In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Should blasphemy be criminalized under international law?

Jill

Finally, a question about God that has a super-easy answer: NO.

I agree with Ban Ki-moon that “We all need to speak up in favor of mutual respect and understanding of the values and beliefs of others.” But even though speech can be used to bully and intimidate and hurt, it still shouldn’t be legally limited. Salman Rushdie is also right when he points out that this isn’t about religion so much as power, and that “Terrible ideas, reprehensible ideas, do not disappear if you ban them. They go underground. They acquire a kind of glamour of taboo. In the harsh light of day, they are out there and, like vampires, they die in the sunlight.”

Posted in Law

60 thoughts on Should blasphemy be criminalized under international law?

  1. We all need to speak up in favor of mutual respect and understanding of the values and beliefs of others

    Not necessarily. Some beliefs and values are simply not worthy of respect. In fact, I do not think that there is anyone who honestly would disagree with this, so it is really just a silly platitude.

    I am not saying that we should not be tolerant toward others, but this tolerance should not be, and can not be, limitless.

    1. Not to nitpick, but I read his quote as promoting respectful treatment of others, not necessary respecting everyone’s beliefs no matter what those beliefs are. I would argue that understanding beliefs and values is important, even if you don’t agree with them or find them abhorrent.

      1. Even so, I don’t think all people deserve to be treated respectfully. There are some people, many people who merit only the least respectful treatment. Disrespect can be a powerful political tool.

        2. + another. And, IMHO, all BELIEFS don’t necessarily deserve respect either. I can think of several beliefs held by even public figures that do not deserve respect.

        5. Count me in as another who think there are some people who deserve disrespect and contempt. Law enforcement, corporations and government officials come to mind here. And ironically, it’s often those who are least deserving of it who demand it the most. As far as I’m concerned, respect is earned, and not automatically bestowed on someone because they have some sort of special title or status.

      2. Perhaps. You could read it as that there is currently too little toleration for difference in the world, so that we should be pushing for more.

        I just feel it is just one of those meaningless shibboleths that people say but nobody really means.

    2. What happens if a plurality or a majority decide that feminism, or frank public expression of homosexuality, or a particular religion, is not worthy of respect?

        1. Exactly. What if a majority decided that seeing frank expressions of love between people that are LBGT is not only not worthy of respect, but is offensive to their religion and disrespectful to their god and therefore those expressions should no longer be allowed in public? Allowing religious ideas to dictate which speech/behavior is blasphemous is dangerous.

        1. OK, yes…but I’m saying if we give people the power to police speech, what’s to stop a bigger group from ganging up and using that power on you?

          Like, maybe we’d like to toss this filmmaker to the angry mob because he is inarguably a dickhole, but what happens when Pakistan tries to argue the legality of persecuting apostates under a similar law?

          Unless we’re just talking about politeness and civility in which case – I agree, some people definitely hold beliefs that don’t ‘deserve’ respect. But you still run into tricky situations – like where radical Christians and Muslims don’t believe atheists deserve respect, and vice versa…

        3. OK, yes…but I’m saying if we give people the power to police speech, what’s to stop a bigger group from ganging up and using that power on you?

          And that is one of several reasons that I am opposed to laws abridging freedom of speech. That doesn’t mean I think the things being said deserve respect, however.

    3. I refuse to “speak up in favor of mutual respect and understanding of the values and beliefs of others.”

      Their right to their beliefs? Yes. You can believe anything you want to. But I don’t have any respect or understanding for beliefs and values (mostly religious) that have as their cornerstone the oppression and abuse of women.

  2. I’d love to know how those in favor of criminalizing blasphemy (which seems to be used broadly enough to cover any disrespect for a given religion by non-members of that religion) would plan to handle cases in which the very expression of the tenets of Religion X constitutes blasphemy under the tenets of Religion Y. And vice versa. Put them all in jail? Of course, since insulting and disrespecting Jews and Judaism is pretty much the foundation of Christianity, the world might be a better place. But it might be a little difficult to enforce.

  3. Blasphemy is one of those accusations for which there is no hope of disproval, and its very nature is one of abuse. Live in a very religious society? Pissed off at your next-door neighbour, or want to bang your neighbour’s wife and she shuts you down? Boom, put a blasphemy charge against them. All you have to do is make the accusation loud enough in a public enough place, and that person’s reputation gets destroyed. It worked that way in the Puritan colonies and it is working that way in modern Pakistan. Substitute blasphemy with witchcraft or with communism and you have England in the 1600s or the US in the 1950s.

