4 ms·
The European Court of Human Rights doesn't rule on abstract ideas. It rules on particular cases. They didn't say denying the Armenian Genocide is okay while d
by slg 5y ago
The European Court of Human Rights doesn't rule on abstract ideas. It rules on particular cases. They didn't say denying the Armenian Genocide is okay while denying the Holocaust isn't. They ruled on two individual cases that seem to be contradictory when summarized in a single sentence. That doesn't mean they truly are contradictory once examined in depth.
- skissane 5y agoYou haven't explained how they aren't contradictory. You've just claimed that, if one examines them in depth, they will be found not to be contradictory. Have you examined them in depth yourself?
- slg 5y agoI'm not sure why the burden is on me, but here is the first Google result when plugging in both case names[1]: >The Court began by noting the decisions in its previous cases concerning the denial of the Holocaust and other statements relating to Nazi crimes. Previous statements have been held to be inadmissible, either as being ill-founded under Article 10(2) when read with Article 17 (citing Williamson v. Germany ECtHR [2019] 64496/17), or otherwise as having incompatible subject matter jurisdiction under Article 17 (Perinçek v. Switzerland ECtHR [2015] 27510/08). The Court reiterated that Article 17 is reserved for extreme cases and on exceptional bases, and should only be used in Article 10 cases if it is “immediately clear” that the statements in issue seek to employ the right to freedom of expression “for ends clearly contrary to the values of the Convention” (para 37) – such as inciting hatred or violence or aiming to destroy the rights and freedoms listed in the Convention. Any case concerning Holocaust denial must be taken on a case-by-case basis and depends on all the circumstances of that particular case, when it comes to the Court’s decision to either apply Article 17 directly to the applicant’s Article 10 application and declare it incompatible with the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court, or instead to apply the general law principles under Article 10 and invoke Article 17 at a later stage as an interpretive aid when examining the necessity of any alleged interference by the domestic courts. [1] - https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/pasto%CC%88rs-v-germany/ https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/pasto%C...
- skissane 5y agoSo, quoting a court's justification of its decision, proves the court made the right decision? Of course the ECHR is going to claim "this case is unique and isn't inconsistent with our rulings in other cases". Just because they claim that doesn't make it true.
- slg 5y agoI never said it was the right decision. I said it is possible for the two decisions to coexist and that is the description for how they coexist. I don't know what I else I could write here that would satisfy you.
- skissane 5y agoSo, my claim is, that the ECHR's case law on genocide denial is inconsistent, and that inconsistency is politically motivated. I don't think I've proven the claim. But I think an objective person would have to say that there is a reasonable possibility it is true. Do you agree there is a reasonable possibility the claim is true?
- imwillofficial 5y agoSuddenly ::crickets::
- slg 5y agoSorry, I didn't realize I had an obligation to spend all of my Friday night constantly refreshing HN. My fault.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- slg 5y ago>Do you agree there is a reasonable possibility the claim is true? Sure, it is reasonable it is politically motivated. It is also reasonable it isn't. Giving the lack of definitive answer, I chose to give the benefit of the doubt to the ECHR. Either way, I don't understand what point you are trying to make.