pentagathus
Baron
So what you're saying is that you're a Nazi?
Law and Justice
- Thread starter BenKenobi
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Baron
I am not really sure whether people being afraid to write that Hitler should had gassed certain ethnic groups is a bad thing in the first place.Bromden said:
Also, in regards to the case, it was one of the comments but there has been much much more hateful comments towards this one gipsy person from quite a lot of people. In his complaints he among other things claimed how large impact these comments had on his life, how his family was living in fear etc. And quite a lot of completely bull**** arguments he pulled out of his ass such as his son being unable to communicate with him because he had to block his facebook because of all the hate. The point is, though, that even these "small" messages can have an impact on your life if they come in sufficient numbers or are sufficiently nasty.
The bad things will really start when the lawmakers decide that saying that a certain politician or all politicians should be hanged is something that is punsihable under that same law.BenKenobi said:
Aren't we all?Big Bad Pent said:
Wait, ****, I'm not on Stormfront now.
ConsiderCalradianın Bilgesi said:
a) proportionality in relation to punishment for other crimes. I'm not into it enough to dig up all mentioned countries, so I'll stick with Czech criminal law, with which I am obviously most familiar with and which I find pretty reasonable and well-balanced, or at least its big picture.
The base punishment* is 1 to 8 years depending on the circumstances of the case. This can be anything from a 15 year old having sex with someone who was 14 and 364 days to unsavory cases like a 30+ year old with a 10 year old. For the plainest, least evil murder (but still an actual murder), the base is 10 to 18. For what is a rough equivalent of the Anglo-Saxon manslaughter, it's 3 to 10. For (continental) rape, it's 0.5 to 5. Continental rape of a minor is 2 to 10. Assault is 0.5 to 3. Aggravated assault (i.e. assault with more or less permanent consequences, like loss of limb, mutilation etc) is 3 to 10. The punishment for sexual abuse and rape can go up to 12 if they cause significant health damage (which is quite likely if the victim was 10 or even less) and up to 18 if it unintentionally results in death of the victim.
b) 5 or 10 years in prison is a loooong ass time. It may not seem that much, but it really is. People unfamiliar with life in prison tend to underestimate what it is like and how it can change a person, usually for the worse. It's especially not easy for child-rapists or anyone who did something to kids. It's not how the system is supposed to work, but it is how it works. It is far from unheard of even in very developed and human-rights-minding countries that such person is regularly severely beaten by cellmates, even crudely castrated by them. They have by far the highest rate of "accidents" and suicides and the guards are often likely to be "incidentally" patrolling another sector etc. Then if you make it out, you are often subject to long-term or even life-long registration in the sex offender registry and if it's publicly accessible, your life is forever ****ed, pardon the pun. It doesn't matter if you found Jesus 10 times over and are the most exemplary reformed convict in the history of prison, you will never find a decent job or even a decent apartment unless you are super-well connected, like the mob or high-end politics. I'm not asking you to empathize with them or feel bad for them, maybe you think that's what they deserve anyway, but even then conviction of messing with kids will be there with you basically forever even if the hard time is "just" a couple of years.
Serves them right for screwing kids, I suppose. Don't have sex with kids.
pentagathus
Baron
Oh dear, there goes my plans for the weekend.
To bring another horrific tale of reading other people's complaints:BenKenobi said:I've seen things you people wouldn't believe...
"The plaintiff holds an opinion that the contested decisions infringe his fundamental rights and freedoms, particularly his right to a judicial protecton laid down by the art. 90 of the Constitution, also the right that everyone can claim his rights at an independent and impartial court laid down by the art. 36 of the Charter, furthermore the right to equality of rights of the parties before the court laid down by art. 37/3 of the Charter, also the right to a fair trial laid down by art. 36 of the Charter, the right to legitimate expectation, the right to property laid down by art. 11/1 of the Charter, and more."
"...and more."
That feeling when you want a court to help you but you don't bother to provide an exhaustive list of the infringed rights because the court should know or something. Dude...