    Add the threat of state-sponsored violence to the mix, and you have a powerful chilling effect against free speech anywhere, regardless of how tolerant or understanding we try to be. If you have a system where an unproveable accusation is grounds for imprisonment or execution, it WILL be used against the enemies of the powerful, and it WILL be used against any group of people the powerful want to keep oppressed.

  4. The answer is not clear cut. The video denigrating Islam was disgusting and the product of delusional extremists trying to drive a wedge between the USA and the Islamic world. The Obama administration recognizes this. It’s precisely why they asked for the video to be removed from Google, and both Admiral Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates had interceded personally in asking certain Christian fringe groups from burning the Qur’an. Recently, a commercial video (sponsored by the State Department) shows President Obama and Secretary Clinton “clarifying” their disgust over the video and assuring viewers the US under no circumstances sponsor them.

    The protesters in the Middle East, North Africa and South-East Asia are products of repression, poverty and neglect. Extremist Salafi groups use these videos to empower themselves and create instability.

    If this instability causes embassies to be besieged, then this becomes a national security issue. The US, under the Patriot Act, has closed down web-sites and Internet forums whose members they felt were strongly supportive of insurgent attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as showing support for groups like Hezbollah and al-Qaeda (even if there was no evidence of funding for said groups). I think a similar argument can be made here.

    1. It was disgusting under the PATRIOT Act, and it would be disgusting in this case. This, in fact, is one of the many problems of the PATRIOT Act. This kind of stomping on civil rights is precisely why so many of us are “not enthusiastic” about voting for Obama again.

      2. Do you really think things would be better under Romney? I think not.

        I want to live in a world where free speech is the rule but unfortunately, in the way the world is now, I believe we should think a bit before we speak. The idiots who made the film deliberately set out to be inflammatory and lives were lost because of it.

        1. You’re right! Because the only other alternative is Romney, I have no business being anything less than whole-heartedly enthusiastic about Obama! Good point!

          First of all, NY state hasn’t gone Republican since Reagan, and Romney doesn’t have that kind of charisma, so my vote means fuck-all, and I might as well cast it to the left of Obama (if polls come out suggesting that NY is in any way a swing state, I’ll reconsider). Second, pointing to Romney and screaming “he’s worse!” is not actually the same thing as addressing Obama’s record on civil liberties.

          Third, lives were lost–how handy the passive voice is there, isn’t it? you can just evacuate the killers’ agency completely–because people killed other people. Not because of a fucked-up video. But because of actual people who have minds and morals deciding that murder was the appropriate response to a fucked-up video.

      3. I wasn’t enthusiastic about Obama the first time precisely because he was wishy washy on our civil rights and the Patriot act. Clinton was much more robust about her promises on this front. Obama not only signed the new law that makes it possible to detain US citizens without due process, his Justice department is defending that law despite his worthless signing statement. With the only other option Romney I will vote Obama and hope he’ll do better when he is no longer worried about re-election, dim as that hope is…

    2. For me, the answer is quite clear cut. Any attempt to legally define blasphemy is going to involve enshrining one or more religion’s beliefs into law, which is quite problematic. And involve restricting speech, on the grounds of what others find objectionable, no less.

      The White House was wrong to ask Google to take down the video; fortunately Google was free to tell them no. And those provisions of the Patriot Act (like most of it) violate people’s rights of free speech, and are likely unconstitutional.

      1. The White House was wrong to ask Google to take down the video; fortunately Google was free to tell them no.

        Why was it wrong to ask them if they were free to tell them no? And what on earth does that have to do with blasphemy? All you have to do is google ‘blowjob’ and you can find as many blasphemous images as you like.

        The White House asked Google to remove the video in order to voice disapprobation. It was a PR move. But if you say it’s wrong to ask, well then you are as much an enemy of free speech as someone in favor of a blasphemy law. It’s wrong to ask for something? Really?

        1. It’s wrong to ask for something? Really?

          You and I both know that there is an enormous gulf between someone on the street asking if someone else can stop being offensive and a government that is actively involved in civil rights violations who holds regulatory authority over you asking you to stop doing something. Any request from someone holding a monopoly on force carries with it an implicit threat. Google happens to be a company used to telling the government to go fuck itself because they have the financial means and social influence to stand up, many people don’t have that same privilege. Asking Google to take down the video was not only an act of cowardice on the part of the Obama administration but also an attempt to feign capitulation for political gain at the possible express of free expression.

