@nimh,
Quote:So as unfortunate as (IMO) the Austrian approach is...
Why do you feel it is
unfortunate and what precisely do you mean by that term? Also, what do you mean by
the Austrian approach?
I don't mean to quibble or make more of your choice of words than is warranted, but I am trying to get a better idea of what you think about the
matter in the context of its effect on Europe. Turnabout is fair play and so I will explain that by
matter I mean the imposition of laws that restrict free speech and specifically speech that is deemed to hurt
religious feelings.
Again, I've no intention of being argumentative. Your choice of unfortunate may not have occupied your thoughts for more than a nanosecond which would be perfectly understandable, but if you were quite deliberate in your selection than it would seem that you are of the opinion that there is more at stake here than this specific case.
It would be difficult, at best, to argue that the Court's ruling has had an immediate impact beyond this case in particular and Austria's law more generally. It is clear that this ruling does not expand the Austrian approach beyond its borders, nor require any other state to amend or add to its own laws regarding speech, but unless the concept of precedent doesn't exist in European jurisprudence it
could have some future impact on cases involving other member states. The precedent might simply be that the Courts will tend towards honoring the right of each member to address the matter as they deem appropriate, but my (admittedly limited) understanding of the case and the ruling is that the Court
could have found the Austrian approach in violation of the individual's rights. In one of your links, I read that the Court considered the relatively minimal degree of punishment meted out in its ruling. Presumably, this means that if the Austrian government had sentenced the woman to a long (or even short) prison term the Court might have ruled the approach went too far. If so then there is a limit to the Court's deference to national sovereignty.
(I have a problem with the idea that the degree of punishment should be considered in evaluating someone's right to free speech, but this may be due to my very strong - and very American - belief in the importance of this right. Any legal consequence imposed by the government will have a chilling effect on speech. While I don't know this to be a certain fact, I imagine that if this woman persists in making statements like the one that caused her to run afoul of the law, the punishment could and likely would be increased in order to stop her.)
If the Court is not strictly bound from intruding upon member state sovereignty as respects the application of existing laws, would it not be similarly free to intrude by requiring the
creation of laws? Again, my ignorance of the underlying facts may be leading me down a dead-end road, but could the roles have been effectively reversed? In other words could a woman making statements deemed to be offensive by a religious body or cleric find herself embroiled in a legal matter before this Court even if the state in which she resided had no law prohibiting such speech? Or in a scenario that I suppose would be more likely, could the government of a member state find itself before this Court defending its right to not have a law prohibiting this speech?
If the Austrian Approach is
inauspicious or
unlucky (i.e.
unfortunate) it would be so in terms of future events or circumstances. The term almost implies another shoe dropping. So, if your choice was quite deliberate, what such event or set of circumstances causes you concern or fear?
From what little I have read or heard about the ruling there are folks in Europe who are not as sanguine about the reach of its impact as the gentlemen you've cited, and they are not all rabble-rousing Islamaphobes. I get the impression that while there may indeed be those who wish to exaggerate the impact of the ruling to advance political/ideological positions there are also those who seek to minimize it for the same reason.
As I've indicated more than once, I don't want to read more into your word usage than is intended. Someone living in Austria or Europe who shares my evaluation of the right to free speech might describe the Austrian Approach as "unfortunate" simply because they disagree with it, but they might also view it as such for its possible impact on all of Europe; in which case they would likely view this ruling as
unfortunate as well.
The critics of the ruling seem to all be critics of the Austrian Approach as well. Perhaps it is not necessarily the case in reverse, but I am interested in understanding how this might be so.
Finally, the fact that the religion involved in this case is Islam clearly lent to its notoriety and, as you are probably more aware than I am, critics argue that if the religion had been Christianity there would be no ruling because there would have been no underlying case: a) European Christians are not remotely as prickly about blasphemy as Muslims, and b) European governments are not remotely as concerned about the religious feelings of Christians as they are about Muslim religious feelings.
What do you think of this; both "a" and "b"?
Have there been cases in Austria (or anywhere in Europe) where people have gotten in trouble with their governments because of statements made about Christianity (or any religion other than Islam for that matter)? If so, can you give me an idea of how they compare in frequency and severity in terms of those involving Islam?
Do European governments, in general (I realize I am attempting to lump them all together in a way that might neither be fair or accurate) consider the "religious feelings" of Muslims differently than those of members of other faiths? If so why might this be the case?
While it might (fairly or unfairly) invite accusations of
appeasement if it were true, I can imagine European officials, on a practical level, fearing the hurt feelings of Muslims more than those of Buddhists, Taoists or Christians. It might, indeed, not be true, but if it isn't, it wouldn't be because European politicians and bureaucrats are significantly more enlightened than their counterparts throughout the rest of the world, but because there is no evidence of a disparity in this regard among practitioners of religion in Europe (or the cultural impact of being seen as insensitive to one or others) or they all have their heads farther up their asses than do their counterparts around the globe. Neither of these seems credible to me though.
Thanks in advance. If you care not to respond in detail or at all, that's fine and if you can point me to sources that might provide me with answers, that will be appreciated.