A 10-year-old strip, featuring an old joke, in response to this. European Court of Human Rights’ judgement

Discussion (48)¬

  1. Laripu says:

    Strange: it will now be deemed contrary to human rights to refer to Mohamed as a pedophile. But talking about this court case does not violate human rights. So I suggest that the media spend lots of time talking about a court case in which a woman was fined for saying that …….. MOHAMED WAS A PEDOPHILE.

  2. Forse says:

    If a man today has sex with a nine year old girl, it would be a crime to DENY that he’s a paedophile

  3. eoinkenobi says:

    Yes indeed Laripu, the case in which a woman said:
    A 56-year-old and a nine-year-old, what is that if not pedophilia?
    is very much deserving of comment.

  4. HelenaHandbasket says:

    Whats that you say, Laripu? dID you say that there was a court case where a woman was fined for SAYING THAT MOHAMMED WAS A PEDOPHILE? Speak up now, I’m slightly hard of hearing…

  5. Philip Maxwell Senior says:

    This decision is an affront to the basic human right we call ‘Freedom of Speech’, and with this ruling the ECHR are stirring up prejudice themselves. It’s this type of special treatment afforded to Muslim ‘feelings’ that sends the message that they are different from the rest of us. It tells us that Muslims are to be feared and cannot be expected to respond reasonably to speech they do not like. It’s the ‘Bigotry of Lowered Expectations’. Would ‘religious peace’ really be jeopardized by allowing (historically accurate) opinions like this to be expressed freely? It lends credence to the Islamists and Jihadists mindset of “Don’t criticize our prophet/religion, or we will kill you”. Islam means ‘Submission’, and with this ruling we are submitting to unreasonable demands. Reject it, while you still can!

  6. Anne Elk says:

    Oh, Author, and all the rest commenting on this strip: you’re goons go to hell for this. Me, I’m off for a pint. Is it just me, but don’t recall any omam’s being accused, charged and/or convicted of raping children like the catholic clergy has. And is there any cases of priests raping girls?

  7. 1HappyHeathen says:

    hmmmm… even here with our free speech hating orange menace president that I like to call Cheeto jesus… I’m sure we can still state facts and SAYING THAT MOHAMMED WAS A PEDOPHILE is just a fact according to the story the quran tells. is it not factual? was mohammutt a made up story like jesus? or was mohammutt an actual person ? if the book is factual he was a PEDOPHILE by all definitions of the word…. sounds like some judges over there are dabbling in activism…. a bad road to go down.

  8. CliffB says:

    The court is very foolish. It is just this kind of judgment and suppression that gives force to the arguments and popularity of the far right. It should never be illegal to state a simple fact, especially when it is about a seventh century warlord who liked children.

    It rather runs counter to what is going on in the UK at the moment where it is now de riguer to state facts about sexual predators, even when the courts have said you cannot.

  9. Someone says:

    Anne Elk, I don’t think I’ve ever read or heard tales about imams raping little girls. Forced circumcision, honor killings, arranged marriage, promotion of physical and psychological abuse, sure. But child rape? Not that I know of.
    Oh wait, Google is your friend! Link

  10. M27Holts says:

    I’m certain that Mohammed was definately a Paedophile and a mass murderer…Apart from that he was probably a very nice chap who bought his mother flowers….

  11. How dare you all call MOHAMMED A PEDOPHILE just because he fucked a nine-year-old girl? What about his human rights?!

  12. Jon Pierson says:

    According to the judgment ({“itemid”:[“001-187188″]}) ” Applying the above considerations to the applicant’s case, the Supreme Court held that she had not aimed to contribute to a serious debate about Islam or the phenomenon of child marriage, but merely to defame Muhammad by accusing him of a specific sexual preference, based on the assumption that he had had sexual intercourse with a prepubescent child, in order to show that he was not a worthy subject of worship. Not misjudging the importance of the debate about sexual contact between adults and children, the applicant had not contributed to a debate of general interest, because she had made her allegation primarily in order to defame Muhammad.”

    It seems to me that it is, then, OK to condemn child marriage and having sex with a nine-year-old so long as you don’t use the words “paedophile” or “paedophilia”.

    In future, I will say that, “According to Muslim writings, Mohammed married a six-year-old girl and had sex with her when she was only nine. Mohammed had sex with a nine-year-old girl; in civilised countries, we have a name for that but I’m not allowed to use it”.

  13. Hot holy fuck, this is unbelievable. It breaks my heart the way it plays into the hands of the alt right and their claim that political correctness, i.e. being polite to people who want us to use a preferred pronoun, has gone too far.
    If ever there was a clear case of free speech being exercised, this has to be it. And some moron, or several morons, in judges robes can’t get their heads out of their backsides and agree on the obvious.
    Author, I thought you were just recycling a very old joke with a clever variation on the punch line. But the link you added puts this all in a wholly different class. Thanks for the education.

  14. Son 0f Glenner says:

    Author: Two strips in three days! (Both excellent, BTW.) You’re too good to us regulars, spoiling us rotten. Careful, or we’ll be demanding twice-weekly strips all the time!

