Sorry, you're right. The Quran doesn't say she was 6. It was she herself who said she was 6, which was recorded in the Sahih al-Bukhari (hadith) - Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234.
It means that Austria has blasphemy laws (and has had them forever) and that according to Austrian courts calling Muhammed a pedophile violates those laws. The EHRC decided that this Austrian law did not violate EU laws on free speech, therefore the ruling was upheld.
If the EU overrules national laws, they're evil. If the EU upholds national laws, they're still evil. People just can't get their narrative straight.
But the ECHR didn't uphold the conviction because she broke the law. According to the ECHR asking questions like, "... A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? ... What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?"
could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship
The ECHR didn't uphold the conviction because she broke Austrian law. Instead they upheld the conviction because what she asked could only be...... "understood as"..... "been aimed at"...... "demonstrating that"..... she was breaking the law.
view the rest of the comments →
Saufsoldat ago
It's not. Boy, that was easy.
birds_sing ago
Sorry, you're right. The Quran doesn't say she was 6. It was she herself who said she was 6, which was recorded in the Sahih al-Bukhari (hadith) - Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234.
Then what does all this mean then?
Saufsoldat ago
It means that Austria has blasphemy laws (and has had them forever) and that according to Austrian courts calling Muhammed a pedophile violates those laws. The EHRC decided that this Austrian law did not violate EU laws on free speech, therefore the ruling was upheld.
If the EU overrules national laws, they're evil. If the EU upholds national laws, they're still evil. People just can't get their narrative straight.
birds_sing ago
But the ECHR didn't uphold the conviction because she broke the law. According to the ECHR asking questions like, "... A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? ... What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?"
The ECHR didn't uphold the conviction because she broke Austrian law. Instead they upheld the conviction because what she asked could only be...... "understood as"..... "been aimed at"...... "demonstrating that"..... she was breaking the law.
Saufsoldat ago
They did uphold the conviction because they found that the Austrian law at the basis of it did not violate EU law.
That is literally all they can do. There is literally no way for them to sentence anyone outside of upholding or striking down state legislation.