Skybird
10-29-10, 07:07 AM
http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=383&report=95
From the introduction:
This study assesses blasphemy and religious insult laws in Algeria, Egypt, Greece, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Poland, analyzing their compatibility with international law and their impact on human rights. By definition, these laws, which are designed to protect religious institutions, doctrines, figures, and concepts—in other words, nonhuman entities and ideas—from insult or offense, impose undue restrictions on freedom of expression. Moreover, blasphemy laws are often vaguely worded and ill-defined, making them prone to arbitrary or overly broad application, particularly in settings where there are no checks and balances in place to prevent such abuses. In countries with weak democracies, authoritarian systems, or compromised judiciaries, these laws have a particularly pernicious effect:
Governments have abused blasphemy laws to silence the political opposition, government critics, and other dissidents.
Individuals have fabricated charges of blasphemy against others in their communities to settle petty disputes.
Religious extremists have exploited blasphemy laws to justify attacks on religious minorities, thereby fostering an environment of intolerance where discrimination is effectively condoned by the state.
Religious institutions, often with official or unofficial government backing, have used blasphemy laws to impose the state-sanctioned interpretations of religious doctrine on members of minority sects that are deemed deviant or heretical.
While freedom of expression is always constrained by blasphemy laws, through direct enforcement as well as the self-censorship they engender, this report identifies a host of other human rights that are negatively affected by such laws:
The selective application of blasphemy laws gives rise to discrimination based on religion and belief, as religious minorities and heterodox sects are often targeted disproportionately.
In many cases, alleged blasphemers have been arbitrarily arrested based on false or unsubstantiated accusations of blasphemy, and reports of unfair trials, lax legal procedures, and prolonged periods of pretrial or administrative detention on blasphemy charges are plentiful.
Individuals accused of blasphemy have endured torture and ill-treatment in custody.
Blasphemy suspects, including those who have been acquitted, have experienced breaches of their right to security of the person in the form of death threats, mob beatings, and other violence by nonstate actors.
There is no question that discrimination based on religion or belief is a genuine grievance for many and in some instances leads to limitations on freedom of religion. However, the notion that insults or criticism aimed at a religion or religious doctrine somehow restrict adherents’ ability to freely practice their religion has been rejected by renowned experts and human rights activists, who have emphasized the interdependence and indivisibility of freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and all other human rights. Freedom of expression is considered a “cornerstone right” without which other rights fall into jeopardy. As one expert has pointed out, “freedom of expression is also essential to the exercise of freedom of religion.”
Moreover, there is little evidence to support the argument that prohibiting defamation of religions is an effective means of combating racial and religious hatred. In fact, the application of blasphemy laws appears to instigate and exacerbate communal conflict rather than prevent it.
With criticism of religion now being criminalised in the EU by seeing well thought-out arguments and true facts against religion's claims and ideologies as equal to "discrimination" and thus giving the opportunity to prosecute criticism of religion by using the anti-discrimination laws, this report is a valid comment on the distorted legislation implemented by the EU as well. How absurd it all is can be seen in the Wilders trial in Holland, where the state attorney has refused to raise charges against Wilders (although another court ordered him to do so), and the whole trial has currently collapsed due to the judges being found to be biased, they must be replaced and the whole trial has to be relaunched. As a commentator on radio threatened the same day when the news was made known, pro-Islamic groups plan to bring the whole Wilders case to a European court in case the next Dutch court does not sentence Wilders for alleged hate speech when he referred (correctly) to the totalitarian nature of Islamic ideology.
In a way, the EU has imposed blasphemy laws on itself, too. It just does not call them like that, nor are national legislative structure all that willing to fully embrace that insane EU-commanded course.
From the introduction:
This study assesses blasphemy and religious insult laws in Algeria, Egypt, Greece, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Poland, analyzing their compatibility with international law and their impact on human rights. By definition, these laws, which are designed to protect religious institutions, doctrines, figures, and concepts—in other words, nonhuman entities and ideas—from insult or offense, impose undue restrictions on freedom of expression. Moreover, blasphemy laws are often vaguely worded and ill-defined, making them prone to arbitrary or overly broad application, particularly in settings where there are no checks and balances in place to prevent such abuses. In countries with weak democracies, authoritarian systems, or compromised judiciaries, these laws have a particularly pernicious effect:
Governments have abused blasphemy laws to silence the political opposition, government critics, and other dissidents.
Individuals have fabricated charges of blasphemy against others in their communities to settle petty disputes.
Religious extremists have exploited blasphemy laws to justify attacks on religious minorities, thereby fostering an environment of intolerance where discrimination is effectively condoned by the state.
Religious institutions, often with official or unofficial government backing, have used blasphemy laws to impose the state-sanctioned interpretations of religious doctrine on members of minority sects that are deemed deviant or heretical.
While freedom of expression is always constrained by blasphemy laws, through direct enforcement as well as the self-censorship they engender, this report identifies a host of other human rights that are negatively affected by such laws:
The selective application of blasphemy laws gives rise to discrimination based on religion and belief, as religious minorities and heterodox sects are often targeted disproportionately.
In many cases, alleged blasphemers have been arbitrarily arrested based on false or unsubstantiated accusations of blasphemy, and reports of unfair trials, lax legal procedures, and prolonged periods of pretrial or administrative detention on blasphemy charges are plentiful.
Individuals accused of blasphemy have endured torture and ill-treatment in custody.
Blasphemy suspects, including those who have been acquitted, have experienced breaches of their right to security of the person in the form of death threats, mob beatings, and other violence by nonstate actors.
There is no question that discrimination based on religion or belief is a genuine grievance for many and in some instances leads to limitations on freedom of religion. However, the notion that insults or criticism aimed at a religion or religious doctrine somehow restrict adherents’ ability to freely practice their religion has been rejected by renowned experts and human rights activists, who have emphasized the interdependence and indivisibility of freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and all other human rights. Freedom of expression is considered a “cornerstone right” without which other rights fall into jeopardy. As one expert has pointed out, “freedom of expression is also essential to the exercise of freedom of religion.”
Moreover, there is little evidence to support the argument that prohibiting defamation of religions is an effective means of combating racial and religious hatred. In fact, the application of blasphemy laws appears to instigate and exacerbate communal conflict rather than prevent it.
With criticism of religion now being criminalised in the EU by seeing well thought-out arguments and true facts against religion's claims and ideologies as equal to "discrimination" and thus giving the opportunity to prosecute criticism of religion by using the anti-discrimination laws, this report is a valid comment on the distorted legislation implemented by the EU as well. How absurd it all is can be seen in the Wilders trial in Holland, where the state attorney has refused to raise charges against Wilders (although another court ordered him to do so), and the whole trial has currently collapsed due to the judges being found to be biased, they must be replaced and the whole trial has to be relaunched. As a commentator on radio threatened the same day when the news was made known, pro-Islamic groups plan to bring the whole Wilders case to a European court in case the next Dutch court does not sentence Wilders for alleged hate speech when he referred (correctly) to the totalitarian nature of Islamic ideology.
In a way, the EU has imposed blasphemy laws on itself, too. It just does not call them like that, nor are national legislative structure all that willing to fully embrace that insane EU-commanded course.