This House believes blasphemy has no place on the statute books

Blasphemy, by its nature, is ‘all in the eye of the beholder’. It is impossible, in most cases, to determine whether there was intent on the part of the accused and as a result it is difficult to codify in legislation. Equally, unless the law takes a particular theological position, one person’s blasphemous slur is another’s sacred profession.

It relies on the predicate that the person alleging blasphemy was offended or felt their faith was under attack.

Of course these offences are very real and may at times be possible to codify but they cannot be applied universally because the perceptions they necessitate are not universal.

As a result, as in the case given above, allegation and proof must be deemed to be the same thing - to be accused is to be found guilty[i]. Acts of blasphemy cannot rest on intuited human norms – I do not wish to be harmed in this way therefore you do not wish it either – because those involved have a different understanding of the harm.

In the light of this there may be many remedies for blasphemy but legislation in general and criminal sanctions in particular cannot be appropriate.

[i] The Economic Times. Rajiv Jayaram. Blasphemy law represents coercive nature of Pakistan towards minorities. 27 August 2012.

It is perfectly possible in many circumstances to demonstrate intent before a blasphemous comment is made. Waving a banner making derogatory remarks about the founder of a religion or burning an emblem of the faith outside a place of worship could easily be said to demonstrate an intent to harm.

Moreover many cases come down to one person’s word against another’s. 

In the event of two different perceptions of what constitutes harm, there is a tendency for that of the larger group to be seen as normative and, therefore, correct. This is shown to be the case in the example given here but also in other instances from the Salem witch trials to the fatwa on Salman Rushdie[i]; the fact that there was an authorising body – in the shape of an orthodox religious body – the allegation itself acquires the force of that orthodoxy.

It is rare for minority beliefs to have much success and almost unknown for secularists to do so. Several cases in North America brought in an effort to protect the religious rights of Wiccans, for example, yielded little as they lacked the force of religious orthodoxy[ii].

In states where there is either great homogeneity of belief or there is a theological element in the courts or political system, this has tended to be even more the case. This is particularly true of states that identify themselves officially with one religion, and especially so in the case of Islamic states[iii].

[i] The Guardian. Looking back at Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses. 14 September 2012.

[ii] Religioustolerance.org. Wiccan education and anti-defamation groups.

[iii] Viewpoint. The Blasphemy syndrome. 12 October 2012.

It’s fairly predictable that in a country such as Pakistan where the overwhelming majority come from one religious tradition that there will be a higher percentage of those people to be offended and, conversely, that a majority of suspects are likely to come from other groups. 

In the laws that come the closest in framework to blasphemy – libel, slander defamation and a range of incitement laws – there is a requirement to prove harm. This level of proof is not set at the level of being offended or believing that a problem may ensue, and certainly not at the level of just disagreeing with a statement. If there is no proof of harm then the principle of free speech stands, usually termed as a ‘justifiable comment’ in defamation defences. It is entirely possible to respect the rights of others to hold an opinion and, as in this case, disagree with that opinion[i].

For anything other than that as the only logical basis for discussing blasphemy, it would be necessary to demonstrate a causal link to actual or probable harm – usually this proof requires either financial or physical harm to be involved[ii].

In the case of blasphemy, such harm cannot be demonstrated. There is also an interesting point of whether God can be said to have been harmed and whether it is possible for a third party, other than the state, to act as a result of harm having been caused to another.

As a result, since harm cannot be proven and neither, in most cases, as we have seen in the previous argument, can intent be proven, it is difficult to see how blasphemy is anything other than free speech. It is far easier for other social groups – sexual and political minorities, people of disabilities and others – to prove both harm and intent of statements and actions but lack the legal protection given to religious organisations through blasphemy laws. 

[i] See principle seven of the Free Speech Debate principles.

[ii] Wikipedia. Defamation.

The right to free speech is not a license to express any opinion regardless of the context. It’s equivalent of standing in a Museum and shouting, “Fire”. It is in these environments that caution is required.

Allowing free speech is one thing, allowing speech likely to cause harm is another is quite a different. There is a crucial difference between public and private space. Where offensive remarks are made in the public space then the blasphemer has knowingly put themselves and others in danger and - citing such principals as civic responsibility and the social contract, governments would have both a responsibility and a duty to use their legal powers.

