"Blaspheming in the Suburbs: The Offence of Blasphemy in a Free Speech Regime"

Helen Pringle, Blaspheming in the Suburbs: The Offence of Blasphemy in a Free Speech Regime (available here).

Pringle's paper begins with a description of the arrest of an Australian Gold Coast teenager in 2008 for wearing a heavy metal band's t-shirt which depicted a nun masturbating with a crucifix and the words "Jesus is a cunt". Noting that the teen was charged with a summary offence prohibiting "offensive, obscene, indecent or abusive language", Pringle uses the arrest as a springboard for discussing how Australian authorities are often more comfortable using obscenity laws than blasphemy laws in jurisdictions where both exist:

"Where ostensibly blasphemous acts are the subject of prosecution in Australia, they are charged not as blasphemy but instead under the rubric of offensive conduct or language. That is, in both legal and cultural terms, blasphemy has generally been absorbed into a more 'neutral' category of obscenity or offensiveness." (p. 8)

Pringle goes on to discuss the scattered and mostly forgotten references to blasphemy in various Commonwealth and State statutory provisions and uses original newspaper research to demonstrate that blasphemy prosecutions in Australia took place as early as 1835 and into the 1920s, thus improving on Coleman's standard work. According to Pringle, during this time period, "instead of being a crime that was rarely prosecuted, [blasphemy] was frequently and successfully prosecuted, although the penalties were relatively light." (p. 14)

"Religious Freedom, Democracy, and International Human Rights"

John Witte, Jr. & M. Christian Green, Religious Freedom, Democracy, and International Human Rights, 23 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 583 (2009).

Witte and Green's article is a general overview of some of the religious freedom issues facing nation-states around the globe. Noting that democracy and human rights guarantees are flourishing in theory, the article cautions that "religion and freedom do not yet coincide in many countries, however rosy their new constitutional claims are as to religious rights and freedoms for all." (p. 584). The article briefly examines the question of whether religious freedom is a universal good or an artefact of Western/Christian hegemony (it favors the former view). A summary of the various international law documents on the subject of religious freedom is given, including the two Islamic declarations of human rights. In a key section, the article identifies three main issues countries are grappling with on the religious freedom front: 1) Proselytism/Evangelization, 2) Conversion & Apostasy, and 3) Blasphemy and "Defamation of Religions". The article works well as a survey/introduction to this area of law, but is too general to be of much use to scholars in the field.

French Newspaper Firebombed for Mocking Islamic Law

Several sources are reporting that the offices of a satirical French newspaper named Charlie Hebdo were largely destroyed by arson last week. The paper was about to publish a controversial special issue mocking Islamic law in Libya and Tunisia which had as its cover a figure wearing a turban saying "100 lashes if you don't die laughing!" In addition, reports indicate that the paper's website was hacked.

"The Permissibility of Incitement to Religious Hatred Offenses Under European Convention Principles"

Susannah C. Vance, The Permissibility of Incitement to Religious Hatred Offenses Under European Convention Principles, 14 Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 201 (2004).

Vance's article is a useful examination of the history of France's existing and England's (at the time) proposed statutes on religious hatred. The validity of each is analyzed under European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence, with particular attention paid to the Court's two decisions upholding domestic blasphemy statutes: Wingrove v. United Kingdom (1997) and Otto-Preminger Institute v. Austria (1994). Vance concludes that both country's religious hatred statutes would likely be upheld if challenged under Article 10 (the free speech guarantee) of the European Convention (p. 226).

In the course of this analysis, Vance makes several interesting points regarding the relationship between blasphemy and religious hatred. She notes:

"A law criminalizing religious hate speech may be analogized either to the racial incitement provisions contained in Britain's and France's civil rights legislation, or to blasphemy laws enacted to protect a country's established church." (p. 229)

"When contrasted with blasphemy laws, religious incitement laws of the sort enacted in France and contemplated in Britain appear better adapted to protecting the religious feelings of others. First, blasphemy laws in their traditional form are designed to protect the integrity of doctrine (typically the doctrine of the established church) from defilement; their primary focus is not on insult to individual adherents of the faith. Second, and more importantly, blasphemy laws are radically under-inclusive in their coverage; they protect only the established religion." (p. 237)

U.S. Federal District Court Upholds Regulation of Fortune Telling

Howard Friedman's Religion Clause Blog reports that the U.S. Federal District Court for the District of Eastern Virginia has upheld zoning, tax, and permit restrictions on fortune telling against constitutional challenges premised on freedom of religion, speech, and more. In the case, Moore-King v. County of Chesterfield Virginia, the Court rejected the plaintiff's freedom of religion argument, holding that the plaintiff was not engaged in religious practices. [this post is based solely on Friedman's, as I do not currently have access to Lexis to read the case itself]

English Cafe Owner Ordered to Stop Displaying Bible Verses

Police in Lancashire, England ordered the owner of a cafe to stop displaying Bible verses following a complaint about "insulting" and "homophobic" material. The cafe's owner displayed the Bible verses on a t.v. screen using DVDs that cycle through each verse of the New Testament in order; it is unclear which specific verses are the cause of the complaint. In ordering the display to stop, police stated that they were relying on Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which prohibits:

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

After consulting with his attorney, the cafe's owner decided to continue displaying the Bible verses. Section 5 of the Public Order Act has been the subject of widespread condemnation by reformists in England on the ground that it has been abused by police to censor the legitimate exercise of free speech.

H/T: Religion Clause Blog

Sparse Posting

Apologies once again to the sparse posting--still adjusting to the new demands of fatherhood!