Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Comic Book Banned in Malaysia
A story combining two of my favourite things: comic books and blasphemy! The always-useful Religion Clause Blog reports that Malaysia has banned an issue of a comic book titled "Ultraman the Ultra Power" (a title I've never heard of) because of a line connecting the titular super hero to Allah.
Forthcoming Article in University of Queensland Law Journal
I'm happy to report that the University of Queensland Law Journal will publish my article Religion, Secularism, and the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
"To Ban or Not to Ban Blasphemous Videos"
Evelyn M. Aswad, To Ban or Not to Ban Blasphemous Videos, 44 Georgetown Journal of International Law 1313 (2013).
This article discusses the worldwide outcry over the Innocence of Muslims video and the calls by many outside (and some inside) the United States to ban it. Aswad's goal, specifically, is to examine the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (to which the U.S. is a signatory) to determine whether that document requires members to suppress material like the video. The key provision at issue is Article 20(2) of the ICCPR, which states that "Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law." The U.S. filed a reservation to this section when it signed the ICCPR, stating that it would not suppress material protected by the First Amendment.
To my mind, this answers the question of any legal obligation the U.S. might have at international law, but Aswad takes the analysis a step further and argues that, even without a reservation, the Convention does not require suppression. Through a textual analysis of the provision, she argues that Article 20(2) is focussed on advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement, and that "[i]t would not constitute 'advocacy' for a speaker adhering to religion X to simply criticize, question, mischaracterize or ridicule religion Y without the intent to promote hatred against members of religion Y." (p. 1319) Thus, in order for Article 20(2) to require the suppression of the Innocence of Muslims video, Aswad concludes that evidence would have to be adduced that its maker had
the intent of promoting hatred towards Muslims. Further, she argues that the use of the word "incitement" in Article 20(2) is rather vague, as it does not disclose the degree of proximity needed between the act in question and the result which the section hopes to prevent (p. 1319-20).
Another interesting aspect of this short paper is a summary of the drafting history of Article 20. Aswad concludes that "the point of Article 20(2) was to prohibit expression where the speaker intended for his or her speech to cause hate in listeners who would agree with the hateful message and therefore engage in harmful acts toward the targeted group. There is no indication in the negotiating history that Article 20 was intended to prohibit speech about a targeted group that would offend the feelings of members of that group." (p. 1322).
This article discusses the worldwide outcry over the Innocence of Muslims video and the calls by many outside (and some inside) the United States to ban it. Aswad's goal, specifically, is to examine the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (to which the U.S. is a signatory) to determine whether that document requires members to suppress material like the video. The key provision at issue is Article 20(2) of the ICCPR, which states that "Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law." The U.S. filed a reservation to this section when it signed the ICCPR, stating that it would not suppress material protected by the First Amendment. To my mind, this answers the question of any legal obligation the U.S. might have at international law, but Aswad takes the analysis a step further and argues that, even without a reservation, the Convention does not require suppression. Through a textual analysis of the provision, she argues that Article 20(2) is focussed on advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement, and that "[i]t would not constitute 'advocacy' for a speaker adhering to religion X to simply criticize, question, mischaracterize or ridicule religion Y without the intent to promote hatred against members of religion Y." (p. 1319) Thus, in order for Article 20(2) to require the suppression of the Innocence of Muslims video, Aswad concludes that evidence would have to be adduced that its maker had
the intent of promoting hatred towards Muslims. Further, she argues that the use of the word "incitement" in Article 20(2) is rather vague, as it does not disclose the degree of proximity needed between the act in question and the result which the section hopes to prevent (p. 1319-20).
Another interesting aspect of this short paper is a summary of the drafting history of Article 20. Aswad concludes that "the point of Article 20(2) was to prohibit expression where the speaker intended for his or her speech to cause hate in listeners who would agree with the hateful message and therefore engage in harmful acts toward the targeted group. There is no indication in the negotiating history that Article 20 was intended to prohibit speech about a targeted group that would offend the feelings of members of that group." (p. 1322).
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Scooped: Two New Articles on Fortune-Telling and Religious Freedom
Two new articles on fortune-telling and religious freedom have appeared on SSRN (thanks to Religion Clause Blog for the pointer. First, Nicole Jones has written Did Fortune Tellers See this Coming? Spiritual Counseling, Professional Speech, and the First Amendment. Second, Mark Movsesian has written Defining Religion in American Law: Psychic Sophie and the Rise of the Nones.
These comes as I'm in the middle of writing my own article on fortune-telling, witchcraft, and religious freedom, so in some ways I've been scooped. But I plan to continue forward, as I've been collecting materials on the topic for several years and I'm sure my article will take a different approach than these two (in part, because I'll be incorporating Canadian and Australian materials). I've decided to finish my first draft and then read the new articles and discuss them in a new section.
These comes as I'm in the middle of writing my own article on fortune-telling, witchcraft, and religious freedom, so in some ways I've been scooped. But I plan to continue forward, as I've been collecting materials on the topic for several years and I'm sure my article will take a different approach than these two (in part, because I'll be incorporating Canadian and Australian materials). I've decided to finish my first draft and then read the new articles and discuss them in a new section.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Recent Blasphemy Stories
A few stories involving blasphemy have caught my eye over the past month.
* Religion Clause Blog has a story about a British citizen of Pakistani origin named Muhammad Asghar who has been convicted and sentenced to death in Pakistan for blasphemy. The man wrote letters to several people, including police, claiming to be a prophet. The man has a history of mental illness. According to the report, Pakistan has a de facto moratorium on the death penalty and so an actual execution is unlikely (his conviction is also the subject of an appeal).