Blasphemy, by its nature, is ‘all in the eye of the beholder’. It is impossible, in most cases, to determine whether there was intent on the part of the accused and as a result it is difficult to codify in legislation. Equally, unless the law takes a particular theological position, one person’s blasphemous slur is another’s sacred profession.

It relies on the predicate that the person alleging blasphemy was offended or felt their faith was under attack.

Of course these offences are very real and may at times be possible to codify but they cannot be applied universally because the perceptions they necessitate are not universal.

As a result, as in the case given above, allegation and proof must be deemed to be the same thing - to be accused is to be found guilty[i]. Acts of blasphemy cannot rest on intuited human norms – I do not wish to be harmed in this way therefore you do not wish it either – because those involved have a different understanding of the harm.

In the light of this there may be many remedies for blasphemy but legislation in general and criminal sanctions in particular cannot be appropriate.

[i] The Economic Times. Rajiv Jayaram. Blasphemy law represents coercive nature of Pakistan towards minorities. 27 August 2012.

It is perfectly possible in many circumstances to demonstrate intent before a blasphemous comment is made. Waving a banner making derogatory remarks about the founder of a religion or burning an emblem of the faith outside a place of worship could easily be said to demonstrate an intent to harm.

Moreover many cases come down to one person’s word against another’s. 

In the event of two different perceptions of what constitutes harm, there is a tendency for that of the larger group to be seen as normative and, therefore, correct. This is shown to be the case in the example given here but also in other instances from the Salem witch trials to the fatwa on Salman Rushdie[i]; the fact that there was an authorising body – in the shape of an orthodox religious body – the allegation itself acquires the force of that orthodoxy.

It is rare for minority beliefs to have much success and almost unknown for secularists to do so. Several cases in North America brought in an effort to protect the religious rights of Wiccans, for example, yielded little as they lacked the force of religious orthodoxy[ii].

In states where there is either great homogeneity of belief or there is a theological element in the courts or political system, this has tended to be even more the case. This is particularly true of states that identify themselves officially with one religion, and especially so in the case of Islamic states[iii].

[i] The Guardian. Looking back at Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses. 14 September 2012.

[ii] Religioustolerance.org. Wiccan education and anti-defamation groups.

[iii] Viewpoint. The Blasphemy syndrome. 12 October 2012.

It’s fairly predictable that in a country such as Pakistan where the overwhelming majority come from one religious tradition that there will be a higher percentage of those people to be offended and, conversely, that a majority of suspects are likely to come from other groups. 

In the laws that come the closest in framework to blasphemy – libel, slander defamation and a range of incitement laws – there is a requirement to prove harm. This level of proof is not set at the level of being offended or believing that a problem may ensue, and certainly not at the level of just disagreeing with a statement. If there is no proof of harm then the principle of free speech stands, usually termed as a ‘justifiable comment’ in defamation defences. It is entirely possible to respect the rights of others to hold an opinion and, as in this case, disagree with that opinion[i].

For anything other than that as the only logical basis for discussing blasphemy, it would be necessary to demonstrate a causal link to actual or probable harm – usually this proof requires either financial or physical harm to be involved[ii].

In the case of blasphemy, such harm cannot be demonstrated. There is also an interesting point of whether God can be said to have been harmed and whether it is possible for a third party, other than the state, to act as a result of harm having been caused to another.

As a result, since harm cannot be proven and neither, in most cases, as we have seen in the previous argument, can intent be proven, it is difficult to see how blasphemy is anything other than free speech. It is far easier for other social groups – sexual and political minorities, people of disabilities and others – to prove both harm and intent of statements and actions but lack the legal protection given to religious organisations through blasphemy laws. 

[i] See principle seven of the Free Speech Debate principles.

[ii] Wikipedia. Defamation.

The right to free speech is not a license to express any opinion regardless of the context. It’s equivalent of standing in a Museum and shouting, “Fire”. It is in these environments that caution is required.

Allowing free speech is one thing, allowing speech likely to cause harm is another is quite a different. There is a crucial difference between public and private space. Where offensive remarks are made in the public space then the blasphemer has knowingly put themselves and others in danger and - citing such principals as civic responsibility and the social contract, governments would have both a responsibility and a duty to use their legal powers.

