E.S. v. Austria (2018)

Last updated

E.S. v. Austria
Full case name E.S. AS v. Austria
ChamberChamber
Keywords
Freedom of expression

E.S. v. Austria was a case held before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case where the court upheld a domestic court's fine on an Austrian woman who had called Mohammed a pedophile. [1]

Contents

The applicant, E.S. (Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff), is an Austrian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Vienna. [2]

In October and November 2009, Mrs S. held two seminars entitled "Basic Information on Islam", in which she discussed the marriage between the Islamic prophet Muhammad and a six-year old girl, Aisha, which was consummated when she was nine. Inter alia, the applicant stated that Muhammad "liked to do it with children" and "... A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? ... What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?".

On 15 February 2011, the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies, and convicted Mrs S. for disparaging religious doctrines. She was ordered to pay a fine of 480 euros and the costs of the proceedings. Mrs S. appealed but the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011, confirming in essence the lower court's findings.

Original statement

The statement that the Austrian woman originally said was: [3]

One of the biggest problems we are facing today is that Muhammad is seen as the ideal man, the perfect human, the perfect Muslim. That means that the highest commandment for a male Muslim is to imitate Muhammad, to live his life. This does not happen according to our social standards and laws. Because he was a warlord, he had many women, to put it like this, and liked to do it with children. And according to our standards, he was not a perfect human. We have huge problems with that today, that Muslims get into conflict with democracy and our value system ...

The most important of all Hadith collections recognised by all legal schools: The most important is the Sahih Al-Bukhari. If a Hadith was quoted after Bukhari, one can be sure that all Muslims will recognise it. And, unfortunately, in Al-Bukhari the thing with Aisha and child sex is written...

I remember my sister, I have said this several times already, when [S.W.] made her famous statement in Graz, my sister called me and asked: 'For God's sake. Did you tell [S.W.] that?' To which I answered: 'No, it wasn't me, but you can look it up, it's not really a secret.' And her: 'You can't say it like that!' And me: '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?' Her: 'Well, one has to paraphrase it, say it in a more diplomatic way.' My sister is symptomatic [sic]. We have heard that so many times. 'Those were different times' – it wasn't okay back then, and it's not okay today. Full stop. And it is still happening today. One can never approve something like that. They all create their own reality because the truth is so cruel ...

Court's decision

Only where expressions under Article 10 went beyond the limits of a critical denial, and certainly where they were likely to incite religious intolerance, might a state legitimately consider them to be incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures.

The court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the applicant's statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship. [lower-alpha 1]

Furthermore, the Court held that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue. Hence, the court saw no reason to depart from the domestic courts' qualification of the impugned statements as value judgments which they had based on a detailed analysis of the statements made.

The court held further that even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression.

The court's decision was unanimous without concurring opinion. In March 2019, the Grand Chamber panel of five judges rejected the request for referral to the Grand Chamber. [4] The decision became final.

International reactions

The case was subject to criticism in public reporting, including the accusation that the judgment "imposed" a blasphemy law in Europe. Nevertheless, it was a source of concern for human rights commentators. The International Humanist and Ethical Union, an INGO concerned with humanist advocacy and repeal of blasphemy laws, was "frustrated" that the court did not uphold the complainant's Article 10 rights, criticising the court's "timidity". [5]

The British charity Humanists UK, which campaigns on similar issues internationally, criticised the ruling as "fundamentally at odds with the spirit and tradition of free expression in Europe" expressed hope the case would be appealed and overturned in the Grand Chamber. It criticised the court's rationale in balancing the Article 10 right it is sworn to protect against "a previously nonexistent right to protection of one's 'religious feelings'". [6] In a later speech on blasphemy laws before the UN Human Rights Council, Humanists UK cited the Austria judgment as running "counter to the principles held by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to the spirit and purpose of human rights as an international enterprise." [7]

Writing in The Atlantic , Simon Cottee expressed serious concerns about the judgment, saying "it has given legitimacy to what is in all but name an Austrian blasphemy law, and by invoking the slippery notion of "religious peace," it has effectively given a veto to those who would deploy violence in defense of their religious beliefs." [8]

