ECHR Rules Radical Anti-Christian Protestors Have “Right” To Desecrate Church Sanctuary and Simulate Abortion of Baby Jesus as Freedom of Expression

The top human rights court in Europe has just ruled in favor of an anti-Christian radical who simulated the abortion of Christ by the Blessed Virgin, on the altar of the Madeleine Church in Paris in 2013. The judgment, in the Bouton v. France case, was handed down recently.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has once again sided with anti-Christian extremists, defending the "freedom of expression" of an individual who desecrated the Madeleine Church in Paris in 2013. This woman had exposed herself, urinating in front of the altar and the tabernacle, topless, wearing a crown of thorns and the blue veil of the Blessed Virgin, and holding "two pieces of ox liver in her hands, symbol of the aborted baby Jesus." On her chest were written the slogans "Christmas is cancelled" and "344th slut" in reference to the manifesto of the 343 pro-abortion feminists in 1971. It's hard to imagine anything more despicable.

But in this macabre staging and clear trespass and desecration of private church property, the ECHR saw the action of a courageous activist unjustly condemned, while her "sole aim," according to the ECHR, was very noble: to contribute "to the public debate on women's rights, more specifically on the right to abortion." The court speciously ruled that the protection of "freedom of conscience and religion" could not justify the conviction, and furthermore feigned to reproach the French courts for not having "examined whether [her] action was 'gratuitously offensive' to religious beliefs, whether it was insulting or whether it incited disrespect or hatred towards the Catholic Church.” What a sham! As if this were not obvious. This reminds us of a recent judgment of this same court in which it rejected the appeal of a Catholic after reproaching him for not having indicated precisely which Masses he had not been able to attend during the COVID crisis . . . when ALL public Masses were forbidden.

In condemning France in the church desecration case, the court said it was "struck by the severity of the penalty," which was only a one-month suspended prison sentence and a €2,000 fine. It deplored the fact that this sentence was registered on the activist's criminal record, as if her reputation had to suffer, and that the suspended sentence could become a firm prison sentence if she were to exercise her "freedom of expression" again. France is now ordered to pay her €9800 instead.

It is becoming a habit at the ECHR to defend these attacks in churches and against the Church. In 2018, it had already ruled that the provocation of the feminist punk group, the "Pussy riots," in the choir of the Orthodox Cathedral in Moscow was a form of expression protected by the court. The group’s lawyer, formerly working for George Soros’ foundation, has since become a judge at the ECHR.

But its position is quite different when it comes to Islam. In 2018, the ECHR upheld the criminal conviction of an Austrian lecturer who was accused of having equated Muhammad's relationship with a 9-year-old with "paedophilia." The ECHR ruled that the lecturer had not sought to inform the public objectively but to "demonstrate that Muhammad is not worthy of worship." In support of this conviction, the court considered that to speak of "paedophile" would be a "generalisation without any factual basis," "likely to arouse justified indignation" among Muslims. According to the court, these remarks constituted "a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance that underpins democratic society" and were likely to "stir up prejudice" and "endanger religious peace."

How can one not see a double standard, coupled with a guilty blindness?

How can the vulgar desecration of a Christian church and the intentional provocation of the abortion of Jesus be seen as any different? How can we not see in this double standard the court's own prejudices?

The court would never have supported such a macabre display if it had taken place in a mosque or in the precincts of a courthouse.  Do the judges in Strasbourg not see that every day in Europe churches are desecrated, burned, statues broken, and crosses knocked down? Do they not see the misunderstanding and hatred toward Christ and Christians spreading in society? Do they not see that, more and more, the court itself is encouraging this behavior to expand?

Let us try to imagine the world without Christ: We will see war and barbarism. We are already seeing this fall.