Blasphemy
Blasphemy:- The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence to a deity, or sacred objects, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable
In plain English the many religions of the world who all claim their god is the one true god will not stand for anyone showing lack of reverence or speaking ill of that religion or deity.
The hierarchy of these religions have no democratically elected body by their peers, they sit in judgement of the these same peers and have had laws enacted in the distant past that protect it, again from these same peers saying anything that either insults or ridicules their religion.
In plain English the many religions of the world who all claim their god is the one true god will not stand for anyone showing lack of reverence or speaking ill of that religion or deity.
The hierarchy of these religions have no democratically elected body by their peers, they sit in judgement of the these same peers and have had laws enacted in the distant past that protect it, again from these same peers saying anything that either insults or ridicules their religion.
The European Convention on Human Rights is a treaty originally drafted in 1950 and ratified in 1953.. It has a number of articles and sub divisions that protect basic human rights. Each of the these numbered “articles” protects a specific human right. 47 countries, including the UK have signed up to the treaty. Article 10 protects free speech.
That means that these countries commit to protecting it citizens rights under the treaty. If a person within a member country feels that rights are being breached or violated, and they cannot get a remedy within their own country's system of law they then have the right under the convention to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
That means that these countries commit to protecting it citizens rights under the treaty. If a person within a member country feels that rights are being breached or violated, and they cannot get a remedy within their own country's system of law they then have the right under the convention to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
There is a caveat to this "protection" whereby a given country can override this human right in order to enforce a particular law even if it if falls with article 10. This is detailed in sub section 2. Where it states:-
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, The Individual of a given country has certain "duties and responsibilities" which are then subject to "formalities, conditions, restrictions" Which means that certain "interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals."
One of these restrictions is the the laws of blasphemy, meaning that even if a country has signed up to the The European Convention on Human Rights that country can still prosecute one of its citizens under any existing blasphemy law by using section 2.
point in fact is the case of E.S V. Austria (2018) In which the European Court upheld a conviction of an Austrian woman that had called the prophet Muhammad a pedophile for marrying 6 year old Aisha . The Austrian courts claimed that she was professing that the prophet Muhammad had a perchance towards under age girls and that this was unproven. The court of human rights upheld the Austrian courts decision.
"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"
"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"
"Incite religious intolerance" So if you incite a religious person to become intolerant against you it is your fault for doing so??? It is a stupid archaic discriminatory use of language to prevent civilized people expressing an opinion and questioning religious interference and it is being used by certain governments to stop people speaking out against organised religion. It is wrong and unjust and must be tackled and protested about until it is repealed.
If you search the web you will find so many reports of people around the world charged in one form or another with Blasphemy
Iranian man Death sentence for insulting Islam in messaging app
European court rules Austria can keep its Blasphemy laws
Germany fines man for blasphemous car bumper sticker
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, The Individual of a given country has certain "duties and responsibilities" which are then subject to "formalities, conditions, restrictions" Which means that certain "interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals."
One of these restrictions is the the laws of blasphemy, meaning that even if a country has signed up to the The European Convention on Human Rights that country can still prosecute one of its citizens under any existing blasphemy law by using section 2.
point in fact is the case of E.S V. Austria (2018) In which the European Court upheld a conviction of an Austrian woman that had called the prophet Muhammad a pedophile for marrying 6 year old Aisha . The Austrian courts claimed that she was professing that the prophet Muhammad had a perchance towards under age girls and that this was unproven. The court of human rights upheld the Austrian courts decision.
"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"
"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"
"Incite religious intolerance" So if you incite a religious person to become intolerant against you it is your fault for doing so??? It is a stupid archaic discriminatory use of language to prevent civilized people expressing an opinion and questioning religious interference and it is being used by certain governments to stop people speaking out against organised religion. It is wrong and unjust and must be tackled and protested about until it is repealed.
If you search the web you will find so many reports of people around the world charged in one form or another with Blasphemy
Iranian man Death sentence for insulting Islam in messaging app
European court rules Austria can keep its Blasphemy laws
Germany fines man for blasphemous car bumper sticker
The UK only repealed the blasphemy law in 2008, however the UK has a the criminal offence of a "hate crime"
Any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person’s religion or perceived religion”
A person has the right to choose and have a religion. If that religion interferes in the lives of the individual and society then is it right and proper to Challenge religions for being intolerant, interfering and discriminatory. Disagreeing with its dogma, indoctrination and showing its incompatibilities within a modern society is not prejudice it is freedom of expression and Just.
Religion wishes blasphemy laws stay in place to subjugate and control what is said and done towards their dogma. They wish to stifle free speech and individual thought and reason. Christians claim that cannon law God's law is above the UK's secular law, Islamic preachers state that Sharia law is above man's law, It isn't. secular law with thought and reason must always triumph superstitious archaic dogma.
It amazes me the hate filled rants both to my face and on any social media of these religious zealots that bay and scream for my Atheist blood, along with the glee and malice as they excitingly tell me I am going to burn in hell and that god will strike me dead for blaspheming or not believing in him, with all manner of expletives, questioning my parentage and so on and so forth..... Any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person’s religion or perceived religion”
Hate filled rants without civilized debate, no reasoned argument or counter argument is just anger, intolerance and prejudice dressed up as righteous indignation. Opinion is just that, an opinion. It was this persons opinion on the prophet Mohammad that the law decided might be "inciting religious intolerance" To condemn and prosecute someone for saying something you disagree with using blasphemy laws It is a low despicable method and takes away the freedoms that were fought for in 2 world wars.