"Legal commentary literature has reached a conclusion that such cases include disputes related to promissory notes, checks or other securities..."
This is more or less "American scientists found out." Very helpful indeed
pentagathus
Baron
Is that a sign of more unelected bureaucrats pulling more strings in the evil Empire of New Germany?
Also this might belong in the news thread but it turns out vralaralallir was right about Tommo Robinson, court of appeal says he didn't do nothing wrong and he's out of prison again.
Also this might belong in the news thread but it turns out vralaralallir was right about Tommo Robinson, court of appeal says he didn't do nothing wrong and he's out of prison again.
it is not an EU thing. And it's non-coercive on so many different levels. Only 10 states ratified it, and it allows the highest courts in in these states request advisory opinion if they wish so. Advisory opinion, if requested and granted, doesn't bind the court either.Big Bad Pent said:
The non-binding part is kind of strange, though. So you are a high court, you do require interpretation of the Convention, you actively ask the ECtHR (which - unlike with the ECJ - you don't have to do) and then you disregard its opinion. Then the unsuccessful party reads the opinion since opinions are going to be published and will file an application to the ECtHR claiming that the domestic court should have instead went with the solution envisioned in the opinion for all the reasons stated in the opinion. And then the ECtHR will just say: "well, we kind of said it but we didn't really mean it, your reasoning (which is ours) is insufficient so away with you." Hmmm.
they can be convinced by the justification of the high court's decision
A couple of notes on E.S. v. Austria, aka Mohammed was a paedophile case.
If you happen to frequent any far-right or anti-immigration webpages, you have certainly heard of the case; if you don't, you have probably heard of the case. In E.S. (link), the case concerned a woman who during her "lecture" on a "seminar" called Basic Information on Islam in 2009 held by a right-wing FPÖ stated, among other things, that a 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do you call that? Give me an example? What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia? and that he liked to do it with children. A journalist sitting among the public (there were 30 spectators) reported Mrs. M.S. and subsequent criminal proceedings before Austrian courts resulted in a fine of 480E for a crime of disparagement of religious doctrines according to the Austrian penal code. The case was brought before the European Court of Human Rights ("ECtHR") that held that such a fine did not violate M.S.'s right to a freedom of expression. The decision was of course accepted rather critically, ranging from neomarxists are banning free speech narrative driven by our usual suspects to a few professors at my Uni sharing a Mohammed was a paedophile! status in response since the justification of the decision seems to be written rather clumsily.
What is good about the case, however, is that it can serve as an illustration of the ECtHR's political role and of the fact that in certain issues, there can be no middle ground. The ECtHR is sometimes criticized for being too activistic, most often in regards to LGBT's rights. Here in particular, it is criticized for curtailing free speech, protecting Muslims, criminalizing critique of Mohammed etc. But the point that the critics are driving home, maybe unintentionally, is essentially that in this particular instance, the issue is not that the ECtHR was activistic, but that the ECtHR was not activistic enough.
In the judgment, the ECtHR strongly refers to its Margin of Appreciation doctrine (although, sadly, not going all the way). This doctrine means that in certain issues there is a margin, a space for the states, that allows them to derogate from the obligations laid down by the European Convention on Human Rights ("Convention") without it constituting a violation. It is essentially a maxim stating that certain questions should be resolved at domestic level without the ECtHR interfering. To illustrate: in Vo v. France the issue at hand was whether an unborn child falls within the scope of the protection of life. The ECtHR referred to the Margin of Appreciation, de facto stating that it will not rule on whether an unborn child deserves a protection from the very moment it is conceived or that it does not enjoy the protection until it is born or that there is a certain period, say 6 months, from which the unborn child deserves such a protection. It instead referred it to the domestic authorities to decide. And it is only natural - different countries would have different concepts of such a right to life as the differences between for example Catholic Ireland and secular France simply exist. In conclusion, under the Margin doctrine, the ECtHR could hold both that France not giving a 6 month old fetus a similar protection to that of a living person and Ireland offering such protection for it is equally okay under the Convention.
