Europe’s highest “human rights” court yesterday ruled that freedom of expression does not include insulting someone’s religious beliefs, hammering a gigantic nail into the coffin of what’s left of European citizens’ fundamental rights. The Wall Street Journal reports that the European Court of Human Rights upheld a verdict by an Austrian court sentencing a woman to a fine for alleging that the Prophet Muhammad had “pedophilic tendencies.”

That’s right. The Austrian court ruled – and the human rights court agreed – that marrying and ostensibly sticking one’s grown up dick into a six-year-old child wasn’t always “pedophilia.” Obviously it was true love or something

A panel of seven Judges from Germany, France, Ireland, Latvia, Azerbaijan and Georgia ruled unanimously on the case. The judges said the convicted woman failed to inform her audience of the historical background.

In accusing Muhammad of “primary sexual interest in children’s bodies,” the woman disregarded that the marriage had continued until the Prophet’s death, when Aisha had turned 18—effectually ruling that a child marriage need not be motivated by paedophilia, the Austrian court found.

Here’s some historical background. What in fug’s blue hell was she supposed to do, divorce the guy who took her as wife as soon as she was out of diapers (or whatever it is they used for babies in those days)? Because it was so easy for a female in Muhammad’s days – and even now – to obtain a divorce from her kiddie diddling husband? It was all she knew, so of course they bloody stayed married until the old pedo croaked!

Well, gosh – an old man fucking a six-year-old isn’t necessarily pedophilia, says the ECHR. What the hell else could it be? What kind of sick, twisted pervert would find a little kid sexually attractive? What kind of historical background could justify this?

According to Islamic teaching, Aisha was one of Muhammad’s wives. The ECHR quoted the woman whose sentence it upheld as having said that the Prophet “liked to do it with children.” The court further cited her as saying: “A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?”

The court apparently didn’t have an answer to this pretty rational question, but said that merely asking it could hurt Muslims’ widdle feewings, so she needs to pay a few hundred bucks and court costs to make it all OK.

The ECHR said it rejected her appeal after finding that the Austrian courts “carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.”

Now, I don’t know about youse guys, but this brings up a few questions in my head:

1 – Are all “religious feelings” to be protected equally?

2 – Who determines which “religious feelings” are hurt? Does anyone have the night to claim butthurt at any time? And will the courts make anyone who hurts anyone else’s religious feelings suffer financial loss or even loss of freedom?

3 – From whom or what should said “religious feelings” protected?

4 – What do they mean by “preserving religious peace,” and is the ECHR implying that Muslims will start a holy riot if their fragile religious labia aren’t stroked?

5 – In having ruled that the woman’s “statements went beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate,” the ECHR is saying there are permissible limits. Who defines these limits, and who defines “objective debate?”

Her comments “could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship,” the ECHR said.

Well, if the shoe fits…

Maybe someone should inform the ECHR that Muslims don’t worship Muhammad. They believe he was a messenger of God, and was therefore a man. Muslims believe you should respect the prophet, but that’s a whole lot different than worship.

So before the idiot judges on the ECHR pronounce a ruling about what they “understood” the woman was trying to demonstrate, they might want to understand what the Islamic faith actually says.

Aside from their lack of understanding of the facts of this case, it’s pretty appalling to see the Europeans gut the fundamental right to free expression like a freshly caught deer.

To be sure, the right to free speech means that we have the right to offend and insult. To limit free speech to protect society from hurt feelings necessitates defining what constitutes “offense,” allowing a few to decide a very subjective matter. Whom can we offend? How do these limits affect satire? Who decides what is offensive?

Three years ago, after the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks in France, Index on Censorship CEO Jodie Ginsberg wrote in the Guardian that the right to free speech means nothing without the right to offend.

I find it offensive that in many parts of the world people are regularly beaten, jailed and murdered for daring to follow a different belief system, for voicing their sexuality, or for suggesting they want a democratic government. I find it offensive that the majority of decisions in the UK parliament, in the judiciary, in the arts, are made by a small group of people who can shut out the views of large swaths of the population. I find the portrayal of women by much of the British media offensive. These things make me angry. But the fact that I find them offensive or anger-inducing cannot, and should never, be used as an excuse for shutting down their speech. Because that is exactly how millions of people are silenced the world over, how repressive regimes thrive – through law, or through violence, or both. And what protects people’s rights to say things I find objectionable is precisely what protects my right to object.

I urge you to read that last sentence again.

And what protects people’s rights to say things I find objectionable is precisely what protects my right to object.

The fact that Austria – and Europe writ large – seems to be afraid that “offensive” speech will threaten “religious peace” should be instructive. What they are, in fact, afraid of is another terrorist attack – an extreme use of the “heckler’s veto” (colloquial meaning) to silence opposing views.

Two months ago, a crazed jihadist dirtbag stabbed two American tourists in Amsterdam ostensibly because the Dutch insult Islam.

The attack on the offices of the satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris in 2015 was in response to the irreverent, anti-religious, controversial subjects, including its depictions of Muhammad, published in the newspaper.

Other attacks, such as the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004, the abduction and beheading of the editor-in-chief of a Sudanese newspaper who angered Islamists by publishing an article about the Prophet in 2006, and the threats against the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in Denmark for publishing cartoons lampooning Muhammad, were in response to perceived “offenses.”

This is what the Europeans are really scared of – that offended Muslims will pull their angry chimp act and start flinging shit murdering innocent people.

Because there is no freedom of speech in Islam. You want freedom of speech? This isn’t the faith for you!

These savages can’t stand any criticism, and even the slightest complaint will end in prison time in some Islamic nations!

An Indonesian court has sentenced a Buddhist woman to 18 months in prison for blasphemy after she was accused of insulting Islam.

Meiliana, a 44-year-old ethnic Chinese woman, had complained the Muslim call to prayer, which is repeated five times a day, was being played too loudly at the mosque near her house in North Sumatra.

She burst into tears as the presiding judge, Wahyu Prasetyo Wibowo announced her sentence on Tuesday and she was taken from the court in handcuffs.

Fact is the freedom of speech and expression is an absolutely critical component of a civilized society. It prevents squealing grievance mongers from using government force to silence voices of dissent. It prohibits the government from silencing political opposition. And it prevents arbitrary, subjective application of the law by protecting all forms of expression and speech from prosecution.

Because when you give certain perpetually aggrieved snowflakes the ability to point government guns at the opposition in order to silence their voices, that force will inevitably be pointed in your direction when the grievance monster runs out of sustenance on the opposing side.

When you surrender to fear because a few offended chimps riot and terrorize your streets to show their displeasure in an effort to bully and intimidate the populace into surrendering, you allow them to destroy civilization and turn your society into an Orwellian nightmare.

I’m offended that Islam holds in highest regard a man who fucked a small child. What’s the ECHR going to do about that?

Featured photo courtesy of: Wikimedia commons