[–] The_Prophets_Profit 0 points 30 points (+30|-0) ago 

It's not so much what he did but that you find fault with it that offends them.

[–] Intrixina 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

"Its not what I did, its your reaction to it that's the problem"

[–] admin2 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

It's yet another WHITE PERSON selective crime. A Muslim scholar is allowed to discuss or criticize... but WHITEY gets fined and put in jail even if saying the exact same words because of "ILL INTENT TO PORTRAY a major religion in a negative way"

HAH!

Sharia land.

[–] olltre 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

REEEE√ČEEEEEEE

[–] TheAntiZealot 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago 

Bad logic, OP.

Calling Muhammad a pedophile is illegal in the EU because they accepted Sharia. Is spelled out in the Quran that any criticism or negativity directed toward Islam, the texts, or the last prophet of Allah is against Shariah.

[–] PapShamir 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Exactly.

Allah, pussy be upon him, flowered his children with love. Hee hee! Like Michael Jackson though, not like a pedophile. Juhmoh!

How does Sharia "law" feel about sarcasm?

[–] HeavyBrain 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

A general rule for the peaceful religion "No fun alowed"

[–] [deleted] 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] think- 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

In other words, it's the arbitrary rule of hurt feelings that governs now.

Yep. Hurt Muslim feelings to be more precise.

[–] birds_sing [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The European Court of Human Rights upheld her conviction stating that what she said

could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship

She wasn't convicted for breaking the law. Instead she was convicted of something that could only be...... understood as..... being aimed at...... demonstrating that..... she broke the law.

[–] HeavyBrain 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Basically "We are afraid that muds may sperge about it and give in to terroists"

[–] HeavyBrain 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Its not just the speech.

Like in germany you can smoke all the weed you want, you just not allowed to posses, produce, buy, sell store, im- or export it, because you know prohibiting you from smoking it would be infringement of your rights to individualism/free expression.

[–] Pwning4Ever 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It's intense mental gymnastics, go to Europe and say Jesus was insane and married a whore. The European fuckers won't pay you any mind.

[–] PapShamir 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Right. It's relative to an implicit group threat.

[–] lkjfds5621 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Islam is a pedophile political movement.

[–] Grindelwo 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

disgusting EU is doomed

[–] coucou 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Mummad was the victim, in fact. Aisha was a gerontophile. She raped the poor helpless Momed.

[–] Luis_Sphincta 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Nope, censorship is wrong and unnecessary when facts are on your side.

However, Austria appears to have left the door WIDE open for someone to found a religion that features Mein Kampf as its holy book. The true entertainment comes when you force its critics to argue against its validity, because, you know, it's just wrong to take an insane genocidal warlords writing about his struggles as gospel. I bet a compare and contrast of the texts would lead to a hilarious amount of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance from ((())) and the other usual suspects.

[–] SchlongKeyhote 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

That analysis has been done, and the Quran is ~3x as anti-Semitic as Mein Kampf. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lAujEvj8pBg/VmjrjMnI9uI/AAAAAAAAARs/gHm9zJACFo4/s1600/AntiJewMecMed_300dpi.jpg

[–] Luis_Sphincta 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That's amazing! 10-q.

[–] RedditSureDoesSuck 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Can someone please explain this to me? What weight do decrees from the European Union carry? Is it up to individual countries to enforce them? Does being a member of the union obligate countries to follow any measures that have been passed like this one? How often is the charter updated with shit like this?

[–] birds_sing [S] 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

The way to look at it is that Europe used to be a bunch of independent countries, but then they all joined together to make one big country. And now places like France and Italy can be thought of as states or provinces within the EU.

In the US, California can make some laws that are different than the laws Texas makes. But they still have to follow federal laws. Same with the EU. Spain can make some of their laws different from German laws, but they still have to follow and enforce EU laws. They're no longer independent countries, but instead are like states within a big country.

In this case, an Austrian woman said, "... A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? ... What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?" Austrian courts, using Austrian laws, charged her with breaking the law. The woman disagreed with the verdict and appealed to a higher court. In her situation she appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (who ended up agreeing with the Austrian court). - The same thing can happen in the US. Where someone can disagree with a Texas court's decision and appeal to a higher court. With the highest court being the Supreme Court.

And as for this case, there is now precedent set in the EU. You cannot call Muhammad a pedophile. It's now illegal to use the word pedophile to describe him because it "could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship,". Not because it does that, but because it could be "understood as" doing that. And because an EU court ruled on it, the precedent is set for the entire EU instead of only Austria.

[–] RedditSureDoesSuck 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Thank you for the in-depth answer fellow goat.

[–] think- 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This verdict is a nightmare. The TL;DR is that you can't call someone a pedo who raped a 9 year old. Because reasons.

According to the judges, defendant hasn't taken into account that he also had wifes age 13+, and a wife who was 55. bangs head on table

[–] MolochHunter 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Exactly. What are the implications of this? If a modern European Muslim rapes a 9 yr old and justifies it as following Mohammed's example, can we expect to be charged calling them pedophiles?

load more comments ▼ (26 remaining)