Why blasphemy should be illegal

The trial never concluded as Fallaci died from breast cancer during its proceedings. In Denmark in , a man who posted a video of himself burning the Koran on Facebook only narrowly avoided trial when politicians abolished a centuries-old blasphemy law.

Poland, an overwhelmingly Catholic country, has a legal provision against publicly offending a person's religious feelings rather than a distinct blasphemy law. This carries the potential of up to two years in prison.

In , artist Dorota Nieznalska was sued under the law for a sculpture in which male genitals were shown attached to a Christian crucifix.

After a hugely divisive trial, she received a sentence of six months community service. But there was such international protest that her sentence was successfully appealed.

The Turkish Penal Code criminalises blasphemy and religious insult, as well as hate speech. In April , world-renowned pianist Fazil Say was given a month suspended sentence for religious defamation in connection with a series of Twitter posts, including one declaring himself an atheist and another quoting 12 th century Persian poet Omar Khayyam poking fun of the Islamic vision of paradise.

After a lengthy battle in the courts, Say was finally acquitted in September DiscoverHer Sculptor and video artist Dorota Nieznalska has been tried and convicted of "offending religious feelings" in her native Poland. In Ireland, prior to the October 26 decision to repeal the legislation, the last successful blasphemy case dates back to A Unitarian pastor and author Thomas Emlyn was convicted of blasphemy for his book that argued Jesus Christ was not the equal of God the Father.

Daily newsletter Receive essential international news every morning. Take international news everywhere with you! Download the France 24 app. It is also vital for all societies, to enable a plurality of opinions. The vast majority of countries are signed up to these conventions, and there is a strong claim even on the countries that are not signed up, namely that the right to speak freely is a basic moral right which states should uphold and protect.

Unlike freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief Article 18 of the UDHR and ICCPR which is absolute, freedom of expression can be limited under the international human rights framework.

These limits vary from state to state but for example, they sometimes include libel and defamation against individuals, incitement to hatred, violence or discrimination against a person, a group or a community. Such limits must respect strict legality and proportionality tests, as freedom of expression remains a human right, and its limitation must be the exception.

Such prohibitions against incitement to hatred or violence do not necessarily in themselves violate the right to freedom of expression. These modes of discourse questioning, criticising, satirising, ridiculing belong firmly in the realm of freedom of expression.

While freedom of thought and belief, including religious belief, must be protected, it is equally important to guarantee an environment in which a critical discussion about religion can be held. For example, in Ireland, as part of a referendum, a majority voted against the remaining blasphemy laws. In Pakistan, although blasphemy laws still exist, the Supreme Court acquitted Asia Bibi who was held on the death row for eight years because of unsubstantiated allegations of blasphemy.

These developments may suggest that things are starting to change. Blasphemy laws seek to restrict speech that may be perceived as offensive to Prophets and holy personages. Despite a global movement to abolish blasphemy laws, the laws remain in place. In fact, at least thirteen countries still hand down the death penalty for offences committed in contravention of blasphemy laws. Islamist students throw footwear toward effigies representing Asia Bibi, a Pakistani Christian woman Asia Bibi was unfortunate to have lived in such a country.

Asia Bibi, a Christian Pakistani woman, had been on death row since after being found guilty of making derogatory remarks about the Prophet Mohammed in an argument with another woman over a cup of water. After eight years she was given a second chance at justice. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the prosecutor had failed to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that she was guilty of blasphemy.

While the decision in Pakistan was welcomed by the international community, the protests that followed the decision show that one judgement is not enough to change a deep-rooted cultural issue. Indeed, the acquittal of Asia Bibi sparked protests some violent in many parts of Pakistan. Both concessions are as good as a death warrant on Asia Bibi.

While Asia Bibi has now been released, her whereabouts are not known. She may be released from the prison but is effectively imprisoned in a country where angry mobs call for her blood. Blasphemy laws have always been problematic as they rely on the notion of causing offence, which is subjective and vague. Blasphemy laws are based on the notion of statements outraging religious feelings and representations insulting the religion or religious beliefs.

Both outrage and insult are inexact concepts which create legal uncertainty and encourage an unhelpful degree of subjectivity. Apart from being subjective in nature, what is also glaring is that despite the fact that blasphemy laws tend to apply to all religions, they are being disproportionally used against religious minorities in states where such laws exist.