Not agreeing with a law does not provide carte blanche to ignore it. The reality is that large numbers of people in many countries and religious traditions find blasphemy offensive and upsetting. If, as prop argues this crime causes no harm, then they presumably accept that it can have no physical benefit to the blasphemer. So why do it? We place limitations on violence, sex and expletives in movies, on TVs and in publications, not because they cause a provable harm but because some find them offensive[i]. These actions, along with blasphemy, are collectively classed as criminal libels as they require the state to act rather than an injured party. We further create public order offences in relation to racial abuse, which, like blasphemy, may not be premeditated[ii]. Those in breach of such limits face a punishment.

If we are happy to impose widely held norms of behaviour in public fora such as entertainment – or in regard to public behaviour - then why not acknowledge similar issues in the case of spiritual beliefs. If, for example, the overwhelming majority of the population find attacks on the prophet Mohammed offensive then why not legislate on that basis?

[i] The News Manual. Chapter 71: Blasphemy, obscenity and sedition.

[ii] Brian Farmer. The Independent. Comic Frankie Boyle sues Daily Mirror for libel. 15 October 2012.

If any state were to try and protect their citizens against all offence, it would have to ban everything. It is difficult to see how such a process could work – one that would allow Saudi men to be offended by the sight of a woman driver and, at the same time, those of a more liberal nature to be offended by them not driving.  A test of legislation should be whether it can be universalised, where offence can be taken in both directions that is not, and cannot, be the case. As a result it is clear that legislation is an inappropriate tool to use in regards to blasphemy. The issue is not disagreeing with the particular piece of legislation but with the idea that legislation in this area should be introduced at all. Moreover the examples of limitations on the media used are not good parallel’s to blasphemy as blasphemy may be either unintentional or else be on the spur of the moment which is not the case with the media.

Not only can remarks or images be labelled as inappropriate but, in extreme cases governments ban organisations, meeting and demonstrations. Where speech is deemed to be prejudiced or inflammatory the state intervenes to prevent either offence or possible violence. In all of the situations covered by blasphemy laws, the first of those would apply and, as has been seen on so many occasions, the latter is not uncommon. The experience of the “Anti-Islam video” prompted civil unrest around the world[i] costing nations money in terms of lost work and increased police time.

Both governments and individuals have the right to be protected against such outpourings of outrage. It seems only sensible for governments to prevent such difficulties where they can. In this light a legislative code that bans blasphemy is useful in the maintenance of social order and cohesion in many countries. It is a given in most countries that the government has a duty to protect citizens against statements or actions that they have a reasonable basis for believing are likely to cause social unrest. Blasphemy is just another example on that list.

[i] Al Jazeera. Timeline: Protests over anti-Islam video. 21 September 2012.

There are clear differences between racist, sexist or homophobic language and blasphemy. Hate speech legislation exists to protect minorities against being abused. A blasphemy ban, by contrast, simply perpetuates the influence of already powerful interest groups. Equally, to develop ops theory of sudden vigilante groups springing up to seek out the blasphemer – hate speech legislation seeks to protect the likely victim of a violent crime, according to Opposition, blasphemy legislation would seek to support the perpetrators.

Where a grave offence is caused to many people and the state proves to be impotent in addressing it, it is not uncommon for vigilantes to take matters into their own hands.

Surely it is preferable to have such situations handled by the courts and under the rule of law. Proposition gave the example of the Salman Rushdie affair, where Ayatollah Khomeni issued a global fatwah on the author following the publication of the Satanic Verses. How much more preferable would it have been for that process to have been handled by means of diplomacy[i], extradition and trial than a decade’s worth of civil and international discourse. The Arab league and others have called for an international treaty to this effect, as the issue of blasphemy committed in one nation causing offence in another comes increasingly to the fore in an internet age, it seems an effective approach.

In an increasingly Global world with the possibility for inflammatory remarks to travel the world in a matter of seconds, leaving only their context behind, it is time for governments to have a serious conversation about an international framework - to make sure that justice stays in the courts rather than the streets.

[i] Globalpost. Daniel DeFraia. Muslim nations push for international blasphemy law. 25 September 2012.

This is the truly the argument of rogues. Where a mob seeks to gather to deliver their own brand of very immediate justice would be against the law and should be dealt with as such. For governments to argue such an approach is a complete abdication of responsibility. It is also incredibly naïve to suppose that the niceties of treaties would be observed in the Pashtun Valley or the Gaza strip.