          Governments do not have rights, people do.

        2. It’s specifically because it was the White House doing the asking that makes it a free speech violation. Free speech means that the government, specifically, can’t determine what kind of speech is and isn’t acceptable. Any other party can ask, but not the one with the army.

    3. I think a similar argument can be made here.

      No, a similar argument cannot be made here. For the record, I’m pretty strongly opposed to shutting down even obvious terrorist website, but even then we’re not talking about something remotely similar. In the case of terrorist website you have someone actively and clearly planning a crime. In the case of this filmmaker you have an asshole who used clearly protected speech to piss off a group of people who then decided to act in a criminal manner.

      The difference is that one is a statement of opinion that is an explicit threat while the other is the kind of speech that has been pretty clearly protected for a long time. That some thugs then decide to get violent over protected speech cannot become a justification for restricting that speech because you then create a heckler’s veto. Just because it would piss people off for me to say, for instance, that Jesus, Moses, and Mohammed were liars and likely schizophrenics who contributed to a clear reduction in human happiness does mean that I cannot say it. I can curse them, deride them, mock their followers, and defile their holy books and the only reasonable response is more speech. Other can argue, they can ignore me, they can choose to socially ostracize me, but the moment someone decides to try to limit the speech of another with violence is the moment that person deserves a bullet.

      1. Other can argue, they can ignore me, they can choose to socially ostracize me, but the moment someone decides to try to limit the speech of another with violence is the moment that person deserves a bullet.

        I agree with everything in your post except I don’t believe this. You’re honestly saying there’s nothing someone could say which would provoke you to violence?

        1. I agree with everything in your post except I don’t believe this. You’re honestly saying there’s nothing someone could say which would provoke you to violence?

          I’m not saying that. I fuck up, it happens because I’m not perfect. I’m sure theres something someone could say to me which could provoke me to violence. That would be my fault and any consequences that would come from it would be on me. Short of an actual threat I simply cannot think of any situation in which violence would be a justified response to speech. Just because I can imagine a scenario in which I might not live up to my ideals does not change my ideals.

        2. Just because I can imagine a scenario in which I might not live up to my ideals does not change my ideals.

          Right, but you’re envisioning a scenario where the penalty for not living up to your ideals is a bullet. Surely that’s as dogmatic as anything else we’re talking about.

        3. What, exactly, do you think the penalty should be for using violence to violate the civil rights of others? If being physically assaulted by a thug who has taken issue with your basic civil rights isn’t a self-defense scenario I’m not sure what is.

        5. If you were sentenced to the death penalty for killing someone who was exercising his free speech, that would at least seem fair within death penalty contexts. If you were sentenced to the death penalty for taking a swing at someone who made an inappropriate comment about your 9 year old daughter that would seem excessive. You can’t possibly disagree with that, can you?

        6. “Sir, I understand you’re angry but this pummeling is completely unacceptable and I demand that you desist or I’ll have to call the police and hope that I’m rich/white/straight/male/respectful enough to have access to their protection!”

        9. It makes a pretty big difference when you’re talking about defending yourself against a violent assault. You seem to be under the impression that something is a bad idea unless it is evenly applicable in all situations and has no conceivable possibility of blowback. We’ve had this discussion before, we disagree. I’m in favor of self defense, I’m in favor of people being attacked by others being able to use deadly force to protect themselves, I’m in favor of being able to carry a weapon to shoot the kinds of tyrants who would violently assault someone for speech. No, I cannot say with certainty that I’d never get angry and slug someone over an insult, but thats kind of a distraction and this is kind of a derail. I get that you’re uncomfortable with a strong self-defense stance. Tough shit, thats the country we now live in.

          /derail

        10. I get that you’re uncomfortable with a strong self-defense stance. Tough shit, thats the country we now live in.

          Not so much the stance, but the fact that you seem to crowbar it into every argument. Like I said, I agreed with everything else in your comment, but the macho posturing about self defense and the nonsense about who does and doesn’t ‘deserve a bullet’ comes across as little more than penile oscillation.

