Kontakt 180Grader.dk
4

Skrevet af PerH 697 dage siden - Direkte link
Den Europæiske menneskerettighedsdomstol har faktisk ved flere lejligheder fastslået, at blasfemilove er  forenlige med ytringsfriheden.Domstolen bemærker i sagen Otto Preminger v. Republic of Austria (para 47-48):
“… Those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion, irrespective of whether they do so as members of a religious majority or a minority,
cannot reasonably expect to be exempt from all criticism. They must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs and even the propagation
by others of doctrines hostile to their faith. However, the manner in which religious beliefs and doctrines are opposed or denied is a matter which may
engage the responsibility of the State, notably its responsibility to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the right guaranteed under Article 9 (art. 9) to
the holders of those beliefs and doctrines. Indeed, in extreme cases the effect of particular methods of opposing or denying religious beliefs can be such
as to inhibit those who hold such beliefs from exercising their freedom to hold and express them.
In the Kokkinakis judgment the Court held, in the context of Article 9 (art. 9), that a State may legitimately consider it necessary to take measures
aimed at repressing certain forms of conduct, including the imparting of information and ideas, judged incompatible with the respect for the freedom of
thought, conscience and religion of others (ibid., p. 21, para. 48). The respect for the religious feelings of believers as guaranteed in Article 9 (art.
9) can legitimately be thought to have been violated by provocative portrayals of objects of religious veneration; and such portrayals can be regarded
as malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance, which must also be a feature of democratic society. The Convention is to be read as a whole and therefore
the interpretation and application of Article 10 (art. 10) in the present case must be in harmony with the logic of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis,
the Klass and Others v. Germany judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 31, para. 68).48. The measures complained of were based on section 188 of the Austrian Penal Code, which is intended to suppress behaviour directed against objects
of religious veneration that is likely to cause “justified indignation”. It follows that their purpose was to protect the right of citizens not to be insulted
in their religious feelings by the public expression of views of other persons. Considering also the terms in which the decisions of the Austrian courts
were phrased, the Court accepts that the impugned measures pursued a legitimate aim under Article 10 para. 2 (art. 10-2), namely “the protection of the
rights of others”.”I Otto Preminger-sagen var klageren blevet fundet skyldig i at overtræde det østriske blasfemiforbud, fordi vedkomne havde forevist en blasfemisk film for inviterede og betalende kunder. I en anden og senere sag Wingrove v. United Kingdom havde den britiske filmcensur nedlagt forbud mod udbredelsen af en blasfemisk film på trods af at den kun blev distribueret til betalende og inviterede kunder.I begge sager godtog domstolen statens indgreb som nødvendigt til beskyttelse af troende mod følelsesmæssig krænkelse. Det er værd at bemærke, at  der i begge sager var tale om et totalforbud, der ud over at skærme uvillige personer også gjorde værket utilgængeligt for villige og samtykkende mennesker. Blot risikoen for at troende uforvarent kunne blive konfronteret med en følelsesmæssig krænkelse var nok til ifølge domstolen at begrunde et paternalistisk indgreb i villige aktørers ytrings- og informationsfrihed.Den europæiske menneskerettighedsdomstol ville derfor med stor sandsynlighed godkende anvendelsen af det polske blasfemiforbud, selv hvis  klagerne kunne påvise, at den krænkede borger opsøgte begivenheden. Menneskerettighedsdomstolens reaktionære og frihedsfjendtlige praksis i blasfemisager er i det hele taget en skamplet på det europæiske menneskerettighedssystem.
Som om det ikke var galt nok, har den tidligere menneskerettighedskommission, der tidligere screenede sager før realitetsbehandling ved domstolen endda antydet, at religionsfriheden inkluderer en ret til beskyttelse mod følelsesmæssig krænkelse, og at staten i visse tilfælde kan have en PLIGT til at retsforfølge ytringer, der krænker troendes følelser.Kommissionen har i sagen DUBOWSKA AND SKUP v. POLAND
Application no. 33490/96) fundet at en klage på basis af Artikel 9 var manifestly ill-founded men bemærker alligevel i para. 4:
“However, the manner in which religious beliefs and doctrines are
opposed or denied is a matter which may engage the responsibility of
the State to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the right guaranteed
under Article
9 (Art.
9) of the Convention to the holders of those
beliefs and doctrines. Thus, the respect for the religious feelings
of believers as guaranteed in Article
9 (Art.
9) may in some cases be
violated by provocative portrayals of objects of religious veneration
(see Eur. Court HR, Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria judgment of 20
September 1994, Series A no. 295-A, p. 18, para. 47).
As a consequence, there may be certain positive obligations on
the part of a State inherent in an effective respect for rights
guaranteed under Article
9 (Art.
9) of the Convention, which may
involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for freedom
of religion even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between
themselves (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, X and Y v. the
Netherlands judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91, p. 11, para.
23). Such measures may, in certain circumstances, constitute a legal
means of ensuring that an individual will not be disturbed in his
worship by the activities of others.”Kommissionen fastslår at [respect for the religious feelings
of believers] er beskyttet (guaranteed) af Artikel 9, og at denne beskyttelse i visse situationer i visse tilfælde kan være krænket ved provokerende skildringer af genstande for religiøs veneration. Her henviser kommissionen eksplicit til Otto Preminger P47 og lader således til at tolke beskyttelsen af religiøse følelser ikke kun som en MULIGHED men i visse tilfælde som en PLIGT.

Skrevet af Jesper Juul Keller 697 dage siden - Direkte link
Ja, det er grotesk, at latterlig overtro stadig nyder særbeskyttelse, selv fra Menneskeretsdomstolens side.

Skrevet af Kasper M 696 dage siden - Direkte link
Endnu et eksempel på hvordan menneskerettighedskonventionerne bruges til at knægte helt basale menneskerettigheder. Øv!
Du skal være logget ind for at kommentere artikler. Du kan logge ind her!

Flere artikler fra Udland

8
29
12
8
7
4
12
12
9
3
3
5
10
2
10
2
30
7
4
10