    In the interests of full disclosure: I am not a paedophile and have no unhealthy interest in nine-year old girls (or boys for that matter). Of course, to quote Mandy Rice-Davies, I would say that anyway, wouldn’t I. To quote someone else (who?) let him without sin be the first to cast a stone, etc etc etc.

  15. Bvereshagen says:

    If having sex with nine year olds is no longer considered paedophilia in Europe I would imagine that a lot of the southeast Asian sex tourism trade will now be able to “vacation” at home.

  16. WrinklyDick says:

    So now a spade must be called an earth-inverting horticultural implement,in the interests of religious harmony. Whatever next?

  17. Walter says:

    One eight year old girl is like one sheep. That’s what everyone will remember.

  18. postdoggerel says:

    we’re missing you, Nassar Ben Houdja.
    please write some more limericks, couldja.
    make them devilish, ironic,
    put the djinn in our tonic,
    set another round up for us, wouldja.

  19. Chiefy says:

    I guess Muhammed was a connoisseur of youthful booty, er, beauty. I will be careful not to say that THE PROPHET WAS A PEDOPHILE.

  20. Son of Glenner says:

    podstdoggerel: You may have missed Author’s message that he has written to NBH, but has had no reply.

    Actually, your little limerick is better, and more “technically correct”, than most of the offerings from NBH!

  21. postdoggerel says:

    Son of Glenner, I admired the biting wit of NBH. True, his rhythm was broken at times, but the message always rang out. I’d like to have seen the one that Author said crossed the line. We need folks like NBH in these post truth times, and that’s a fact.

  22. DocAtheist says:

    Any chance those judges are also pedophiles and covering their own arses with this?

    Funny, isn’t it, what people drunk on the power invested in them by governmental authorities might do with that governmental power.

  23. Walter P. Kronkat says:

    How low can the EU courts go? Well, I don’t live in Europe and with my poor health have zero chance of visiting any part of it. Who could have even guess that living in ‘Merikkka would still be worth doing? Far as I can tell, this court cannot mess with me here……..yet. This PC crap needs to go away, mind you every cat that I shared my homes with were PC; pesky critters.

  24. M27Holts says:

    The fookwits in Strasbourg or where ever they convene, would probably use the same logic to exonnerate the islamic men who think that since their prophet had sex with a nine year old or even possibly younger, then sharia law would bring the age of consent down to six! Europe is sleep walking into another serious conflict…

  25. Alverant says:

    Jon and Walter, do you think it’s possible the courts ruled as they did to protect christianity as well? According to christian myth, Mary was only 11 when their god knocked her up without getting concent first. If Mo is a pedo/paedo then so is the christian god. Hey, at least Mo married her first and took care of her (not that she can concent to that either but the gesture was made) instead of dumping her on some hapless minion.

    So maybe the judges didn’t want someone to “merely to defame God by accusing him of a specific sexual preference, based on the assumption that he had had sexual intercourse with a prepubescent child, in order to show that he was not a worthy subject of worship” as well.

  26. Laripu says:

    All the religions, taken together or individually, each contain elements that are ridiculous, or immoral, or stupid, or evil.

    The obvious conclusion, to anyone capable of seeing the blatantly obvious, is that no religion is worthy of worship, or even minimal respect.

    But of course, in this forum, saying the above is just “preaching to the choir”. 😉 😀 After a fashion. As it were. In a manner of speaking.

  27. jb says:

    Well this is a surprise — I had no idea Europe’s rulers even pretended to care about protecting freedom of speech!!!

    I’ll note though that when it comes to free speech, the true test is not whether you will defend people who say defensible things about people you don’t like, but whether you will defend people you don’t like when they say things that are indefensible. The best example (and I think you all know what’s coming) would probably be Holocaust deniers. My own feeling is that such people are swine, and yet their right to free speech still needs to be protected, and they should be able to speak their piece without fear of the state. This is the formal position the American government, on account of the First Amendment, but it is not the position of most (any?) European governments.

    So what do you guys think? Where would you draw the line?

  28. CliffB says:

    A paedophile prophet called Mo
    Was waiting in line for a ho;
    An angel came down
    And said with a frown
    ‘I can dictate the Koran, or go.’

  29. M27Holts says:

    JB. Having personally seen the typed lists of the holocaust victims ( in poland) and having spoken to surviving members of my grandads tank unit who witnessed the evidence of the mass murder. The right to opine that the holocaust was a Jewish conspiracy is not the same as somebody who is giving an opinion on historical fact….However, true free speech does allow people to say whatever bollocks they so wish. Just laugh at the stupid fookers…

  30. People get confused about free speech. It really should mean that you can say whatever hateful thing you want without fear of legal repercussions. It doesn’t mean that you have a right to a platform like Facebook, Twitter, anybody’s blog, or the C&B. People complain that their free speech is being taken away when they are blocked or kicked off platforms. That’s not happening. They are still totally free to be an asshole. We just don’t have any obligation to broadcast them or listen to them.
    I am a free speech purist. If the law can stop somebody from saying the holocaust was fake news, then it can stop me from saying mo was a pedophile. We either have free speech or we don’t.
    I don’t expect Answers in Genesis to post my atheist rants. It’s up to those who own the platforms, or the servers, to police the hateful opinions.

