Blasphemy, Defamation of Religions and Human Rights Law
| Published date | 01 December 2008 |
| DOI | 10.1177/016934410802600403 |
| Author | Jeroen Temperman |
| Date | 01 December 2008 |
| Subject Matter | Part A: Article |
Netherlands Q uarterly of Human R ights, Vol. 26/4, 517–545, 2008.
© Netherlands I nstitute of Human Rig hts (SIM), Printed in the Net herlands. 517
blasPHeMy, DefaMaTIOn Of RelIgIOns
anD HUMan RIgHTs law
J T*
Abstract
Blasphemy is a serious wrongdoing in all monotheistic world religions. Blasphemy
prohibitions have been brought into being and enforced so as to p rotect the dominant
religion specically. Religions as such, however, are not protected by international
human rights law. Human rights law protects and empowers people: every pe rson has
the right to freedom of religion or belief. Human rights l aw does not recog nise a right
to have one’s religion or belief at all times e xempted from criti cism, ridicule or insult,
or a right, in other words, to respec t for one’s religious feelings. e right to freedom of
expression is not an absolute right as it carries with it special duties and responsibilities.
is right c an be restricted on the basis of certain grounds for limitation; howe ver, the
interest of ‘religion’ as such is not among those ground s. In this article it is arg ued that
contrary to popular belief the two rights, though very much interdepend ent, do not in
abstracto ‘cla sh’. Moreover, with a view toward optimally guaranteeing human rights
law in actual pract ice, the t wo rights do as a rule not need to be balanced – for it is
precisely when the two rights are balanced without a legal necessity to do so that human
rights law is undermined. e broader intent of this article is to present a human rights-
based assessm ent of blasphemy prohibitions and counter-defamat ion (of religions)
initiatives. Rather than foc ussing on st rategies to counte r defamation of religions, we
should concentrate on and deal with practices tha t actually threaten individual human
rights; that is to say, we should more eectively tackle the i ssue of advocacy of religious
hatred that constitutes incite ment to discrimination, hostility or violenc e.
* Doctoral Fellow at t he Iris h Centre for Human Rights, National University of Ire land, G alway,
Ireland. Reac tions: jeroen.temperma n@gmail.com.
Jeroen Temperman
518 Intersentia
1. INTRODUCTION
Blasphemy is a serious wrongdoing in a ll monotheistic world religions.1 Blasphemy
prohibitions in States w ith a population that predominantly adheres to a specic
religion have traditiona lly been brought into being and enforced s o as to protect that
dominant religion specical ly. ere is a notable dierence be tween the blasphemy
prohibition in States that ocially identify with Islam and blasphemy bans in States that
are predominant ly Christian. I n the latter States, where the prohibitions histor ically
developed into provisions of statutory law (Penal Codes, typical ly) or where, springing
from a ncient cannon law, blasphemy became c enturies ago a common law oence,
the ban (ultimately)2 came to be used to solely counter intentionally insu lting speech
or publications vis-à-vis God, key doctri nal gures (Jesus Christ, chiey), or the
established religion a s such. us crim inalised are such forms of public s peech or
publication t hat are mea nt to shock or harm the feelings of the domi nant religious
community. In other words, merely having misgivings about certain doctri nal aspects
of a religion or the mere denial of God does – as a r ule3 – not qualify as blasphemy or
blasphemous libel in these jur isdictions.
By contra st, in the Islamic legal c ontext there has always been – and there still
is in many States that strongly identify with Islam – a considerable overlap bet ween
the crimes of apost asy and blasphemy. Intentionally insulting A llah, Muhammad, or
indeed the religion of Islam itself constitutes a punishable oence – yet, on top of that,
as a ru le, abandoning Islam as such is considered an ac t of blasphemy, since such an
act of disbel ief, in the nal a nalysis, amounts to an insult to the Muslim community
as a whole and, more importantly, to God.
1 E.g. the Old Testament prescribes the death penalt y by means of stoning : Holy Bible (Eng lish
Standard Version), Lev iticus 24: 10–23. e New Testament speak s of earth ly punishments a s well
as possible repercuss ions in the aerlife, yet solely with rega rd to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit:
Holy Bibl e (Engli sh Stand ard Version), Mat thew 12: 30–32. See a lso: Mark 3: 2 8–29. e Quran
speaks of ear thly pun ishments as well a s possible repercussions in the aerlife: e Holy Qur’an
(tranl. Abdulla h Yusuf Ali), 9:74. Ot her Qu ranic references to blas phemy (includi ng referenc es
that render Chris tian or Jewish doct rine blasphemous deviat ions from true doctr ine) include: 2:88;
4:155; 5:17; 5:64; 5:68; 5:73; 6:19; 9:74; 11:9; 14:28; and: 39:8.
2 Needless to say that in past times ‘t he Church’ did not shy away from cracking down on at heists
and apostates for merely denying God’s existence or on speci c forms of scientic research for
potentiall y undermining Chu rch doctrine.
3 ere are exceptions, e.g.: Sec. 36 of Ch. 272 of the Criminal Code of Massac husetts, USA: ‘Whoever
wilfu lly blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, c ursing or contumeliously reproa ching God,
his creation, government or na l judging of the world, or by cursing or contumelious ly reproaching
Jesus Christ or t he Ho ly G host, or by cursing or contumel iously reproaching or expo sing to
contempt and rid icule, the holy word of God contained i n the holy scriptu res shall be pu nished by
imprisonment in jai l for not more than one year or by a ne of not more than three hundred dolla rs,
and may a lso be bou nd to good be havior’ (emphasis adde d) – a provis ion clearly at odds with the
Supreme Cour t’s non-establishme nt doctrine based on the First Amendment (1789) to the federal
Constitution of t he United States of America (1787).
To continue reading
Request your trial