The European Union moves to the end-game of their totalitarian ambitions

European court rules insulting Prophet Mohammed ‘not freedom of expression’

The decision by a seven-judge panel came after an Austrian national identified as Mrs. S. held two seminars in 2009 in which she insulted the prophet. (Shutterstock)
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on Thursday that insulting Islam’s Prophet Mohammed is not covered by freedom of expression.

Defaming the Prophet “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate” and “could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace,” the ruling stated.

The decision by a seven-judge panel came after an Austrian national identified as Mrs. S. held two seminars in 2009 in which she insulted the prophet.


The court said that the woman’s comments could not be covered by the freedom of expression, stating that it had found that “the applicant’s statements had been likely to arouse justified indignation in Muslims” and “amounted to a generalization without factual basis.”


An Austrian court convicted her of disparaging religious doctrines in 2011 and fined her 480 euros (548 dollars), a judgment that was upheld on two appeals.

“Mrs. S. appealed but the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011, confirming, in essence, the lower court’s findings. A request for the renewal of the proceedings was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11 December 2013,” it said.


“Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mrs. S. complained that the domestic courts failed to address the substance of the impugned statements in the light of her right to freedom of expression.”

On today’s ruling, the ECHR said it “found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and 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.”

Last Update: Thursday, 25 October 2018 KSA 14:42 – GMT 11:42


About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

30 Replies to “The European Union moves to the end-game of their totalitarian ambitions”

  1. Nothing to do with the EU in this casrbThe ECHR is an organ of the Council of Europe, founded by Sir Winston Churchill way back in 1950 and based in Strasbourg to adjudicate on citizens’ entitlements and immunities in many more countries than are member states of the EU. The EU’s court is the ECJ, which sits in Luxembourg and interprets EU treaty disputes involving member states’ governments and rules on employment disputes among Eurocrats.

      • Sorry Alex Thomson, but it appears to have everything to do with the EU, and more. “Feelings” trumping speech? The subjective trumping the objective?

        A court of cowards.

  2. “… the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.” Wow, I didn’t know that was a right. Hmm, personally, I find Piss Christ offensive and my religious feelings are hurt by it: perhaps the courts there would be willing to hear my case. (This is a piece of art – interpreting the word “art” rather loosely – that was on display in New York (I believe) some years ago – basically, a crucifix in a a jar of urine. Pretty creative stuff.

    But, levity aside, this is very, very worrisome. I personally don’t want to live in an islamic state under sharia law, but much of the West, and Europe in particular, seems destined for that.

    • Apparently, it’s a right in Austria. As I understand it, the ECHR is of the opinion that the Austrian ruling is consistent with (their interpretation of) human rights. So they’re not exactly saying “protection of religious feelings” is a universal right. It’s a subtle point.

      Still, I can’t understand how it’s consistent with ECHR’s statement about the freedom of expression:
      I guess muslim fragility trumps universal rights. At least, when you’re a regressive.

  3. “Freedom of expression”: why do they even bother with the charade now? They’re mocking us, I suppose, and flaunting their power. I expect that they’ll drop the word (“freedom”) from common use altogether at some point.

    • They are mocking us, this isn’t going to end peacefully but in the end I expect the good guys to win.

      I think it was yesterday when a video about some French people who were moving to Hungary, in passing the Traitor to civilization that made the video mentioned that there were people in France getting ready to fight for their freedom.. That is what it is going to take.

  4. ” ……. in which she insulted the prophet.” Please write “in which she is alleged to have insulted the prophet”. This wording is crucial.

    • Excellent video – thank you. It seems clear to me that the decline of Christianity and Judaism (corresponding to the rise of post-modernism and its claim that there are no objective values) has torn out the core of Western societies’ immune system and left us more or less defenseless in the face of totalitarian ideologies (such as islam and Communism, for example).

  5. Appeasement

    30 September 1938.

    After Anglo German Munich Agreement permitting Nazi Germany’s annexation of the “Sudetenland”,Nevile Chamberlain said:

    My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep

  6. LIVESTREAM: AfD panel discussion with the chief
    editors of ARD and ZDF.
    Recording on AfD Facebook

    They take part in the panel discussion in Dresden on “Media and
    Opinion” about the public debate in times of “populists” and “lie press”:

    ? Dr. Kai Gniffke, chief editor ARDaktuell
    ? Dr. Peter Frey, Editor-in-Chief ZDF
    ? Dr. Nicolaus Fest, AfD Berlin, former Deputy Editor-in-Chief BamS
    ? Michael Klonovsky, former Head of FOCUS Service

    • MSM article

      Editors-in-chief of ARD and ZDF losing at AfD in Dresden

      The chief editors Kai Gniffke and Peter Frey discuss in front of an AfD audience in Dresden. They have to defend themselves against prejudices and generalisations, sometimes get into swimming, admit omissions and yet establish a minimum of understanding. For the AfD as host the evening is a propaganda success

      Dresden – The discussion over media and opinion had not begun yet at all, there the AfD was already certain as winner. The Kreisverband Dresden had invited the editors-in-chief of ARD-aktuell, Kai Gniffke, and ZDF, Peter Frey, to a podium debate and had been able to win them over for participation (“without conditions”). In a hall of the Dresden Fair they sat in front of big AfD banners with the slogan “Courage to tell the truth”. 70 journalists were registered and several hundred AfD members and sympathisers. Gniffke and Frey sat on the podium with AfD politician and journalist Nicolaus Fest and former “Focus” editor Michael Klonovsky, now speech writer for AfD chief Alexander Gauland. The evening was moderated by Andreas Lombard, editor-in-chief of the right-wing conservative “Cato” magazine, and media entrepreneur and CDU member Klaus Kelle.

