![]() In a controversial decision that shows the continuing potency of laws criminalising speech critical of religious belief, it upheld the Austrian courts’ punishment of a woman for criticising Muhammad, considered by Muslims to be the last of God’s prophets. On 25 October the European court of human rights had cast a different light on the issue. Protests erupted, judges’ security was tightened and, in a reminder of how social media can grease the spread of violence in the right conditions, parts of the mobile phone network were temporarily shut down. Last week Pakistan’s supreme court struck down a death sentence for blasphemy that had been imposed on a Christian woman in 2010. The people of Ireland recently voted by 65% to 35% to remove from their constitution the criminal offence of blasphemy. Not totally, or everywhere, but there’s a trend. The law is gradually withdrawing from its traditional role as an enforcer of religious orthodoxy. Managing those tensions through self-regulation will grow, especially in organisations such as the Guardian that serve online a diverse global audience. ![]() ![]() Many people, perhaps now a majority in England, live by secular values, and may prefer that the law makes no attempt to protect what they regard as private, rather than shared, values.”Įpisodes of freedom of expression for some can be perceived by others as an attack on their religion, and respect for a religion can be thought to constrain expression unduly. Something valuable is lost if there are no restrictions at all on what can be said or written about God or religious belief.” Barendt continued: “This view is of course contestable. A free-speech scholar, Eric Barendt, summarised one church’s argument in favour of offences against religion and public worship: that “society is entitled to, or perhaps even should, protect a sense of the sacred. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |