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.
BBC's presenter Mishal Husain says
she's a muslim but doesn't follow sharia, i.e. she doesn't fast during
Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol, nor does she use veils or
similar muslim attires. So when she also says "I don't feel any threats
against my way of life" Klevius considers it deeply offensive against
all those women who have their Human Rights crashed because of muslim
sharia.
** "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.
Klevius answer: Only if it wants to be as close to Universal Human Rights as possible.
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.
Drawing called 'Human Rights rather than religion' by Peter Klevius 1979.
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.
Saudi
war criminal "prince" and Mohammad al Issa "reform" islam to fit Saudi
islamofascism against Human Rights by demanding EU to condemn
"islamophobia" i.e. Human Rights.
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).