And this is imho the issue in E.S. - the ECtHR does not necessarily states that Muslims (or Mohammed) should be protected from criticism or that the freedom of expression should yield to a religious "right not to be offended". It "merely" states that if Austria decides to set its policies to a rather high standard of protection of its religious groups, it does not necessarily result in a violation of the Convention because the ECtHR accepts that in some countries they might want to do it so and that it is not the ECtHR's task to create an uniform standard of protection throughout the Council of Europe states.
The obvious counterargument is that the decision - while using the Margin - is not using it to strike down the application as the reasoning goes further. And here we get to another interesting part, that is classifying the Mohammed is a paedophile as a value-judgment. The ECtHR uses a division of statements (I believe originating in Lingens v. Austria) to factual claims ("X is a thief", "Y cannot drive a car") and value-judgments ("X is a gangster", "Y is an immoral person"). The difference is that factual statements can and often need to be proven whereas value-judgments are impossible to prove. This gets quite complicated in E.S. as on one hand the ECtHR claims Mohammed was a paedophile is a value-judgment (good so far) but then states that even value-judgment should have some factual basis that the applicant failed to provide. The really funny part is that should the ECtHR or Austrian courts rule on the factual basis, they would essentially be deciding on how old Aisha was when her marriage with Mohammed was consummated. I don't think I need to explain why this would be, well, super interesting. The ECtHR goes around it instead by stating that paedophilia in fact means preference of children and not merely having sex with children which is a completely absurd and ridiculous argument but it allows the ECtHR to avoid putting itself above Al-Azhar and other similar institutions. But again, I am not claiming that this judgment is wonderful, I (and other people I talked with about it) think it is just incredibly badly written.
In conclusion, my point is that it is funny that when the ECtHR is ruling on, say, surrogate parenthood or same-sex marriages, there is a certain uproar in that it should not interfere in the domestic politics, it should not supplant national legislation and domestic public debate and other such things, but when faced with the issue of freedom of criticism of Islam, suddenly we don't trust the state and instead opt for a supranational court to do its thing.
If you happen to frequent any far-right or anti-immigration webpages, you have certainly heard of the case; if you don't, you have probably heard of the case. In E.S. (link), the case concerned a woman who during her "lecture" on a "seminar" called Basic Information on Islam in 2009 held by a right-wing FPÖ stated, among other things, that a 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do you call that? Give me an example? What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia? and that he liked to do it with children. A journalist sitting among the public (there were 30 spectators) reported Mrs. M.S. and subsequent criminal proceedings before Austrian courts resulted in a fine of 480E for a crime of disparagement of religious doctrines according to the Austrian penal code. The case was brought before the European Court of Human Rights ("ECtHR") that held that such a fine did not violate M.S.'s right to a freedom of expression. The decision was of course accepted rather critically, ranging from neomarxists are banning free speech narrative driven by our usual suspects to a few professors at my Uni sharing a Mohammed was a paedophile! status in response since the justification of the decision seems to be written rather clumsily.
What is good about the case, however, is that it can serve as an illustration of the ECtHR's political role and of the fact that in certain issues, there can be no middle ground. The ECtHR is sometimes criticized for being too activistic, most often in regards to LGBT's rights. Here in particular, it is criticized for curtailing free speech, protecting Muslims, criminalizing critique of Mohammed etc. But the point that the critics are driving home, maybe unintentionally, is essentially that in this particular instance, the issue is not that the ECtHR was activistic, but that the ECtHR was not activistic enough.
In the judgment, the ECtHR strongly refers to its Margin of Appreciation doctrine (although, sadly, not going all the way). This doctrine means that in certain issues there is a margin, a space for the states, that allows them to derogate from the obligations laid down by the European Convention on Human Rights ("Convention") without it constituting a violation. It is essentially a maxim stating that certain questions should be resolved at domestic level without the ECtHR interfering. To illustrate: in Vo v. France the issue at hand was whether an unborn child falls within the scope of the protection of life. The ECtHR referred to the Margin of Appreciation, de facto stating that it will not rule on whether an unborn child deserves a protection from the very moment it is conceived or that it does not enjoy the protection until it is born or that there is a certain period, say 6 months, from which the unborn child deserves such a protection. It instead referred it to the domestic authorities to decide. And it is only natural - different countries would have different concepts of such a right to life as the differences between for example Catholic Ireland and secular France simply exist. In conclusion, under the Margin doctrine, the ECtHR could hold both that France not giving a 6 month old fetus a similar protection to that of a living person and Ireland offering such protection for it is equally okay under the Convention.
