Monday, July 18, 2016
Joanna Diane Caytas, Columbia University, has published Disposing of Relics: Overt and Covert Blasphemy Statutes in Europe in Columbia Journal of European Law: Preliminary Reference (April 1, 2016). Here is the abstract.
While there is broad public consensus on the need to abolish any form of blasphemy statutes, European state law exhibits a disconcerting pattern of schizophrenia: while outright criminalization of blasphemous utterances has become rare (though far from entirely obsolete), most states retain some kind of quasi-blasphemy statute on the books. It is virtually never enforced – and certainly no longer with a view to protecting a deity – but can nonetheless be invoked if political expediency requires it, primarily to protect against backlashes of public sensibility from less tolerant groups. This paper argues that, not least in the light of recent and ostensibly religion-driven terrorist attacks, freedom of expression is indivisible and non-rescindable. Freedom of dissent when nobody much cares is worthless. It means nothing without the freedom to offend: one man’s sanctity is another man’s idiocy, just as one man’s terrorist is the next person’s freedom fighter. The same is true for legal protections extended, at least de facto, only to the state’s primary denomination. In open, pluralistic and diverse societies, blasphemy statutes primarily serve to suppress or muffle the expression of agnostics and atheists that account for one of the largest population groups measured by near-universal decline in attendance of religious services. But anachronisms continue to exist, and give rise to substantial concerns. Some states even invoke extraterritorial jurisdiction to enforce religious respect. The paper examines state laws in Europe on a case-by-case basis and highlights contradictions with constitutional protections for secularism.
Download the article from SSRN at the link.