In a recurring scenario, activists partake in controversial expression that either critiques or disparages a religion. This often leads to global condemnation, outrage, and sometimes even violence or threats. Subsequently, parliamentarians, heads of state, and religious leaders advocate for legal changes to ensure punishment for such expression and to prevent it from happening again in the future. Occasionally, these efforts fail, and free speech prevails. However, this time they have succeeded. Denmark has yielded to the pressure and demonstrated its intention to criminalize acts like desecrating holy books. This capitulation goes beyond restricting the right to blaspheme; it opens the door to further limitations on religious and political expression, which is notoriously difficult to reverse once initiated.
Late in August, Danish officials announced their plans to criminalize the burning of the Quran following controversial incidents in Denmark and Sweden. These incidents had sparked heated protests and strained relations with countries like Iraq, Morocco, and Turkey. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs publicized its intention to criminalize any mistreatment of religious objects of significant importance to a religious community. To specify, it mentioned the burning of holy books such as the Quran or the Bible as an example. This amounts to a blasphemy law, where religious symbols deemed holy by the Danish government receive protection from what they consider uncivil criticism. However, in a free and secular society, it is not the government’s role to selectively decide which belief systems warrant protection from offense and what criticisms against them are deemed “improper.” Moreover, it is not only expressions about religion that are at risk; the ministry has also suggested intervening when insults directed towards “countries” and “cultures” could have significant negative consequences for Denmark.
While disappointing, this announcement doesn’t come as a surprise amid mounting pressure to criminalize speech. This pressure is not only from individual politicians worldwide but also from global institutions such as the United Nations. The UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution in July, with a majority vote of 28 to 12, calling on states to address, prevent, and prosecute acts and advocacy of religious hatred. Although non-binding, this resolution signals a concerning victory for states like Pakistan and China, which aim to strengthen their ability to punish dissenters and solidify the state’s stance on religious and often political matters, seemingly with the approval of the international human rights community. Shortly after, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, representing 57 member states and considered the collective voice of the Muslim world, issued its own resolution demanding the immediate cessation and criminalization of Quran burning, as well as legal action against online speech insulting religious institutions, holy books, and religious symbols.
What initially began as a debate over the right to burn a holy book goes beyond that narrow scope. The push to censor and prosecute religious offense is growing globally. The UNHRC’s call for prosecution of vaguely worded “acts and advocacy of religious hatred” and the OIC’s demand to ban even more vaguely defined “insults” to religious institutions and symbols contribute to this trend. Meanwhile, the determination to protect the right to critique and even insult religion diminishes. While burning a holy book, especially one of significance, may understandably be deemed offensive by many, the crackdown on religious “hate” will inevitably encompass dissenting speech against religious bodies that are undoubtedly large, influential, and often explicitly political. Banning alleged acts of religious hate impartially means also prohibiting actions like opponents of Iran’s morality police destroying a headscarf or activists painting rainbow halos on the Virgin Mary. What one person considers an act of religious hate can be another person’s political protest, as evidenced by the censorship faced by feminists, secularists, educators, and LGBT-rights activists under blasphemy laws.
Rather than viewing Denmark’s decision as an example to follow, other free nations should perceive it as a cautionary tale. We cannot diminish hatred in the world by legislating against dissidents, and those considering new restrictions on blasphemy must critically evaluate why governments that frequently silence their critics staunchly advocate for them.
Sarah McLaughlin is a senior scholar specializing in global expression at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