    4. The U.S. government has not yet restricted speech on the national security argument it could inflame an enemy and result in additional US casualties during a war. We’ve had the Smith Act which barred supporting the overthrow of the US government, since restricted by a series of Supreme Court Opinions and amendments, and various censorship bodies during WWII and WWI and more recent wars relating to military reporting, as well as wartime (and post-war) censorship and monitoring of overseas press dispatches and all mail, and phone calls which cross the border. It would be a stretch to do as you suggest, but I could see them trying, though the recent “request” of Google makes clear they lack the authority and/or political power (restricting a anti-Islam film would be a field day for conservatives). I doubt they believe they have the authority – see the previous Koran burning incident where the Defense Secretary called and asked the pastor involved not to do it (of course he did it anyway).

      1. Actually, Google’s actions indicate the US government may have influenced the company, they blocked access to it in two countries, Egypt and Libya. We can’t know if that was appeasing our gov or truly voluntary.

  5. Recently, a commercial video (sponsored by the State Department) shows President Obama and Secretary Clinton “clarifying” their disgust over the video and assuring viewers the US under no circumstances sponsor them.

    Yeah, I’m sure the Libyan government isn’t censoring this message.

  6. I think one obvious problem with blasphemy laws is that they are, as mentioned, about power. Many smaller sects of religions would be considered blasphemous by the larger sects, and even within larger sects there is disagreement over what constitutes blasphemy. Not all expressions of Islam consider physical depictions of people blasphemous, not all sects of Christianity believe in the Trinity, some sects of Christianity would consider ordaining LGBTQ people and women blasphemous, different edits to holy books could be considered blasphemous, etc.
    Laws that infringe on free speech are generally about those in power further consolidating their power and normalizing the discourse they advocate and want to enforce on others. I also believe that not every belief deserves respect, but think that as many beliefs as possible should be understood and that railing against beliefs without understanding is often a recipe for futility at best and disaster at worst. And failing to understand beliefs can often result in reiterating points imposed by the current powers-that-be about minority/oppressed positions and beliefs.

    1. I also believe that not every belief deserves respect, but think that as many beliefs as possible should be understood and that railing against beliefs without understanding is often a recipe for futility at best and disaster at worst. And failing to understand beliefs can often result in reiterating points imposed by the current powers-that-be about minority/oppressed positions and beliefs.

      I agree that you need to understand where a belief is coming from, i.e. find out why the person believes what they do. I may not understand the belief itself, but I do think its important to learn about diverse viewpoints. For example, I understand, in theory, why the Duggars have umpteen children–religion–but I will never really understand how one could believe that there is a god out there that wants you to have as many children as possible. I think part of why free speech is so important is to expose people to a variety of viewpoints. Even if you think those views are total crap, its good to hear what types of beliefs are out there; its part of being open-minded and informed.

      1. I definitely feel like it’s important for me to understand beliefs that I’m strongly opposed to. As Sun Tzu said: “Know your enemy.” I even think it’s important to respect such beliefs in a certain sense. There are beliefs–anti-LGBTQ Christian beliefs, for example–that I find reprehensible, but where I also have to appreciate the sincerity of the belief, the emotional investment behind it, the amount of time and energy the person has put into maintaining the belief. I respect those things in the sense that I see that the person who has the horrible belief is a human being just like me and is holding their belief for a lot of the same reasons I am holding my countering belief. That doesn’t blind me to the massive suffering that the person might be inflicting with their belief as a justification. That doesn’t make me support their belief. It just allows me to oppose it and undermine it more effectively. And I think it’s especially important for people with less social or political power to understand the beliefs of their oppressors because our path to victory can only lie through things like subversion, cunning, or persuasion. . .since we don’t have brute force on our side.

        1. I also have to appreciate the sincerity of the belief, the emotional investment behind it, the amount of time and energy the person has put into maintaining the belief. I respect those things in the sense that I see that the person who has the horrible belief is a human being just like me and is holding their belief for a lot of the same reasons I am holding my countering belief.

          No, you don’t, and no, they aren’t. Hitler was as sincere as anyone, I imagine, but does that warrant respect for his beliefs? No. Similarly, Ahmajinedad has put a lot of effort into Holocaust denial; is he fighting for that position for the same reason you fight for things like feminism? Hell no.

