"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.
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).
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.
The European parliament is a proper democracy (and unfortunately not powerful enough). It's the European commission that kind of lacks democratic legitimacy.
Nitpick: A parliament can't be a democracy. It's a necessary ingredient to a democracy, but a parliament itself is just a room full of politicians. It's perfectly possible (and common) for a parliament to be structured democratically. But if it has no teeth, it's not part of a proper democracy.
Eg China has a parliament too but it's just for show. The EU parliament is somewhere in the middle. Norway's parliament is probably the gold standard.
> It's the European commission that kind of lacks democratic legitimacy.
The Council of the European Union as well. Many (but not all) of the government representatives sitting on the Council are elected as MPs in their own countries, but that shouldn't make them a powerful part of the legislature at the EU level.
I wish we had a real bicameral European Parliament instead of this historically grown mess.
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.
I think you’ve thoroughly misread my post and it’s context. Please tell me where any citizen can vote for the European Comission - not parliament - which you can’t, because you do realize they are appointed by the heads of government in each country directly, which is why it’s wrongly targeted as “undemocratic”.
My point is that if you call that undemocratic then there is lots of thing probably much closer to home that you should also critisize - like appointed cabinets forming the government - at least in the UK, you elect a local representative - nobody anywhere voted for e.g. Jeremy Hunt to be foreign secretary, so wouldn’t you have to argue that that is undemocratic also?
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):
"Proper" just in that its members are voted for (and often, the national regional populace can't even vote them directly, they are appointed by party leaders and the vote is wholesale).
Not proper in that it's wanted, established by popular demand, accountable, has checks and balances, and moves according to the voters will.