      Gniffke and Frey are of course aware that they have travelled to an away game. “Here we have the cultural hegemony,” says the Dresden AfD man Maximilian Krah proudly about his city. Both the ARD man and the ZDF representative arrived in defensive mode. Can they penetrate, at least take an away point with them? Frey tries it with an appeal at the beginning: “They are also contributors,” he says, “perhaps with their fists in their pockets, perhaps with criticism. He would like to listen to this criticism, but under one condition: that one could agree on the principle “that a free and critical press is necessary”. There is applause, but only very sporadic “It is a journalistic principle that one hears both sides,” says Gniffke, and the entire hall laughs. It sounds scornful.

      Press is referred to as “guest block

      Still are only the press representatives, who were called first by Krah as guest block . When Gniffke says shortly after: “We may report neither positively nor negatively”, however “correctly” echoes from the throats of the home fans. Gniffke is also applauded by the announcement that the AfD has just as much right to balanced reporting “as any other party”. And Frey calculates that the AfD had more O-tones in the news than the FDP.

      But whatever they try, neither Frey nor Gniffke make it across the imaginary middle line of the discussion. After all, they are not only outnumbered in the away game, but also in the outnumber. Again and again Lombard or Kelle, Fest or Klonovsky mix insinuations and personal attacks against individual ARD or ZDF presenters into their questions. They attack the ARD “Fact Finder” editor Patrick Gensing and “heute-show” presenter Oliver Welke, “Monitor” presenter Georg Restle. They incorrectly assume that no “crime scene” investigator figure lives in a “normal” relationship. Again and again Frey and even more Gniffke, in order to remain in the football picture, are constricted in their own penalty area and have to hit the balls away.

      “Depressing atmosphere” in the hall

      Klonovsky receives a big applause for a blazing appeal for the separation of report and commentary. “They must also depict the part of society that is here! Gniffke tries there, and again and again, to reach agreement. “Anyone who doesn’t master that in our country will be fired. He admits that reporting on Pegida, for example, was not always neutral and fair and almost implores journalists not to attack demonstrations.

      Peter Frey, on the other hand, was fed up with too much rapprochement: he calls the mood in the hall “depressing” and lets himself be carried away by the sentence: “You have a free hand to switch off”. “But we pay! as expected, it immediately echoes out of the hall. When Lombard insists that the editors-in-chief define what is right-wing and right-wing extremist, Frey returns the ball. That’s not his job, he says, but the job of the AfD. He refers to Chemnitz: “They have to decide with whom they march and with whom they don’t.” Finally, Frey says: “I leave with the feeling that we have reason to think”. It was at least a worthy departure with which he was able to score points even against the temporarily helpless Gniffke.


    Is Stauffenberg suddenly no longer a hero?

    The German officer and later resistance fighter in a recording from the early 1930s. Claus Graf Schenk von Stauffenberg was born on 15 November 1907 in Jettingen Castle.

    Düsseldorf – He risked his life where many others were mere followers and became a hero through his sacrifice: Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg (†36), whose assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler tragically failed. He was executed in 1944.

    This brave man, of all people, is now on a list of experts who want to take a close look at street names in Düsseldorf – and possibly suggest that they be removed!

    It is a project of the city to check all streets named after people (if they were born after 1870) for entanglements in colonial times or National Socialism. Around 100 names have been short-listed, and expert opinions will be drawn up on them by the end of 2019. In the most extreme case, the city council should then delete names.

    According to Benedikt Mauer and Bastian Fleermann, the heads of the city archives, there will be an expert opinion on Stauffenberg because he welcomed Hitler’s seizure of power and made anti-Semitic statements. Fleermann: “There are no taboos, we all took a look at them. Both also say, however, that the Stauffenberg case is naturally very complicated.

    One had to understand the achievements of the resistance in his time: “Everyone should ask themselves whether they themselves would have been so courageous to murder a dictator”. One had to grant everyone a development, Stauffenberg had gone a long way. Schneiderhahn: “At its end, however, he was not just one of the conspirators, but also ready to become a man of action.

  8. (If the cap fits, wear it. Hitting dogs bark the loudest.)

    British MEP Syed Kamall (Conservative Party), in a speech to Parliament in Strasbourg on Wednesday, described National Socialism as a leftist ideology. “We must remember that Nazis were socialists,” he said, displeased by his parliamentary colleagues.

    “It is a leftist ideology, a variation of socialism. Turning to the Socialist and Social Democrat faction in parliament, he stressed: “They wanted what you want. Then there was a massive protest. “It was not very clever what you did and you should apologise”, the chairman of the liberal faction, Guy Verhoofstadt, asked him.

    German MEP outraged

    The German Social Democrat Udo Bullmann went even harder to court with Kamal. “Mr Kamal has brought the fascists who set this world on fire close to my political family. I think this is such an unspeakable derailment.”

    Thereupon Kamall apologized, albeit not in terms of content. “I am sick and tired of people calling National Socialism a right-wing ideology, but well, we have different opinions there,” he conceded. But it was not his intention to offend his parliamentary colleagues. He therefore apologized if he had hurt anyone with his remarks.

    Parliament President Antonio Tajani accepted the apology. For Bullmann, however, this was not the end of the matter. He was not concerned about personal feelings. “It is about someone bringing social democracy closer to the fascists, and I insist that he correct that. Bullmann also attacked Tajani: ‘Mr President, you are about to make the problem worse’. Tajani did not understand ‘what a political mess this is’ .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.