          I know it’s super painful for social activists to admit, but some people are just bad, awful people full of shitty ideas that they half-assedly believe out of spite and nothing else. That’s not like you at all. :p

        2. I know it’s super painful for social activists to admit, but some people are just bad, awful people full of shitty ideas that they half-assedly believe out of spite and nothing else. That’s not like you at all. :p

          Well, I certainly appreciate the compliment! I do think human beings are fundamentally similar though, being as we are 99.9% genetically identical. Not saying the differences aren’t important, of course. Also, I’m not so sure that the hate I feel for my perceived social opponents is qualitatively or neurologically that different from the hate Ahmajinedad feels for his perceived social opponents, although obviously the types of people we hate are different as is the way we believe to be ethically appropriate way in responding to those opponents. So there are differences but also similarities.

  7. William, the web-sites and forums that were shut down were not actual terrorist web-sites but simply places where people discussed the events in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. but with a heavy bias tilted towards the insurgents. The argument was that these web-sites helped “radicalize” Muslim youth in western nations to carry out attacks. The very same argument can be made on behalf of this video.

    1. Can we get a citation for this nebulous claim that “the PATRIOT Act” has been used to shut down non-terrorist discussion forums? There is a lot of appalling stuff in that law, and I could imagine the broad definition of “material support” being abused in this way, but I follow these issues fairly closely and can’t recall a case that fits this description. Sounds like it would make for an easy win for the ACLU if it were true.

    2. And I’m opposed to this argument in both cases. The government has no business regulating non-commercial speech unless it constitutes either a direct and explicit threat against an individual or actionable liable/slander. In both cases the bar should be extremely high and should require an actual victim to bring a complaint rather than an annoyed political appointee. Merely saying something that is likely to increase danger is not, and should not, be illegal. The Brandenburg standard is pretty clear on this front: mere advocacy of violence or inflammatory speech is completely protected. There is no incitement to immenent lawless action here.

      Just because the government has, in the past, likely violated free speech protections and gotten away with it doesn’t mean that we ought to coutenance future violations.

      2. require an actual victim to bring a complaint

        So I have to file complaints down at the SDNY every time one of these sites raises money or recruits people to bomb NYC again? Do I qualify as a victim, I was only on 11th street on 9/11, not actually targeted? Who’s the actual victim in your process?

        Material support should not include speech – and it doesn’t – otherwise Hamza (sp) and other clerics calling for war against US civilians would have been deported to face US charges ages ago, not after a case of recruiting actual terrorists who want to blow actual people like me up had been built.

        That’s why they wrote the word “material” into the law – to avoid the problems the Smith Act caused.

        One of the purposes of a government is to protect its residents/citizens from actual direct threats to said people. We’d be within our rights to even drop a bomb on the place where the computer server was located if there weren’t other less violent means available (like taking down a domain name we have jurisdiction over – which really just makes it more difficult to find the site). It’s the same thing as bombing a weapons factory – if the site is being used to recruit terrorists or provide financial support to buy the explosives used in their violence.

        1. So I have to file complaints down at the SDNY every time one of these sites raises money or recruits people to bomb NYC again? Do I qualify as a victim, I was only on 11th street on 9/11, not actually targeted? Who’s the actual victim in your process?

          I’ll be very, very clear here because I feel it is important. I would rather see another 9/11 happen because the government was too constrained to shut down a website soliciting donations for terrorism than see a single person’s First Amendment rights violated in the name of security. So yes, if its not a big enough deal for you to drag your ass out to the station and file a complaint over a direct threat to you then its not a big enough deal for the government to get involved. If you’re traumatized because you were close to a tragedy and someone still hates you, I really am deeply sorry, but your fear and feelings should not justify a major expansion of government authority to curtail speech.

          But, you know, thats not really what its coming down to. I cannot solicit prostitution even though I would use speech to do it. I cannot offer a politician a bribe. I cannot offer someone money to kill or assault another. We already have means of regulating someone soliciting or offering donations for murder. What you’re talking about is empowering the government to say “well I think this charity is really a terrorist organization and the money might potentially be used at some point some day to fund terrorism so its illegal.” Frankly, I think thats vile. Show me a direct and immediate threat.

  9. How would that even work? I know Swedish men can be persecuted for paying for sex abroad, but they barely have the resources to pursue Johns in their own country.

    1. Yes. Those impoverished Swedes, who can’t have sex evar, because we all know how poor the standard of living is in Sweden. Why, they can’t even afford to up their Sunlight Skillz, like all those rich people in the Congo and Bangladesh!

      …what does your post have to do with anything referred to in this post, thread, topic or possibly even the universe?

      1. Mike thought to himself, he thought, yanno what this post needs? More discussion of semi-consensual sex work.

        …Mike probably thinks that about everything, actually.

Comments are currently closed.