Freedom of Expression and the Problem of Blasphemy and Defamation of Religion Paul Sturges Loughborough University, UK University of Pretoria, South Africa

The Right to Freedom of Expression Freedom of Expression is widely accepted as a universal Human Right. As such it is protected in Declarations and Conventions on Human Rights The right is a basis for –Free and uncensored media and communications –Information disseminating institutions such as libraries –Laws on access to information –Effective democratic governance Protecting and strengthening Freedom of Expression is the rationale for this presentation

Limits to Freedom of Expression Are there limits to such a central principle? Article 19 of The UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) says ‘Everyone has the right to Freedom of Expression’ But the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) in Article 10 recognises limits such as –National security –Prevention of disorder or crime –Protection of health and morals Article 29 of the UN Declaration also speaks of duties to the community and it is this area that is most relevant to religion.

Religious and Community Objections to Freedom Muslim outrage against Danish cartoons in 2005 Christians opposed Jerry Springer: the Opera Sikhs protested against Behzti a play put on in the UK Sylheti Bangladeshis claimed Monica Ali’s book Brick Lane insults them –copies of her book were burnt –A spokesman said: –‘If she has the right to freedom of speech, we have the right to burn books. We are protecting our community’s dignity and respect’

Cartoons on the Prophet Mahommed

Jerry Springer: The Opera

The Brick Lane Protest

The Challenges to Freedom of Expression All of the above cases produced challenges involving violence, destruction of property and even loss of life. There was clearly a question as to whether duties to the community had been respected by the challenged material. But, the response clearly ignores Article 20 of the UN Declaration which refers to the right of ‘peaceful assembly and association’, not riot and communal violence.

The nature of religious objection to Freedom of Expression For the purposes of this presentation, religious objections are defined as: –Blasphemy (Insults to religion itself); –Giving Offence (Perhaps through blasphemy, but specifically with the intent to inflict distress on believers); –Incitement to hatred or violence (hate speech). The so-called ‘Defamation of Religion’ adds a fresh dimension to this.

Defining Blasphemy Dictionaries do not help very much In modern English usage it means: –Cursing and swearing More relevant meanings refer to: –Irreverent, sacrilegious, disrespectful, sinful, wicked, evil talk These basically refer to denying the truth of religion or insulting religion.

Giving offence? Satirical content and performances that challenge religion are often offensive to believers Defenders of satire say that it is protected as part of the human right of freedom of expression They add that avoiding offence can lead to self suppression of significant commentary (See Sturges, Limits to Freedom of Expression?, Journal of Documentation, 32, 2006)

Hate speech Disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation. Laws prohibit it in many countries because of possible harmful consequences, but Some of these laws (eg in Poland) refer not only to the consequences, but the offence that might be caused to the people targeted.

Defamation of Religion Resolutions on respect for religion and against defamation of religion have been brought to UN forums since 2002 generally on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference “Defamation of religion is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of their adherents and incitement to religious violence” Statement by Pakistani officials to the UN Human Rights Commission supporting such a resolution in The non-binding resolution was passed (23 for, 11 against, 13 abstaining).

The problem with Defamation of Religion Canada’s representative to the UNHRC pointed out that individuals have rights, not religions. Defamation of Religion seeks to outlaw: –Blasphemy –Because it gives offence, and –Allegedly directs hatred and violence towards adherents of religions. The three are connected, but in the way the resolutions suggest?

Salman Taseer and Assia Bibi

A Blasphemy Case On 4 th Jan 2011 Pakistani politician Salman Taseer was assassinated because he had proposed amending the blasphemy law Taseer had defended a Christian woman Aasia Bibi, who was sentenced to death for some alleged minor insult to Islam The law is notorious because of its exploitation in personal disputes and the possibility of a death penalty. Taseer’s assassin and supporters did not accuse him of blasphemy, merely of seeking to amend the law.

A Withdrawal? March 2011, after the murder of Salman Taseer on 4 th Jan 2011, Pakistan submitted a new resolution on discrimination the UNHRC without the reference to Defamation of Religion. Taseer’s martyrdom seems to have taught some sort of lesson in –Logic (religion does not have human rights) –Humanity (Blasphemy and Defamation Laws can be an incitement to violence). Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws remain in force and other countries have such laws.

Blasphemy in Greece Section 7 of the Greek Penal Code ‘Offences against religious peace’ includes: –Public and malicious blasphemy against God –Blasphemy against the Greek Orthodox Church or any other tolerated religion. There seems to be no record of cases under Section 7 protecting other religions. The State does bring prosecutions protecting the Orthodox Church.

Blasphemy in the UK In 2008 MPs voted to support the abolition of blasphemy in an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. In May of that year this received Royal Assent, condemning the laws to history. The laws only protected Christianity and were widely regarded as discriminatory. They had fallen into disuse and were last invoked in 1977.

Does Religion have Protection? The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects religious belief. Article 18 says: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes – freedom to change his religion or belief, and – freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance Religion itself is not protected.

Freedom of Expression for Religion? There is a reverse side to this debate Some ‘religious’ groups claim that they are denied freedom of expression by governments and their agencies where there are no laws excluding them. The Church of Scientology makes this case and even alleges that libraries that reject its donations are denying readers the chance to learn about its beliefs.

The Scientology donations New Era Publishing (Scientology’s publisher) sends out sets of books by L.R. Hubbard to libraries all over the world, arguing that this reflects freedom of expression. Libraries often do not want these, because they reflect the views of an organisation seen as harmful Libraries in Germany and France (and probably elsewhere) had been throwing them away and, if asked, saying that Scientology was under some kind of official ban.

Rejecting donations from Scientology Libraries as providers of access to books and digital resources are a delivery mechanism at the end of an information chain. By rejecting donations from any organisation libraries do arguably frustrate freedom of expression. The same logic that rejects Blasphemy and Defamation of Religion Laws, protects expression even by unpopular organisations like Scientology This is not a comfortable argument for professionals who otherwise see themselves as supporters of freedom of expression.

Conclusions Freedom of Expression is the essential ethical underpinning of all forms of communication. Human Rights Declarations and Conventions protect it, but religion is a disputable area –Criticism of religion (even if offensive) is protected, –Expression of hatred towards believers is not worthy of protection. This line of argument leads into difficult areas It is not always popular but that does not make it less valid.