the facts of the case and raised concerns regarding death threats made toward Professor Djabelkhir, which increased after Algerian authorities filed charges against the professor in January 2020. The Special Rapporteurs also emphasized that international human rights law regarding freedom of religion or belief does not protect religions from criticism or “any comments perceived as unfavorable.” The Special Rapporteurs also pointed out that where a religion is recognised as the state religion it should in “no way” affect the enjoyment of the rights protected under the ICCPR.
The Special Rapporteurs then asked specifically how the Government of Algeria justified its anti-blasphemy laws, such as article 144 bis 2 “offense against the Prophet” [and “denigration of dogma or the precepts of Islam”] with regard to its international law obligations.
The Algerian government’s response of 22 September 2021 made reference to the case of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who was convicted in 2011 for “disparaging religious doctrines,” when a local court ruled that her questioning if the Prophet Mohammed’s possible “pedophilia” was not protected as freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. The ruling was upheld by a 2018 decision of the European Court of Human Rights, which held thatthe domestic courts “carefully balanced the applicant’s right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society.” Freedom of speech, the ruling stated, needs to be conditioned on expressions being made in an “objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest.”
In defending Djabelkhir’s jail sentence, Algerian authorities paraphrase the ECHR judgement, saying that freedom of expression needs to be weighed against rights of other people to protect their religion and keep the peace, and that the law under which he was charged is “consistent not only with Article 19 of the ICCPR, but also with the most advanced jurisprudence in the field of human rights, in this case to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.” (emphasis added)
As FOREF noted in a statement about the decision, this “advanced jurisprudence” endorsed what is in effect a blasphemy law. The vague language in the ruling is at variance with a central principle of human rights and the rule of law, namely that legal rulings need to be clear and unambiguous to avoid political misuse. Set My People Free also released a statementnoting that the ECHR had “shot itself in the foot,” and that the judgement would make the situation more difficult for religious minorities and those already being persecuted under blasphemy laws, “providing fuel for perpetrators of violence rather than defending an open democratic discussion.”
Regrettably, it appears that the European Court of Human Rights now provides a model, not for the protection of fundamental, inherent rights, but for how they can be infringed upon by regimes seeking to shut down factual debates at the behest of religious authorities.
For previous posts on the “hate speech” prosecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, see Elisabeth’s Voice: The Archives.
Aisha was one-tenth Mahomet’s age, and his pedophilia resulted in another of his ‘wives’ poisoning him about two or three years later. So what is dogmatic, an Islamic car transmission?
The day is going to come soon where those bloody human right judges will face the gallows for their treason, stupidity and duplicity. Fighting uncivilized savages with civilized means is a lose lose proposition and guaranteed that our uncivilized savage friends will use against us. Time to get down and dirty, for you always fight fire with napalm, for overkill is always underrated.
In Ireland the Muslim is a settler. The locals are watched and tracked and intimidated into fear and fear and
fear. It’s working.
Well work smarter and put the fear of God into whoever supports these 3rd worlders, makem dissapear. When the so called do gooders finally fear you, they will respect and leave you the heck alone. Violence solves all 3rd worlder problems.
@ Anon
Re: “In Ireland the Muslim is a settler. The locals are watched and tracked and intimidated into fear and fear and
fear. It’s working.”
With due respects, the word one ought to use is “colonist” or even “invader,” instead of “settler” in the sentence above. Here’s why…
The prophet of Islam, Mohammed, gathered his followers together in the Arabian city of Mecca in 622, and they migrated to the city of Yathrib, now called Medina. There, Mohammed became a warlord and conqueror, first of the rest of Arabia, which he took for the faith, and then outward to the surrounding peoples, tribes and nations. He died in 632, but within a century of his death, Islam has been spread by migration and by the sword to much of the known world.
Since that time, almost 1,400 years ago, conquest-by-migration has one of the most-effective weapons in the Islamic arsenal of weapons against the non-Muslim world.
The Koran, Hadiths and the Sira (the latter two together are termed the Sunna, the life and traditions of the prophet), divide the world into two spheres: Dar al-Islam, which means in Arabic, “The House of Islam” or sometimes expressed as the “House of Peace or Submission,” and Dar al-Harb, which means “The House of War.”
