3 ms·

The European parliament certainly believes (with a two-thirds majority) that the current government in Hungary poses a "systematic threat" to democracy and the

The European parliament certainly believes (with a two-thirds majority) that the current government in Hungary poses a "systematic threat" to democracy and the rule of law: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/12/eu-meps-vote-to-pursue-action-against-hungary-over-orban-crackdown https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/12/eu-meps-vote-t...

ygkkojr6 8y ago
>“The Hungarian people deserve better,” she said. “They deserve freedom of speech, [...], all of which are enshrined in the European treaties.” That's just fucking laughable. A woman was convicted for saying Muhammad was a paedophile (he was in his 50s when he had sexual relations with a 9 year old) under blasphemy laws in Austria and the European court said the conviction was correct: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-correctly-convicted-Austria-calling-Prophet-Mohammed-paedophile-ECHR-rules.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-corre...
- pennaMan 8y ago
  Quoting tabloids is not going to win you any arguments
  - ygkkojr6 8y ago
    Talk about "shooting the messenger". Maybe you'll like this American, left-leaning publication better: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-free-speech-criticize-muhammad-echr-ruled/574174/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr... Edit, to the guy below: it wasn't invalidated... can you even read? The European court said that the conviction was valid. I'm laughing that the EU says free speech is important and Hungary is violating that right, but there's no free speech in the EU.
    - skrause 8y ago
      The publication doesn't matter because you're directly contradicting yourself. You just wrote in another comment: > Having a corrupt public servant (if this is the case here) does not make a country a "repressive state". And now you seem to argue that other countries look repressive as well by quoting a single conviction that was invalidated by the ECJ.
      - andai 8y ago
        That's the opposite of what happened.
      - cyphar 8y ago
        The EHCR, not the ECJ (the latter of which is related to trade agreements). The EHCR did the opposite of invalidate her conviction -- they upheld the decision of the Austrian court[1]. In other words, they rejected the claim that Austria's anti-blasphemy laws are a violation of human rights (which I disagree with -- though I'm definitely not anti-EU like others in this chain). [1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-free-speech-criticize-muhammad-echr-ruled/574174/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...
- chki 8y ago
  "The European Court said the conviction was correct" First of all, I think the argument that can be drawn from one Court decision is not very strong. Second and possibly more important: this was a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (which is completely unrelated to the European Court of Justice and the EU) and the decision was not an appeal but the question was whether Austria had violated the European Convention on Human Rights which is a specific international treaty with specific Rights, mainly crafted in the late 1940s. It doesn't aim to be an all around Constitution for Europe but protects certain things for example in this case possibly free speech under Art. 10. The fact the the HR Court interpreted the Convention in a way that allowed Austrian Authorities to fine a certain statement does in no way imply that freedom of speech is not protected in the European Union or in the Council of Europe Member States. Instead it is a fundamental idea of the European Convention on HR that states get a certain margin of appreciation to make decisions such as these. In other cases (for example concerning whistleblowing or Lingens v Austria) the Court has upheld free speech.
- close04 8y ago
  You should understand the framework around this whole thing, since it involves religion (ancient, fictitious or otherwise very hard to prove, very little actionable evidence, mostly based on belief), but also current laws and crimes (well documented, easy to provide evidence). First of all when you make an accusation you have to prove it, bring actual evidence, otherwise it's slander (or blasphemy, in a religious case). Second, we're talking about religion, so take every detail (the "evidence") with a grain of salt. Third, even assuming you can use a holy book to prove your case, the accusation is not valid because the law you're using wasn't in place back then when the "crime" was committed. On the other hand a blasphemy law is in place when your crime was committed. So although I'm as far from a religious person as it gets, I still believe people are entitled to their own religious beliefs without someone uselessly dragging them through the mud. Every religion mentions some details that could prove insulting for many people, why bring one up in particular? And if a law is in place don't break it arguing that it's unfair. Maybe fight for changing it before you break it.
coldtea 8y ago
Then again, it's not like the European parliament is a proper democracy, or that the European people really go for the bureaucracy in Brussels...
- skrause 8y ago
  The European parliament is a proper democracy (and unfortunately not powerful enough). It's the European commission that kind of lacks democratic legitimacy.
  - misnome 8y ago
    Only if you squint really hard. It's about as undemocratic as an appointed cabinet.
    - jopsen 8y ago
      EU MPs are elected.
      - misnome 8y ago
        Yes, but the council isn’t - each member is appointed by the governments. So, my point is, that if you claim its undemocratic then you also have to call national cabinets undemocratic, or ambassadorships undemocratic.
    - gambiting 8y ago
      You do realise that every single EU citizen can vote for the EU parliament, right? It doesn't get any more democratic than this.
      - coldtea 8y ago
        You do realize that citizens were allowed to vote in all number of dictatorships, right? Being able to vote is the bare minimum for a democracy, not its ultimate realization. The accountability of elected officials, the procedures, who and when voted for those procedures, the processes used, etc., are more important than merely being able to vote. In fact the mere decline in participation and lack of voter engagement is also indicative of the disconnect between Brussels and the national EU-voters. I'm more left-of-center myself, but even the right-of-center Economist put it somewhat well (if mildly): https://www.economist.com/briefing/2014/05/15/elected-yet-strangely-unaccountable https://www.economist.com/briefing/2014/05/15/elected-yet-st...

