It’s plainly obvious that the political elite are using ancient laws on the books in order to stave off outrage by Muslim communities that they’ve invited into their midst.
Finnish politician, Jussi Hala-aho, before he entered political life was convicted for the same reasons Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted in an Austrian court. Facts didn’t matter to the judges, only the feelings of the supposed intended victims. In both cases the state was offended for the Islamic community. Proleptic dhimmitude
None of us should enjoy the right to have our beliefs shielded from abuse
We live in sorry times if hurt feelings have now become a matter for the lawmakers
Old-style blasphemy laws have given way to new legislation against hate speech and constraints on the giving of offence. Ireland’s repudiation of blasphemy and the ECHR’s opposition to the disparagement of religion may be two sides of the same shift.
We should no more support secular versions of blasphemy laws than the old religious variety. However different the motives, Muslims should not be protected from vilification of Muhammad any more than Christians from a poem some find vile. Sacranie should be able to call homosexuality “harmful”. ES should be able to label Muhammad a paedophile. And we should be free to challenge both as robustly as we wish.