  31. GodlessToo says:

    Since this is an atheist site pointing out misconceptions is important to everyone. Paedophilia is a treatable psychological condition recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Child sexual assault is a societal and legal construct that applies age limits to what is and isn’t acceptable. The two are often conflated but are not the same. With no psychological data available, Mo being a paedophile is speculation and, given the laws and mores of the era, he would not have even been considered guilty of child sexual assault (at least by the men of the times). Mo was a disgusting pig no matter what standards are applied. What makes all this truly horrific are those religious troglodytes trying to apply what was seemingly acceptable back then as an an excuse to violate the laws and restriction of modern society. Societies evolve but the religious don’t always get the memo.

  32. Godless Too, good points. You are quite correct that we should be making a distinction between pedophilia and child sexual assault. I think there are some who argue that pedophilia may be treatable, but it is no more curable than homosexuality.
    But I think the main point here is that we should be able to state our opinion about somebody’s sexual behavior toward a child without fear of legal consequences.
    BTW your avatar looks familiar. Mind telling me the source?

  33. Laripu says:

    Darwin, it’s John Dillinger, bank-robbing gangster.

    I didn’t know, but did a Google Image search. Google knows everything. 🙂

  34. Son of Glenner says:

    Laripu: So Google is omniscient. Arguably, it is also omnipresent. How about “omnipotent”?

  35. M27Holts says:

    The age of consent is set at a sensible 16 years in most 21st century democracies. However, the age of consent in Muslim theocracies is very much an interpretation of the Koran and application of sharia…which I would Imagine is closer to six than sixteen. You can see why the Muslim men would be so keen to have sharia global…..a lot of western men would also be keen for such leniency in terms of sexual activity with minors….

  36. two cents' worth says:

    Son of Glenner, don’t go giving Google ideas! 😉

  37. Paddy says:

    Feeling disappointed in the EHCR here, much as I enjoyed Godless Too’s technical quibble

  38. FreeFox says:

    So… the strip is older than the girl, huh?

  39. jb says:

    No SoG, Google is not omnipotent… yet.

  40. Laripu says:

    Son of Glenner, of course I was being glib when I said that Google knows everything. Google doesn’t know how “spring has sprung on Jupiter and Mars”. And since it isn’t there it isn’t omnipresent. Therefore it is merely yet another false idol.

    It’s a big universe. Omniscience and omnipresence are demanding properties.

  41. M27Holts says:

    And logically a being cannot be omniscient AND omnipotent since both are mutually exclusive in some properties…

  42. HelenaHandbasket says:

    Godless too. Interesting points. The DSM-5 certainly defines paedophilia as a disorder–but even without that appleation there is still a technical issue of what constitutes attraction to minors–e.g. Tanner stages 1 & 2 (pre-pubescent)

  43. Deimos says:

    First limerick attempt on new supa doopa phone, it may be too big cos new phone is too.

    There was an old shaman called mo
    To the playground he’d regularly go
    To pick a young wife
    And then ruin her life
    But was he a paedophile – NO?

  44. Troubleshooter says:

    The blunt end of the stick is: if you molest kids, you’re a pedophile. It doesn’t matter if you’re a sixth-century would-be prophet with delusions of grandeur or a modern-day priest with a vast organization to help cover up your crime.

    YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE … and you can damned well learn to live with the title.

  45. HelenaHandbasket says:

    Trouble-shooter: There is value in distinguishing attraction to minors from acting on that attraction. For one thing–it enables people who have the former but don’t want to act on it to seek help. At the moment, in many places, this is not possible–all mentions of paedophilia (desire without behavior) mandate reporting to the authorities and the legal machinery starts to roll. Under those conditions, who is likely to report such desires?
    This letter to noted sex advice columnist Dan Savage goes into some details

  46. Troubleshooter says:

    Helena, the sad fact is that, in both the cases of Roman Catholic priests and our buddy Mo, they yielded to temptation. What’s worse in Mo’s case is that his behavior is considered an example of the “perfect man,” and I’ve seen Muslim imams all over YouTube commenting on how his behavior is justified. Thankfully, there’s little evidence that such actions are much extant (if at all) in the United States. Sadly, to compensate, we seen to have a LOT of Catholic priests making up for it.

    Thought-crime isn’t a crime YET. I don’t give a damn about whether someone is inappropriately attracted to a child. I care that they act on it, and in the cases of both Jesus’ and Mo’s followers, they have, and they damned well need to pay a serious price for that.

  47. Tinkling Think says:

    “The Paedophile Prophet”? Really? Have we forgotten about all of the rest of them so soon? Surely the historical Mo’ [unlike his body double, who is entirely innocent as he seems to have no relations with females deeper than arguing with Barmaid] is merely A “paedophile prophet”, one among many and less vile than many of the others?

    Yes, GodlessToo, I should change “paedophile” to “child molesting” but the more accurate descriptor does not alliterate and the lesser was used by the Good Author.


NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.