ygkkojr6 8y ago

>“The Hungarian people deserve better,” she said. “They deserve freedom of speech, [...], all of which are enshrined in the European treaties.” That's just fucking laughable. A woman was convicted for saying Muhammad was a paedophile (he was in his 50s when he had sexual relations with a 9 year old) under blasphemy laws in Austria and the European court said the conviction was correct: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-correctly-convicted-Austria-calling-Prophet-Mohammed-paedophile-ECHR-rules.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-corre...

pennaMan 8y ago
Quoting tabloids is not going to win you any arguments
- ygkkojr6 8y ago
  Talk about "shooting the messenger". Maybe you'll like this American, left-leaning publication better: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-free-speech-criticize-muhammad-echr-ruled/574174/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr... Edit, to the guy below: it wasn't invalidated... can you even read? The European court said that the conviction was valid. I'm laughing that the EU says free speech is important and Hungary is violating that right, but there's no free speech in the EU.
  - skrause 8y ago
    The publication doesn't matter because you're directly contradicting yourself. You just wrote in another comment: > Having a corrupt public servant (if this is the case here) does not make a country a "repressive state". And now you seem to argue that other countries look repressive as well by quoting a single conviction that was invalidated by the ECJ.
    - andai 8y ago
      That's the opposite of what happened.
    - cyphar 8y ago
      The EHCR, not the ECJ (the latter of which is related to trade agreements). The EHCR did the opposite of invalidate her conviction -- they upheld the decision of the Austrian court[1]. In other words, they rejected the claim that Austria's anti-blasphemy laws are a violation of human rights (which I disagree with -- though I'm definitely not anti-EU like others in this chain). [1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-free-speech-criticize-muhammad-echr-ruled/574174/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...
chki 8y ago
"The European Court said the conviction was correct" First of all, I think the argument that can be drawn from one Court decision is not very strong. Second and possibly more important: this was a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (which is completely unrelated to the European Court of Justice and the EU) and the decision was not an appeal but the question was whether Austria had violated the European Convention on Human Rights which is a specific international treaty with specific Rights, mainly crafted in the late 1940s. It doesn't aim to be an all around Constitution for Europe but protects certain things for example in this case possibly free speech under Art. 10. The fact the the HR Court interpreted the Convention in a way that allowed Austrian Authorities to fine a certain statement does in no way imply that freedom of speech is not protected in the European Union or in the Council of Europe Member States. Instead it is a fundamental idea of the European Convention on HR that states get a certain margin of appreciation to make decisions such as these. In other cases (for example concerning whistleblowing or Lingens v Austria) the Court has upheld free speech.
close04 8y ago
You should understand the framework around this whole thing, since it involves religion (ancient, fictitious or otherwise very hard to prove, very little actionable evidence, mostly based on belief), but also current laws and crimes (well documented, easy to provide evidence). First of all when you make an accusation you have to prove it, bring actual evidence, otherwise it's slander (or blasphemy, in a religious case). Second, we're talking about religion, so take every detail (the "evidence") with a grain of salt. Third, even assuming you can use a holy book to prove your case, the accusation is not valid because the law you're using wasn't in place back then when the "crime" was committed. On the other hand a blasphemy law is in place when your crime was committed. So although I'm as far from a religious person as it gets, I still believe people are entitled to their own religious beliefs without someone uselessly dragging them through the mud. Every religion mentions some details that could prove insulting for many people, why bring one up in particular? And if a law is in place don't break it arguing that it's unfair. Maybe fight for changing it before you break it.

coldtea 8y ago

Then again, it's not like the European parliament is a proper democracy, or that the European people really go for the bureaucracy in Brussels...

skrause 8y ago
The European parliament is a proper democracy (and unfortunately not powerful enough). It's the European commission that kind of lacks democratic legitimacy.
- misnome 8y ago
  Only if you squint really hard. It's about as undemocratic as an appointed cabinet.
  - jopsen 8y ago
    EU MPs are elected.
    - misnome 8y ago
      Yes, but the council isn’t - each member is appointed by the governments. So, my point is, that if you claim its undemocratic then you also have to call national cabinets undemocratic, or ambassadorships undemocratic.
  - gambiting 8y ago
    You do realise that every single EU citizen can vote for the EU parliament, right? It doesn't get any more democratic than this.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      You do realize that citizens were allowed to vote in all number of dictatorships, right? Being able to vote is the bare minimum for a democracy, not its ultimate realization. The accountability of elected officials, the procedures, who and when voted for those procedures, the processes used, etc., are more important than merely being able to vote. In fact the mere decline in participation and lack of voter engagement is also indicative of the disconnect between Brussels and the national EU-voters. I'm more left-of-center myself, but even the right-of-center Economist put it somewhat well (if mildly): https://www.economist.com/briefing/2014/05/15/elected-yet-strangely-unaccountable https://www.economist.com/briefing/2014/05/15/elected-yet-st...