Reactions from academics were varied. Some authors outlined that with this judgment the European Court of Human Right applied different standards to very similar situation ruled in the past. Moreover, no concrete offence to any individual was demonstrated, but only to the quite fuzzy and undefined "religious peace" of Austria, and even that only potentially. For that reason it has been claimed that this judgment de facto endorsed the use of anti-blasphemy laws. [9]

In September 2022, in the subsequent ECtHR case Rabczewska v. Poland the Court ruled differently than in E.S. v Austria, and ruled that Polish courts in a similar case concerning Catholicism "failed to identify and carefully weigh the competing interests at stake" and overturned a 2012 conviction for blasphemy. The court declared, among other things:

The time has come to reassess this case-law. Which new direction should be taken? One new approach could be to examine all blasphemy-related restrictions on freedom of expression under Article 10 exclusively in terms of the legitimate aim of protecting public order (religious peace). We consider that the following paragraph (no. 15) of PACE Recommendation 1805 (2007) is potentially very important for any such new direction: "national law should only penalise expressions concerning religious matters which intentionally and severely disturb public order and call for public violence" (see paragraph 29 of the judgment). [10]

Notes

  1. ↑ "Worship" is the word used in the English version of the ruling, even though worshipping Muhammad (considering him divine) is shirk, a sin in Islam. Muslims venerate Muhammad but do not worship him.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Convention on Human Rights</span> International treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe

The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.

Blasphemy refers to an insult that shows contempt, disrespect or lack of reverence concerning a deity, an object considered sacred, or something considered inviolable. Some religions, especially Abrahamic ones, regard blasphemy as a crime, including insulting the Islamic prophet Muhammad in Islam, speaking the sacred name in Judaism, and blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an eternal sin in Christianity. It was also a crime under English common law.

<i>Eweida v United Kingdom</i>

Eweida v United Kingdom[2013] ECHR 37 is a UK labour law decision of the European Court of Human Rights, concerning the duty of the government of the United Kingdom to protect the religious rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court found that the British government had failed to protect the complainant's right to manifest her religion, in breach of Article 9 of the European Convention. For failing to protect her rights, the British government was found liable to pay non-pecuniary damages of €2,000, along with a costs award of €30,000.

Lingens v Austria (1986) 8 EHRR 407 was a 1986 European Court of Human Rights case that placed restrictions on libel laws because of the freedom of expression provisions of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the right to freedom of expression and information. A fundamental aspect of this right is the freedom to hold opinions and receive and impart information and ideas, even if the receiver of such information does not share the same opinions or views as the provider.

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a provision of the European Convention which protects the right to a fair trial. In criminal law cases and cases to determine civil rights it protects the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the presumption of innocence, right to silence and other minimum rights for those charged in a criminal case.

Leyla Şahin v. Turkey was a 2004 European Court of Human Rights case brought against Turkey by a medical student challenging a Turkish law which bans wearing the Islamic headscarf at universities and other educational and state institutions. The Court upheld the Turkish law by 16 votes to 1.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Blasphemy law</span> Law prohibiting blasphemy

A blasphemy law is a law prohibiting blasphemy, which is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence to a deity, or sacred objects, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable. According to Pew Research Center, about a quarter of the world's countries and territories (26%) had anti-blasphemy laws or policies as of 2014.

<i>Lautsi v. Italy</i>

Lautsi v. Italy was a case brought before the European Court of Human Rights, which, on 18 March 2011, ruled that the requirement in Italian law that crucifixes be displayed in classrooms of schools does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

Perinçek v. Switzerland is a 2013 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights concerning public statements by Doğu Perinçek, a Turkish nationalist political activist and member of the Talat Pasha Committee, who was convicted by a Swiss court for publicly denying the Armenian genocide. He was sentenced to 90 days in prison and fined 3000 Swiss francs.

Zakharov v. Russia was a 2015 court case before the European Court of Human Rights involving Roman Zakharov and the Russian Federation. The Court ruled that Russia's legal provisions governing communications surveillance did not provide adequate safeguards against arbitrariness or abuse, and that therefore a violation took place of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Osmanoğlu and Kocabaş v. Switzerland was a case heard by the European Court of Human Rights in a chamber judgement concerning whether mandatory mixed-gender swimming for girls against the will of their Muslim parents who objected on religious grounds violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights by contravening religious freedom. On 10 January 2017 the court unanimously found that the convention had not been violated.

