There's an old joke about a disconsolate Welshman complaining bitterly to his local pub barman. "I've written poems for eleven Eisteddfods - but do they call me Dai the Poet? I painted the sign for this pub, the general store, the post office and the chapel - but do they call me Dai the sign-painter? I've made garden gates for every house in the High Street but do they call me Dai the gate-hanger? No. But they catch you fucking ONE goat ...."
Dai, had he existed in reality, would have enjoyed the ruling this week from the ECHR. Not so Douglas Murray, writing in the Speccie. I fear Douglas has actually got it wrong. He either hasn't fully read the court decision, or doesn't understand it. Let me reassure him. It's OK to state anywhere in Austria that the Prophet Mohammed married Aisha when she was six years old, and had sex with her when she was nine. No problem. The court accepts this as a fact that can be openly stated.
The ECHR even accepts that this act is open to moral critique, as to whether it was an act of child abuse, was detrimental to Aisha's mental and physical well-being, or even whether Aisha could have given informed consent, or whether a pre-pubescent child, being the vassal and property of a man who was her husband under the belief system of that time and place, could be subject without restriction to his sexual penetration whatever her age or willingness. All fine. Discuss.
What the court ruled we can't do is to call Mohammed a paedophile. A paedophile demonstrates a sexual predilection for sex with an entire class of pre-pubescent girls or boys - it is a state of continuous sexual perversion, a condition not an act. There is no evidence that Mohammed inflicting sex upon a single prepubescent child is sufficient evidence of a condition of paedophilia, ruled the court. Therefore the accusation is abusive and unlawful under Austrian law.
Dai the goat-fucker would down his pint in satisfaction.