Are there permissible limits to freedom of expression ?

The Department of Health consults its usual sources

European institutions contain traitors and enemies of our historic jurisprudence and of our traditional way of life over the centuries.

For example, at the end of October 2018 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that “Defaming the Prophet Mohammed goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate and could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace.” And it “exceeds the permissible limits of freedom of expression.” In practice this means that any criticism of the Prophet renders the critic liable to prosecution and, if found guilty, to severe punishment.

The decision by a seven-judge panel came after an Austrian teacher, publicly identified as Mrs S, at two seminars in 2009 entitled “Basic Information on Islam” was judged to have defamed the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage. Reportedly Mrs S. had commented on the 56- year-old Prophet’s marriage to a six-year-old girl: “What is that but paedophilia?” Fair question, you might think.

That ruling came in the same week that Asia Bibi was released from her prison in Pakistan where she had been incarcerated for nine years for the following offence:

Back in June 2009, Asia, who is a Christian, was harvesting fruit with a group of Muslim women and they began to fall out among themselves over who should have first use of a bucket of water. This was when Asia committed her crime. She had presumed to use a cup belonging to one of her Muslim co-workers. The women were appalled and claimed they could no longer touch the cup as Asia’s Christian faith had made it unclean.

The Muslim women told Asia to make amends by converting to Islam. But the Christian woman showed no signs of repentance for her transgression: indeed, she went on to make three derisory remarks about the Prophet. The Muslim women beat her up. Asia struggled home by herself and then other Muslim women came round to administer a second beating. At that point, the religious police turned up and carted Asia off to prison where she languished for nine years until her recent release. Feelings among local Muslims are running high and Asia has already received death threats, so it would be no great surprise if we were to read that she had had her throat slit by a posse of outraged Muslims.

The stories of Mrs S. and Asia Bibi raise a number of questions. First in Asia’s case, there is the problem of terminological inexactitude because the crime of which she was adjudged guilty nine years ago was blasphemy. That cannot be right, for blasphemy is a crime against God and God alone. Asia blamed, insulted or even defamed the Prophet. But Mohammed was a man indeed the Muslims themselves never claim he was a god. Secondly, Mrs S. made a reasonable critical comment about the Prophet based on historical evidence provided by Islamic texts.

In neither of these two cases could the alleged offences amount to blasphemy. What is happening here is that the invented “crime” of blasphemy is being used by the Islamophile authorities in European institutions – the enemies and traitors I referred to at the start – as a pretext for the statutory prevention of free speech. It’s worth noting in passing that the name of Jesus Christ has been publicly defamed and cursed countless times over the centuries, yet the politically-correct autocrats in the ECHR have not once sought to condemn his defamers. I might add that, in the case of Jesus, it would be accurate to describe his defamers as blasphemers because, unlike Mohammed, Jesus is God the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

The ECHR contains traitors and enemies precisely because it prefers the hideous death cult of Islam over the European Christian civilisation against which Islam has waged imperialistic wars for 1400 years. Islam, the famous religion of peace and love, has got a CV. Here is a summary of its imperialistic incursions and attempted conquests over the last millennium and beyond:

In AD 732 an invading Muslim army of as many as 200,000 men was defeated by the Christian Charles Martel at Tours. If that battle had been lost, all Europe would have fallen to militant Islam .In 1565 the relief of the Siege of Malta, by a Christian alliance, ensured that the Mediterranean did not fall into Muslim hands and so give them a toehold in southern Europe.

Following the defeat of the Muslim Turks by the Knights of St John at Malta in 1565, there came the Battle of Lepanto on 7th October 1571 when a fleet of the Holy League, a coalition of Spain (including its territories of Naples, Sicily and Sardinia), the Republic of Venice, the Papacy, the Republic of Genoa, the Duchy of Savoy, the Knights Hospitaller and others, decisively defeated the main fleet of the Ottoman Empire.

Then there was that other 11th September – 1683 when Christian armies under Jan Sobieski arrived at the gates of Vienna and defeated the last substantial Muslim incursion: the last, that is, before the one which we face at present.

The ECHR needs to decide which side it is on in this existential struggle



Free speech isn’t free – Make a donation to the Salisbury Review



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

5 Comments on Are there permissible limits to freedom of expression ?

  1. @Raven, it is nothing but pure cowardice. As the Revd. Peter has pointed out, they are quite happy to condone, nay encourage, the slandering and insult of the Lord Jesus Christ, because deep down they know that nothing much will happen to them.

    They can pose as courageous “freethinkers” and “liberals”. Yet they know that the same is almost certainly not going to happen if they talk about Islam.

  2. The Revd. Peter shows great acuity, in pointing out the strange willingness to defend Islam, that is shown by many of The West’s most powerful organisations.
    The question is what drives organisations such as the ECHR to do this, is it ignorance, stupidity or something more sinister?

    • I suppse their plan is to take down the “dominant religion or world view” under their jurisdiction by pumping up a competitive ideology. One the top dog is taken out they can do the same until I suppose they remove all ideologies based on the supernatural.

      Here in the west that means take down Christianity, then Islam, Judaism, all the monotheist religions and perhaps they might then go after Buddhism and Hinduism. That’s the plan of marxism. In the east and south, they are too smart to kill off their own cultures.

  3. One can have but little faith in a religion that won’t bear criticism. And asking the ECHR to adjudicate on such matters shows how little faith we have in ourselves.

  4. It is worth remembering that during the drive of Malta by the Muslim Turks, the entire population of the neighbouring island of Gozo was enslaved,

    That would have been the fate of the inhabitants of Malta, had it too fallen.