The former is the worldwide community of Muslims, wherever they reside. The latter is the infidel world, wherever they reside. A devout Muslim must, if he is able, wage jihad against the infidels until the whole world lies within the umma, Dar al-Islam. If he not physically-able to wage jihad-of-the-sword, then he is expected to contribute in some other manner. Migration to another, non-Islamic nation – such as Ireland for example – and helping to establish and strengthen an Islamic beach-head there.
As Muslim numbers in a foreign land increase, they become more-restive and aggressive in their beliefs. “No-go” zones like those in the suburbs of Paris, France, may be established, with sharia patrols, who police the conduct of the residents and infidel interlopers alike. In time, the presence of Muslim toughs may be such that the authorities will not venture there without police or even military protection. For all intents and purposes, these areas are sovereign Islamic soil within the heart of infidel lands.
When they achieve numerical parity or nearly-so, the historical record shows that it is typical for the Muslims to begin engaging in open warfare and acts of violent jihad as a matter of routine. Both irregular, asymmetric forms of warfare such as suicide bombers and IEDs/VBIEDs, to conventional paramilitary and other forms of combat.
If the Islamic fighters are strong-enough and numerous-enough, and believe the time to be right, they may try to establish their own Islamic state or caliphate. As recently seen in the separatist wars in the Southern Philippines between that nation’s government and Abu Sayef (Moro) guerillas on Mindanao, or the ISIL/ISIS in Syria and the Middle East, or the Chechnya Islamic separatist movement.
This is the probable future for many nations in Old Europe, to include the British Isles and Ireland, if things continue on their present path. I for one would hate to see that day come.
The day of war is coming sooner than you could have ever possibly imagined. When you are invaded by a foreign people in vast numbers, violent conflict is always the result. Diversity = Balkanization = Massive Bloodshed. History has shown this time immortal, yet the do gooding lefty’s think you can mess with human nature and expect peaceful results, it always ends in a violent response. So I say to you, arm up and prepare for the coming bad times.
The austrian left, they might not like what someone might have said, but now they have machine gun equipped police guarding the christmas markets, and austrian girls are afraid to go out at night.
Police guard the Christmas markets to control the sheeple. They have to prove to be vaxxxed or recuperated (2G – getestet, genesen), otherwise they may not enter. The police are not interested in protecting citizens from islamic madmen.
The police, no matter where they are from, will follow the orders they are given, if the right take over, they will follow their orders from the right to the letter.
It’s looking like the west is being eaten alive. Inside and out. No wonder.
@ Anon
Re: “It’s looking like the west is being eaten alive. Inside and out. No wonder.”
It seems pretty clear at this point, doesn’t it? …. That the ruling class in much of western/northern Europe have betrayed their respective nations and peoples and are now working hand-in-hand with the globalists and the Muslims to bring down what remains of the West, or at least bring it under their control.
President Macron, a known globalist, is typical of the type. During his campaign for the presidency of France, he told his fellow Frenchmen and women about the glories of multiculturalism and mass immigration into “La Belle France,” and after being elected, stood up and told them that more Muslims were on the way, whether they liked it or not. Angela Merkel in Germany has been more-or-less a female and German version of the type. There are numerous other examples around old Europe, such as EU President Jean-Claude Junker, and let’s not forget globe-trotting billionaire George Soros and his pal, President Erdogan of Turkey, two men who seem to view the destruction of Europe as their life mission.
Europe is now so colonised by the Islamic menace it’s hard to see how it can be extirpated in the short to medium term. The multi-cultural,multi-racial ‘progressive’ tide runs strong at present,and the Islamics are taking full advantage.
it is very simple the people that let them in to our (countries )can return with them to their [sump] country’ and bag off each other as they have for thousands of years ,it is not that hard to do this ,what is hard is the people who have done this to us and think we will stand for this evil on our doorstep.it is only a matter of time and we will have our say in our country and those that helped these rapist baggers into rape and kill will be happy to go with them and live beside them ,if your one of these scabs reading this have a nice day we know who you are traitors of death.
@Northern Sea
Re: “Europe is now so colonised by the Islamic menace it’s hard to see how it can be extirpated in the short to medium term.”
The dilemma for native Europeans is that they face two foes, what we might term the “near enemy” and “far enemy,” the former being fifth-columnists within European society – including those within its leadership class – and the latter being the migrants/conquerors themselves.