And this is imho the issue in E.S. - the ECtHR does not necessarily states that Muslims (or Mohammed) should be protected from criticism or that the freedom of expression should yield to a religious "right not to be offended". It "merely" states that if Austria decides to set its policies to a rather high standard of protection of its religious groups, it does not necessarily result in a violation of the Convention because the ECtHR accepts that in some countries they might want to do it so and that it is not the ECtHR's task to create an uniform standard of protection throughout the Council of Europe states.
The obvious counterargument is that the decision - while using the Margin - is not using it to strike down the application as the reasoning goes further. And here we get to another interesting part, that is classifying the Mohammed is a paedophile as a value-judgment. The ECtHR uses a division of statements (I believe originating in Lingens v. Austria) to factual claims ("X is a thief", "Y cannot drive a car") and value-judgments ("X is a gangster", "Y is an immoral person"). The difference is that factual statements can and often need to be proven whereas value-judgments are impossible to prove. This gets quite complicated in E.S. as on one hand the ECtHR claims Mohammed was a paedophile is a value-judgment (good so far) but then states that even value-judgment should have some factual basis that the applicant failed to provide. The really funny part is that should the ECtHR or Austrian courts rule on the factual basis, they would essentially be deciding on how old Aisha was when her marriage with Mohammed was consummated. I don't think I need to explain why this would be, well, super interesting. The ECtHR goes around it instead by stating that paedophilia in fact means preference of children and not merely having sex with children which is a completely absurd and ridiculous argument but it allows the ECtHR to avoid putting itself above Al-Azhar and other similar institutions. But again, I am not claiming that this judgment is wonderful, I (and other people I talked with about it) think it is just incredibly badly written.
In conclusion, my point is that it is funny that when the ECtHR is ruling on, say, surrogate parenthood or same-sex marriages, there is a certain uproar in that it should not interfere in the domestic politics, it should not supplant national legislation and domestic public debate and other such things, but when faced with the issue of freedom of criticism of Islam, suddenly we don't trust the state and instead opt for a supranational court to do its thing.
So Austria can ban a whole side on a debate about a psychological claim about a historic person and it isn't in violation of freedom of expression.
I'd be more understanding of decision if the expression was even 'Mohammad, Booo!'. But paedophilia is a neutral scientific term and surely people should be allowed to discuss whether this scientific category applies to historical individuals?
I'd be more understanding of decision if the expression was even 'Mohammad, Booo!'. But paedophilia is a neutral scientific term and surely people should be allowed to discuss whether this scientific category applies to historical individuals?
pentagathus
Baron
I wonder if liberalish people around Europe are ever going to realise that this kind of **** is more likely to endanger Muslims than protect them.
I am not exactly sure whether that paedophilia remark had anything to do with a debate about a psychological claim about a historic person.
Also, the decision was adopted unanimously by a chamber consisting of 7 judges. We can also wait and see whether Mrs. E.S. will push the case to the Grand Chamber.
Also, the decision was adopted unanimously by a chamber consisting of 7 judges. We can also wait and see whether Mrs. E.S. will push the case to the Grand Chamber.
Pedophilia (alternatively spelled paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
If this is not a claim within the debate about whether Mohammad(historic person) had pedophilia(psychological condition) i don't know what it is.
If this is not a claim within the debate about whether Mohammad(historic person) had pedophilia(psychological condition) i don't know what it is.
It was stated in a talk advertised as a seminar on 'information on islam'. it is nowhere close to intimidation or harassment in any way. If this is not the right medium to state that mohammad was a pedophile, then what is?