* Volokh Conspiracy discusses a story from The Guardian about a Greek man who has been convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to 10 months in prison for comparing a revered priest to a pasta dish on a Facebook page. The conviction is also under appeal.
* A very interesting article in The New York Times about Penguin Books India pulping its entire run of a scholarly book about Hinduism in response to a lawsuit claiming the book was "malicious", "dirty", and "perverse." The decision is seen as a sign of concession to growing right-wing radicalism in the country.
* Religion Clause Blog has a story about a British citizen of Pakistani origin named Muhammad Asghar who has been convicted and sentenced to death in Pakistan for blasphemy. The man wrote letters to several people, including police, claiming to be a prophet. The man has a history of mental illness. According to the report, Pakistan has a de facto moratorium on the death penalty and so an actual execution is unlikely (his conviction is also the subject of an appeal).
* Volokh Conspiracy discusses a story from The Guardian about a Greek man who has been convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to 10 months in prison for comparing a revered priest to a pasta dish on a Facebook page. The conviction is also under appeal.
* A very interesting article in The New York Times about Penguin Books India pulping its entire run of a scholarly book about Hinduism in response to a lawsuit claiming the book was "malicious", "dirty", and "perverse." The decision is seen as a sign of concession to growing right-wing radicalism in the country.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Criminal Code of Canada Section 365: Witchcraft & Fortune-Telling
Here is the text of Section 365 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The law is still valid, and is the subject of the research paper I'm currently working on.
Criminal Code of Canada (valid as of Feb. 11, 2014)
Pretending to practise witchcraft, etc.
365. Every one who fraudulently
(a) pretends to exercise or to use any kind of witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration,
(b) undertakes, for a consideration, to tell fortunes, or
(c) pretends from his skill in or knowledge of an occult or crafty science to discover where or in what manner anything that is supposed to have been stolen or lost may be found,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Criminal Code of Canada (valid as of Feb. 11, 2014)
Pretending to practise witchcraft, etc.
365. Every one who fraudulently
(a) pretends to exercise or to use any kind of witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration,
(b) undertakes, for a consideration, to tell fortunes, or
(c) pretends from his skill in or knowledge of an occult or crafty science to discover where or in what manner anything that is supposed to have been stolen or lost may be found,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
As an aside, I especially like the phrase "crafty science", as I've never seen that before.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
"Brazil, Blasphemy, and Free Speech: Why the United States Must Maintain Strong Freedom of Expression Protections in Spite of International Pressure to Punish Anti-Religious Hate Speech"
Stuart Vincent Campbell, Brazil, Blasphemy, and Free Speech: Why the United States Must Maintain Strong Freedom of Expression Protections in Spite of International Pressure to Punish Anti-Religious Hate Speech (unpublished working paper available on SSRN).
This interesting paper is written in the context of the controversy and protests created by the dissemination of the Innocence of Muslims video and the resulting calls from some quarters for the United States to take aggressive action to forbid anti-religious speech. Campbell accurately notes that those opposed to blasphemy laws often point to countries like Pakistan as examples of the harm such laws cause. However, "[i]nstead of looking to small homogenous nations in the Middle East that bear almost no cultural or legal resemblance to the United States, this note turns to the empirical example of Brazil--a large heterogeneous democracy that in some ways bears a surprising cultural and historical resemblance to the United States." (p. 3)
The paper provides good background on the Innocence of Muslims video (pp. 5-6) and an overview of the history of blasphemy laws in the U.S. (pp. 11-15) before moving on to what I consider the most useful aspect of the paper: a discussion of how blasphemy laws are used in Brazil. Campbell argues that although Brazil has a constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech, judges allow blasphemy laws to operate by always framing the issue as the need to balance the right to freedom of speech against the right to freedom of religion. "Brazil suppresses blasphemous speech not based on the desire to establish a state religion, but rather based on legal principles that allow judges to prioritize religious respect and de-prioritize 'offensive' speech." (p. 4) Constitutional interpretation is very different in Brazil than in the U.S., Campbell explains, and the result is that much speech is suppressed in a problematic way. Campbell takes a strong position against the adoption of blasphemy or blasphemy-like laws in the United States.
This is the first paper I've seen on how blasphemy laws operate in Brazil, and it serves as a good addition to the literature.
This interesting paper is written in the context of the controversy and protests created by the dissemination of the Innocence of Muslims video and the resulting calls from some quarters for the United States to take aggressive action to forbid anti-religious speech. Campbell accurately notes that those opposed to blasphemy laws often point to countries like Pakistan as examples of the harm such laws cause. However, "[i]nstead of looking to small homogenous nations in the Middle East that bear almost no cultural or legal resemblance to the United States, this note turns to the empirical example of Brazil--a large heterogeneous democracy that in some ways bears a surprising cultural and historical resemblance to the United States." (p. 3)The paper provides good background on the Innocence of Muslims video (pp. 5-6) and an overview of the history of blasphemy laws in the U.S. (pp. 11-15) before moving on to what I consider the most useful aspect of the paper: a discussion of how blasphemy laws are used in Brazil. Campbell argues that although Brazil has a constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech, judges allow blasphemy laws to operate by always framing the issue as the need to balance the right to freedom of speech against the right to freedom of religion. "Brazil suppresses blasphemous speech not based on the desire to establish a state religion, but rather based on legal principles that allow judges to prioritize religious respect and de-prioritize 'offensive' speech." (p. 4) Constitutional interpretation is very different in Brazil than in the U.S., Campbell explains, and the result is that much speech is suppressed in a problematic way. Campbell takes a strong position against the adoption of blasphemy or blasphemy-like laws in the United States.
This is the first paper I've seen on how blasphemy laws operate in Brazil, and it serves as a good addition to the literature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)