Religion simply wants free speech, ideas, thoughts and deeds constrained if they oppose religion in any way shape or form.
Any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person’s religion or perceived religion”
A person has the right to choose and have a religion. If that religion interferes in the lives of the individual and society then is it right and proper to Challenge religions for being intolerant, interfering and discriminatory. Disagreeing with its dogma, indoctrination and showing its incompatibilities within a modern society is not prejudice it is freedom of expression and Just.
Religion wishes blasphemy laws stay in place to subjugate and control what is said and done towards their dogma. They wish to stifle free speech and individual thought and reason. Christians claim that cannon law God's law is above the UK's secular law, Islamic preachers state that Sharia law is above man's law, It isn't. secular law with thought and reason must always triumph superstitious archaic dogma.
It amazes me the hate filled rants both to my face and on any social media of these religious zealots that bay and scream for my Atheist blood, along with the glee and malice as they excitingly tell me I am going to burn in hell and that god will strike me dead for blaspheming or not believing in him, with all manner of expletives, questioning my parentage and so on and so forth..... Any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person’s religion or perceived religion”
Hate filled rants without civilized debate, no reasoned argument or counter argument is just anger, intolerance and prejudice dressed up as righteous indignation. Opinion is just that, an opinion. It was this persons opinion on the prophet Mohammad that the law decided might be "inciting religious intolerance" To condemn and prosecute someone for saying something you disagree with using blasphemy laws It is a low despicable method and takes away the freedoms that were fought for in 2 world wars.
Religion simply wants free speech, ideas, thoughts and deeds constrained if they oppose religion in any way shape or form.
In 2015 Irish police opened an formal inquiry in to the British comedian Stephen Fry under the countries then exiting blasphemy laws after he appeared on an Irish television program The meaning of life, When the show’s host Gay Burn asked him what would Stephen fry say to god at the pearly gates?
Fry responded, “ Bone cancer in children? what's that about? HOW DARE YOU! How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault? it is not right! It is utterly utterly evil" |
He continued :- Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world so full of injustice and pain?”
It was obvious that it stunned gay burn. You can watch the T.V. Interview here on youtube.
No one has ever been prosecuted under the Irish Blasphemy laws. However that fact that a modern free thinking 21st century civilized country like Ireland had such archaic draconian law which was only passed in 2009 and made law in 2010 is utterly mind blowing. The TV show and subsequent police investigation led to a referendum in Ireland that abolished the Irish Blasphemy law in 2018.
It was ironic that the Irish council of churches actually backed the call to reform the blasphemy laws because they themselves had been campaigning along with the Irish government for Asia Bibis case to be resolved and blasphemy laws to be reviewed in Pakistan.
At the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2009, Pakistan proposed the adoption of precise wording from the Irish blasphemy law, as part of efforts by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation to limit Human Rights on freedom of conscience. So Ireland were looking total hypocrites themselves for continuing to have a blasphemy law while calling for it to be abolished in another country. See here Scotland still has Blasphemy laws however no one has been prosecuted since 1843.
A 2017 report by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (CIRF) identified 71 countries that criminalize views deemed to be blasphemous. 13 countries are in Europe. The punishment ranges from fines, to prison to death depending on the country...... All this Because religion does not like to hear anything said about it in the negative view.
There is no place in a modern world for the restriction, domination or control of peoples thought and ideas. Blasphemy like religion is outdated and holds back mankind to move forward, explore, learn and think. It is the 21st century, not the 13th century.
It was obvious that it stunned gay burn. You can watch the T.V. Interview here on youtube.
No one has ever been prosecuted under the Irish Blasphemy laws. However that fact that a modern free thinking 21st century civilized country like Ireland had such archaic draconian law which was only passed in 2009 and made law in 2010 is utterly mind blowing. The TV show and subsequent police investigation led to a referendum in Ireland that abolished the Irish Blasphemy law in 2018.
It was ironic that the Irish council of churches actually backed the call to reform the blasphemy laws because they themselves had been campaigning along with the Irish government for Asia Bibis case to be resolved and blasphemy laws to be reviewed in Pakistan.
At the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2009, Pakistan proposed the adoption of precise wording from the Irish blasphemy law, as part of efforts by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation to limit Human Rights on freedom of conscience. So Ireland were looking total hypocrites themselves for continuing to have a blasphemy law while calling for it to be abolished in another country. See here Scotland still has Blasphemy laws however no one has been prosecuted since 1843.
A 2017 report by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (CIRF) identified 71 countries that criminalize views deemed to be blasphemous. 13 countries are in Europe. The punishment ranges from fines, to prison to death depending on the country...... All this Because religion does not like to hear anything said about it in the negative view.
There is no place in a modern world for the restriction, domination or control of peoples thought and ideas. Blasphemy like religion is outdated and holds back mankind to move forward, explore, learn and think. It is the 21st century, not the 13th century.