Cenzura wypowiedzi dotyczących islamu w Europejskim Trybunale Praw Człowieka: uderzający przypadek sprawy E.S. przeciwko Austrii

Grégor Puppinck

doi:10.21697/CSP.2020.24.1.22

Published: 2020-05-27

No. 24 (2020)

The censorship of speech about Islam before the European Court of Human Rights: the appalling case of E. S. v. Austria

Grégor Puppinck

Christianity-World-Politics

Section: Articles

https://doi.org/10.21697/CSP.2020.24.1.22

Abstract

The European Court of Human Rights has often issued judgments protecting individuals who have been accused of blasphemy, especially against the Christian religion. Meanwhile, he upheld the condemnation of the conviction decision of the blasphemy Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff by Austrian courts, who publicly described Mohammed’s known marriage to a minor girl as pedophilia. The Austrian court officially confessed that it had to condemn these words in the name of religious peace. The ECtHR upheld this judgment in the name of religious tolerance, somewhat suspending previous case law and not censoring any statements criticizing Islam, even if they were true. This violation of freedom of expression is justified by a new positive obligation imposed on you by the Tribunal, consisting in „ensuring peaceful coexistence of all religions and those who do not belong to any religious group, by ensuring mutual tolerance.” In this way, any statement, even a true one, can be considered reprehensible as an expression of religious intolerance, if it could lead to social tensions.

Keywords:

European Court of Human Rights, Austria, freedom of speech, Islam, Muhammad

Download files

PDF (Język Polski) PDF

Citation rules

Puppinck, G. (2020). The censorship of speech about Islam before the European Court of Human Rights: the appalling case of E. S. v. Austria. Christianity-World-Politics, (24), 104–115. https://doi.org/10.21697/CSP.2020.24.1.22

Cited by / Share

References

Ahmari S. (2018), The Day Free Speech Died in Europe, “Commentary”.
Google Scholar

Armstrong S. (2018), The Case of E.S. v. Austria: What it Means for the Rights of Europeans, “Liberalistia”.
Google Scholar

Barker M. (2018), Imran Khan criticised for defence of Pakistan blasphemy laws, “The Guardian”.
Google Scholar

Bougiakiotis E. (2018), E.S. v Austria: Blasphemy Laws and the Double Standards of the European Court of Human Rights,”UK Constitutional Law Association”.
Google Scholar

Bukhari S., volume 5, book 58.
Google Scholar

Cottee S. (2018), A Flawed European Ruling on Free Speech,”The Atlantic”.
Google Scholar

Council for Human Rights (2015), Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (about the relationship between the right to freedom of religion or belief and the right to freedom of opinion and expression), Document A/HRC/31/18.
Google Scholar

ECHR (1976), Handyside v. the United Kingdom (Plenary), no. 5493/72.
Google Scholar

ECHR (1994), Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Autstria, no. 13470/87.
Google Scholar

ECHR (2018), E.S. v. Austria, no. 38450/12.
Google Scholar

ECHR (2018), Mariya Alekhina and others v. Russia, no. 38004/12.
Google Scholar

ECHR (2018), Sekmadienis Ltd. v. Lituania, no. 69317/14.
Google Scholar

ECHR (2019), Judgments of 19 March 2019, “Registrar of the Court”, Press release 098.
Google Scholar

ECLJ (2008-2010), Rapport soumis en Juin 2008 et actualisé en juin 2010.
Google Scholar

ECLJ (2018), New challenges to the Freedom of Religion in Europe in the Light of the Recent Judgments of the ECHR, seminar organized at the Council of Europe.
Google Scholar

Francois-Cerrah M. (2012), The truth about Muhammad and Aisha, The Guardian.
Google Scholar

Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Information, Broadcasting & National Heritage, Press Information Department (2018), Prime Minister Underscores the Importance of Respecting Religious Sentiments of all, “Press release No. 70”.
Google Scholar

Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Information, Broadcasting & National Heritage, Press Information Department, “Press release”, No. 175, Islamabad.
Google Scholar

Milanovic M. (2018), Legitimizing Blasphemy Laws Through the Backdoor: The European Court’s Judgment in E.S. v. Austria, “European Journal of International Law”.
Google Scholar

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) (2007), Blasphemy, religious insults and hate speech against people on grounds of their religion, “Recommendation 1805”.
Google Scholar

Puppinck G. (2019), Blasphème contre Mahomet : Al-Azhar et le Pakistan se félicitent de la décision de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, “Valeurs actuelles”.
Google Scholar

Puppinck G. (2018), Délit de blasphème : « La CEDH n'est pas Charlie ! », “Figaro Vox”.
Google Scholar

Rasmussen S. (2017), Pakistan: man sentenced to death for blasphemy on Facebook, “The Guardian”.
Google Scholar

Scott M. (2018), The ECtHR has not created a European blasphemy law but it has produced a lamentable judgment, “BarristerBlogger.com”
Google Scholar

Smet S. (2018), E.S. v. Austria: Freedom of Expression versus Religious Feelings, the Sequel, “Strasbourg Observers”.
Google Scholar

Wood G. (2018), In Europe, Speech Is an Alienable Right,”The Atlantic”.
Google Scholar

Grégor Puppinck

burgonski@onet.eu
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8211-8333

Affiliation:

European Centre for Law and Justice France

Bio Statement (e.g., department and rank)

Grégor Puppinck, PhD, is Director General of the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ). He is also a Member of the OSCE Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief and an Expert to the Council of Europe. He takes part in the Committee of Experts on the Reform of the European Court of Human Rights. From 2003 to 2008, he has taught human rights, European law, and constitutional law at the Law School of the University of Upper Alsace, France. Grégor Puppinck holds his PhD with a dissertation in legal theory. He graduated from Paris II Law School and from the “Institut des Hautes Etudes Internationales.”