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

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]

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.

McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris[1997] EWHC 366 (QB), known as "the McLibel case", was an English lawsuit for libel filed by McDonald's Corporation against environmental activists Helen Steel and David Morris over a factsheet critical of the company. Each of two hearings in English courts found some of the leaflet's contested claims to be libellous and others to be true.

Blasphemy, as defined in some religions or religion-based laws, is an insult that shows contempt, disrespect or lack of reverence concerning a deity, an object considered sacred or something considered inviolable. Some religions regard blasphemy as a religious crime, especially the Islam including insulting the Islamic prophet Muhammad in Islam, speaking the "sacred name" in Judaism, and the "eternal sin" in Christianity.

Loizidou v. Turkey is a landmark legal case regarding the rights of refugees wishing to return to their former homes and properties. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Titina Loizidou, and consequently all other refugees, have the right to return to their former properties. The ECHR ruled that Turkey had violated Loizidou's human rights under Article I of Protocol I of the European Convention on Human Rights, that she should be allowed to return to her home and that Turkey should pay damages to her. Turkey initially ignored this ruling.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Humanists International</span> Secular humanism advocacy organization

Humanists International is an international non-governmental organisation championing secularism and human rights, motivated by secular humanist values. Founded in Amsterdam in 1952, it is an umbrella organisation made up of more than 160 secular humanist, atheist, rationalist, agnostic, skeptic, freethought and Ethical Culture organisations from over 80 countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Islam and blasphemy</span> Overview of Islamic views on blasphemy

In Islam, blasphemy is impious utterance or action concerning God, but is broader than in normal English usage, including not only the mocking or vilifying of attributes of Islam but denying any of the fundamental beliefs of the religion. Examples include denying that the Quran was divinely revealed, the Prophethood of one of the Islamic prophets, insulting an angel, or maintaining God had a son.

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.

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.

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 nationalist political activist and member of the Talat Pasha Committee, who was convicted by a Swiss court for publicly denying the Armenian genocide.

Jerusalem v. Austria (26958/95) was a 2001 European Court of Human Rights case.

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.

<i>Chiragov and Others v. Armenia</i> International human rights case

Chiragov v. Armenia was an international human rights case regarding the rights to property of Azeri nationals in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of former Soviet Azerbaijan. The judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on the case originated in an application against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by six Azerbaijani nationals on 6 April 2005. The applicants alleged, in particular, that they were prevented from returning to the district of Lachin in territory occupied by the respondent Government, that they were thus unable to enjoy their property and homes located there, and that they had not received any compensation for their losses.

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.

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.

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. ↑ "Freedom of expression or criminal blasphemy?: ES v Austria" . Retrieved 2018-10-31.
  4. ↑ "HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights". hudoc.echr.coe.int. 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.