Just Say No To Blasphemy: U.S. Supports Egypt in Limiting Anti-Religious Speech

stone-1Here is today’s column in USA Today on the Obama Administration’s decision to join the U.N. Human Rights Council and support Egypt in recognizing limits on free speech for those who insult or denigrate religion. While the exception was included in a resolution heralding free speech, it was viewed as a major victory for Muslim countries seeking to establish an international blasphemy law.

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.

A ‘misused’ freedom?
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 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.”

‘Blasphemy’ incidents
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.

What’s next?
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

60 thoughts on “Just Say No To Blasphemy: U.S. Supports Egypt in Limiting Anti-Religious Speech

  1. I always considered the “Comments” section off-limits to typo correction notification. Thanks to Jill, I will now have to reconsider.

  2. Thanks Jill,

    So are we now going to have a corrections page to the post that shows the corrections? Or is nal not going to post on the Comment side? Which is it nal?

  3. I can’t post the correction of a comment in the “Corrections” area because that’s only for corrections to posts.

    If I post the correction of a comment in the “Comments” area then it’s a comment and not a correction.

    I’ve obviously not thought this threw.

  4. Well of course Obama caved, he is a leftist who hates the Constitution as evidenced by his habit of trying to trample it at every turn.

    He’d like to stomp out freedom of speech here, and so would most democrats. He already demonstrated that with his intimidation of private citizens on the internet.

    The only way Islam can grow is IF freedom to criticize it is suppressed. That is how it always grew in the past. And now that communications are worldwide and fast, Islam is, for the first time in history, threatened by open debate. It would like to nip that in the bud.

    Please, go ahead and criticize my religion. I am not a sissy panty-waist who demands you stop saying things I don’t like to hear. I’m not a coward in the face of criticism. I relish the criticism of my faith and the opportunity to defend it.

    This is because I’m know that my faith is the true faith, and the true God, and I have nothing to fear.

  5. Where I reside, as I type these ASCII characters, it is Monday morning, April 4, 2011 CE.

    Oh, dear me, surely that is a blasphemous hateful religious statement for anyone who does not religiously accept the notion of the Common Era?

    What speech, or writing, or other human doing cannot be labeled as hateful blasphemy by someone?

    For myself, I object to the intentional burning of books and people and such.

    Surely, for those who “believe in the death penalty,” my objection is hateful blasphemy.

    Is not “belief in blasphemy” itself inextricably blasphemous?

  6. […] que no eran precisamente pérfidos aduladores del Anticristo. Igualmente ceden la palabra a Jonathan Turley, profesor de leyes en la Universidad George Washington: A menudo se defiende la pertinencia de […]

  7. […] Notably, reports indicate that Elbayomy called police because he thought it was a crime to be disrespectful to Muhammed. The judge appears to reference this by noting that in some countries you can be put to death for such an offense. Those countries are called oppressive countries. This is a free country where it is not a crime to insult someone’s religion — despite a counter-trend in some Western countries. […]

  8. This disgraceful governmental act of thuggery is the fault of the following:

    1. Christians, who have made it their habit for over 2,000 years to denigrate the U.S. Constitution at every turn so that they can sell more crosses to the unwary travelers in Bohemia;

    2. Jews, who are behind the banks that finance the cross-trade, for the specific purpose of drinking the blood of American babies who were conceived in Third-World countries;

    3. Muslims, who run all the brothels in the world and have therefore used carefully controlled STDs as biological warfare to destroy the manhood of American men and are promulgating promiscuity even in Heaven;

    4. Jains, whose main tenet of faith is to create electromagnetic waves that scramble the directions on trucks, causing accidents that raise the rent in the moderate-income housing of all the big cities;

    5. Buddhists…
    6. Alloverians…

    THEY ARE ALL GOING TO BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY!

  9. […] on this front are not just conservatives. Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley wrote back in October of 2009 in USA Today that:around the world, free speech is being sacrificed on the altar of religion. […]

  10. Free speech vs. No free speech is a moot point. As long as we look at each other as separate individuals and not apparent parts of one thing we will argue/fight/kill till we learn what our most respect science/religious teachers teach. WE ARE ONE. Read Niels Bohr, David Bohm. Our dualistic belief system has no corroboration with reality. We are all (self most included) idiots. We would be working 6 hours a year for middle class existence (Bucky Fuller) without the dissapearance of 600 trillion which dwarfs the big national debt scare. Lying Philosopher Crooks run the world and so far there has been nothing any of has done to change it. Even the brilliant and religious Einstein gave the bomb to the same leaders are liars world. Read Plato how it is the duty of the leader to lie and our duty to free as slaves to follow. What has changed in 2,400 or 10,000 years back to the Kurgan power myth? We speak another countries language here can’t expect much.

Comments are closed.