<i>Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others</i> Northern Ireland, UK discrimination, and freedom of speech and religious expression, legal case

Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others[2018] UKSC 49 was a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom discrimination case between Gareth Lee and Ashers Baking Company, owned by Daniel and Amy McArthur of Northern Ireland. Lee brought the case after Ashers refused to make a cake with a message promoting same-sex marriage, citing their religious beliefs. Following appeals, the Supreme Court overturned previous rulings in favour of Lee and made a judgement in favour of Ashers. The court said there was no discrimination against Lee and that Ashers' objections were with the message they were being asked to promote. The court held that people in the United Kingdom could not legally be forced to promote a message they fundamentally disagreed with. The case became known in the British and Irish media as the "gay cake" case.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Offending religious feelings (Poland)</span> Polish blasphemy law

Offending religious feelings is a blasphemy law in Poland. According to Article 196 of the Penal Code: "Whoever offends the religious feelings of other persons by publicly insulting an object of religious worship, or a place designated for public religious ceremonies, is liable to pay a fine, have their liberty limited, or be deprived of their liberty for a period of up to two years."

Bayev and Others v. Russia was a case brought to the European Court of Human Rights by three Russian activists—Nikolay Bayev, Aleksei Aleksandrovich Kiselev, and Nikolay Alekseyev—alleging that the Russian gay propaganda law infringed on their freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On 20 June 2017, the court ruled that the applicants' freedom of expression had been compromised. The only dissent was from Dmitry Dedov, the judge elected with respect to Russia.

<i>Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan</i>

Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan was an international human rights case regarding the rights of Armenian refugees displaced from former Soviet Azerbaijan because of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. The judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on the case originated in an application against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Minas Sargsyan on 11 August 2006. He was forced to flee his home in the village of Gulistan in Shahumyan region of former Soviet Azerbaijan, together with his family, because of the Azerbaijani bombardments of the village and was not allowed to return and unable to get any compensation from the Azerbaijani authorities. Even though the applicant died in 2009, as did his widow, Lena Sargsyan, in 2014, his children, Vladimir and Tsovinar Sargsyan, represented him in court to continue the proceedings.

The persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia refers to the Russian government's persecution of the Jehovah's Witnesses religious group. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Jehovah's Witnesses became legal after a long period of being banned, though have still faced widespread government interference in their activities. Jehovah's Witnesses were deported en masse to Siberia in 1951 under Stalin via Operation North.

References

  1. ↑ ECHR. "HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights". hudoc.echr.coe.int. Retrieved 2018-10-31.
  2. ↑ Pokorny, Lukas (2020). Religion in Austria: An Annotated Bibliography of 2020 Scholarship (PDF). University of Vienna. pp. 302, 308.
  3. ↑ "CASE OF E.S. v. AUSTRIA". European Court of Human Rights. 18 March 2019 [25 October 2018].
  4. ↑ "Grand Chamber Panel's decisions – March 2019". European Court of Human Rights. Retrieved 2019-10-24.
  5. ↑ "IHEU 'frustrated', as European Court fails to overturn 'blasphemy' conviction in Austria". International Humanist and Ethical Union. 26 October 2018. Retrieved 15 November 2018.
  6. ↑ "European Court of Human Rights rules that Austria can keep its blasphemy law". Humanists UK. 29 October 2018.
  7. ↑ "Humanists UK challenges Austria blasphemy ruling at UN Human Rights Council". Humanists UK. 5 March 2019. Retrieved 5 March 2019.
  8. ↑ Cottee, Simon (31 October 2018). "A Flawed European Ruling on Free Speech". The Atlantic . Retrieved 15 November 2018.
  9. ↑ Andrea Gatti, "Freedom of Expression and Protection of Religious Peace in Europe: Considerations on E.S. v. Austria ECHR case law", Revista General de Derecho Publico Comparado, 2018.
  10. ↑ "CASE OF RABCZEWSKA v. POLAND". HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights. 15 September 2022.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.