Item — HN Reader

It is important to understand why the person was fined. The person held a seminar titled "Basic Information about Islam". It was advertised with an impression of "objective information on Islam". The person described themselves as an expert in Islam doctrine too. During the seminar, the person made a judgment position without facts. The courts felt it was an intentional move meant to rile up participants and disturb peace.

You could have the same position as the fined person and you wouldn't be fined in Austria. The fine was imposed due to the context of the fora/background and the intent of communication, not the position itself.

1 comments

What was the judgment without facts? The seminars cited Muslim biographies, no? Surely telling people what's in the Quran can't be considered anti-Muslim incitement, or else every imam and mosque would be guilty.

> The courts felt it was an intentional move meant to rile up participants and disturb peace.

Are you saying that the seminars caused anti-Muslim violence? Were there incidents reported that made the connection?

All answers to your questions are in the EHCR judgment. The court makes a distinction between child marriage and paedophilia.

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%7B%22itemid%22:%5B%22002-121...

> Are you saying that the seminars caused anti-Muslim violence? Were there incidents reported that made the connection?

I was pretty clear on what I said. I repeat - The courts (not me) felt it was an intentional move meant to rile up participants and disturb peace.

That link vindicates the news coverage, that the court found that repeating true facts about child rape is illegal defamation, because marrying her or also having sex with adults justifies the rape.

The case appears to turn on the claim that "having sexual interest in children" is not paedophilia as long as there is also sexual interest in non-children, or, in other words, that the actual defamation was an implied claim that Muhammad did not have a sexual interest in adults.

> In their opinion, by accusing Muhammad of paedophilia, the applicant had merely sought to defame him, without providing evidence that his primary sexual interest in Aisha had been her not yet having reached puberty or that his other wives or concubines had been similarly young. In particular, the applicant had disregarded the fact that the marriage with Aisha had continued until the Prophet’s death, when she had already turned eighteen and had therefore passed the age of puberty.

This is the same anti-girl (and I emphasize "girl", not "woman") logic that refuses to punish rapists like the drivers' ed teacher in italy who raped a girl student who was wearing jeans without underwear, on the basis of her clothing.

Is that ruling sensible to you? I read it and it seems to be saying that rape of a 6 year old it’s fine as long as the guy keeps her around til after she’s 18? Also the fact that he had other girlfriends that are past puberty was listed as if it were exonerating evidence. That was the reasoning given in the link you provided. Can you help me figure out how I’m misinterpreting the ruling? On it’s face it seems nonsensical.