Newsletter

January 2010

Blasphemy Laws

Jonathan Turley

Perhaps in an effort
to rehabilitate the United States’ image in the Muslim world, the Obama
administration has joined a U.N. effort to restrict religious speech. This
country should never sacrifice freedom of expression on the altar of religion.

Around the world, free speech is being sacrificed on the altar of religion.
Whether defined as hate speech, discrimination or simple blasphemy, governments
are declaring unlimited free speech as the enemy of freedom of religion. This
growing movement has reached the United Nations, where religiously conservative
countries received a boost in their campaign to pass an international blasphemy
law. It came from the most unlikely of places: the United States.

While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration
supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council
to recognize exceptions to free speech for any "negative racial and religious
stereotyping." The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free
speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that
worries civil libertarians. Though the resolution was passed unanimously,
European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the
issue of protecting religions from criticism. It is viewed as a transparent bid
to appeal to the "Muslim street" and our Arab allies, with the administration
seeking greater coexistence through the curtailment of objectionable speech.
Though it has no direct enforcement (and is weaker than earlier versions), it is
still viewed as a victory for those who sought to juxtapose and balance the
rights of speech and religion.

In the resolution, the administration aligned itself with Egypt, which has long
been criticized for prosecuting artists, activists and journalists for insulting
Islam. For example, Egypt recently banned a journal that published respected
poet Helmi Salem merely because one of his poems compared God to a villager who
feeds ducks and milks cows. The Egyptian ambassador to the U.N., Hisham Badr,
wasted no time in heralding the new consensus with the U.S. that "freedom of
expression has been sometimes misused" and showing that the "true nature of this
right" must yield to government limitations.

His U.S. counterpart, Douglas Griffiths, heralded "this joint project with
Egypt" and supported the resolution to achieve "tolerance and the dignity of all
human beings." While not expressly endorsing blasphemy prosecutions, the
administration departed from other Western allies in supporting efforts to
balance free speech against the protecting of religious groups.

Thinly disguised blasphemy laws are often defended as necessary to protect the
ideals of tolerance and pluralism. They ignore the fact that the laws achieve
tolerance through the ultimate act of intolerance: criminalizing the ability of
some individuals to denounce sacred or sensitive values. We do not need free
speech to protect popular thoughts or popular people. It is designed to protect
those who challenge the majority and its institutions. Criticism of religion is
the very measure of the guarantee of free speech — the literal sacred
institution of society.

Blasphemy prosecutions in the West appear to have increased after the riots by
Muslims following the publication of cartoons disrespecting prophet Mohammed in
Denmark in 2005. Rioters killed Christians, burned churches, and called for the
execution of the cartoonists. While Western countries publicly defended free
speech, some quietly moved to deter those who’d cause further controversies
through unpopular speech.

In
Britain, it is a crime to "abuse" or "threaten" a religion under the Racial and
Religious Hatred Act 2006. A 15-year-old boy was charged last year for holding
up a sign outside a Scientology building declaring, "Scientology is not a
religion, it is a dangerous cult. "In France, famed actress Brigitte Bardot was
convicted for saying in 2006 that Muslims were ruining France in a letter to
then-Interior Minister (and now President) Nicolas Sarkozy. This year, Ireland
joined this self-destructive trend with a blasphemy law that calls for the
prosecution of anyone who writes or utters views deemed "grossly abusive or
insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing
outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or
she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage."

Consider just a few such Western "blasphemy" cases in the past two years:

• In Holland, Dutch prosecutors arrested cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot for
  insulting Christians and Muslims with cartoons, including one that caricatured a
  Christian fundamentalist and a Muslim fundamentalist as zombies who want to
  marry and attend gay rallies.
• In Canada, the Alberta human rights commission punished the Rev. Stephen
  Boission and the Concerned Christian Coalition for anti-gay speech, not only
  awarding damages but also censuring future speech that the commission deems
  inappropriate.
• In Italy, comedian Sabina Guzzanti was put under criminal investigation for
  joking at a rally that "in 20 years, the pope will be where he ought to be — in
  hell, tormented by great big poofter (gay) devils, and very active ones."
• In London, an aide to British Foreign Secretary David Miliband was arrested
  for "inciting religious hatred" at his gym by shouting obscenities about Jews
  while watching news reports of Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. Also, Dutch
  politician Geert Wilders was barred from entering Britain as a "threat to
  public policy, public security or public health" because he made a movie
  describing the Quran as a "fascist" book and Islam as a violent religion.
• In Poland, Catholic magazine Gosc Niedzielny was fined $11,000 for
  inciting "contempt, hostility and malice "by comparing the abortion of a woman
  to the medical experiments at Auschwitz.

The "blasphemy" cases include the prosecution of writers for calling Mohammed a
"pedophile" because of his marriage to 6-year-old Aisha (which was consummated
when she was 9). A far-right legislator in Austria, a publisher in India and a
city councilman in Finland have been prosecuted for repeating this view of the
historical record.

In the flipside of the cartoon controversy, Dutch prosecutors this year have
brought charges against the Arab European League for a cartoon questioning the
Holocaust.

Private companies and institutions are following suit in what could be seen as
responding to the Egyptian-U.S. call for greater "responsibility" in controlling
speech. For example, in an act of unprecedented cowardice and self-censorship,
Yale University Press published The Cartoons That Shook the World, a book
by Jytte Klausen on the original Mohammed cartoons. Yale, however, (over
Klausen’s objections) cut the actual pictures of the cartoons. It was akin to
publishing a book on the Sistine Chapel while barring any images of the
paintings.

The public and private curtailment on religious criticism threatens religious
and secular speakers alike. However, the fear is that, when speech becomes
sacrilegious, only the religious will have true free speech. It is a danger that
has become all the more real after the decision of the Obama administration to
join in the effort to craft a new faith-based speech standard. It is now up to
Congress and the public to be heard before the world leaves free speech with
little more than a hope and a prayer.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George
Washington University and a member of USA Today’s board of contributors.
USA Today, October 19, 2009.