The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the woman, known only as Mrs S, was convicted by a lower court in Vienna for disparaging religious doctrines and was ordered to pay a 480 euros fine plus legal fees.
She appealed the decision and her case as thrown out by the Court of Appeal in the Austrian capital as well as the country’s Supreme Court.
The 47-year-old from Vienna was reported to have held seminars in which she made the blasphemous comments while debating the marriage between Mohammed and Aisha, a six-year-old girl.
The girl, who was one of the Prophet’s 13 wives, became an important figure in Islam but was only six-years-old when they married.
In one of her seminars, Mrs S is reported to have said: “A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?”
She also said Mohammed “liked to do it with children”.
She was convicted for insulting the religion in February 2011 by the Vienna Regional Criminal Court and yesterday the ECHR upheld their decision.
Mrs S had argued that her right to freedom of speech had been infringed but the ECHR ruled the lower courts had not violated that right, which is laid out in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
She also argued that her “criticism of Islam occurred in the framework of an objective and lively discussion which contributed to a public debate” and that she had not intended to defame the Prophet.
In a statement, the European Court of Human Right said: “The Court found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.
“It held that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate, and by classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace, the domestic courts put forward relevant and sufficient reasons.” Express.
