Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

January 4, 2011
Free Speech Blasphemy

ISLAMABAD: Gunmen killed the governor of Pakistan’s Punjab province, a senior member of the ruling party, in Islamabad on Tuesday, his spokesman said.
…
Interior Minister Rahman Malik told reporters that the suspect in the case had surrendered to police and told them he killed Taseer because “the governor described the blasphemy laws as a black law.”
Governor Punjab Salman Taseer killed in gun attack – Dawn

Blasphemy is the defamation of the name of God or the gods, and by extension any display of gross irreverence towards any person or thing deemed worthy of exalted esteem.
Blasphemy

There will now be an uproar about those Islamist Pakistani and the idolizers who hold free speech in exalted esteem will now declare how abhorrent, even blasphemic, it is that countries can have a law against blasphemy at all. Especially if those countries have mostly Muslim populations.

Well, many countries have such laws. Wikipedia currently lists some forty and I am sure there are many unlisted ones. Let's take a look at a few not so Islamist ones:

Austria: In Austria, Articles 188, 189 of the penal code relate to blasphemy.
Brazil: Art. 208 of the penal code states that "publicly villifying an act or object of religious worship" is a crime punishable with 1 month to a year of incarceration, or fine.
Greece: Article 199 "Blasphemy Concerning Religions" states: One who publicly and maliciously and by any means blasphemes the Greek Orthodox Church or any other religion tolerable in Greece shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years
Israel: In Israel, blasphemy is covered by Articles 170 and 173 of the penal code
United Kingdom: Blasphemy laws in the United Kingdom were specific to blasphemy against Christianity. … The last successful blasphemy prosecution (also a private prosecution) was Whitehouse v. Lemon in 1977, when Denis Lemon, the editor of Gay News, was found guilty.

Blasphemy laws are dangerous if they are not neutral towards all acknowledged believes or when they can be easily abused to accuse anyone out of revenge or other personal motives.

But blasphemy laws make sense. Religion believe is often deeply held and blasphemy laws can prevent provoked strife and heart felt outrage. 

That is not to justify the murder of Salman Taeseer.  Just to think a bit about the lunatic religion of free speech absolutism and the blasphemy, inherent in the mere existance of any blasphemy law, against the  deeply felt believe and exalted esteem for the free speech religion.

Posted by b on January 4, 2011 at 19:53 UTC | Permalink
Comments

After reading many Colin Thubron books for sevral classes, and in particular my own experiences while working on campus in the Foreign Student Services dept, my interactions w/ many, many Moslem, Middle Eastern, Central and South Asians, from a cross section of various countries/continents from North Africa to Indonesia even Iraq, I got the distinct impression that the vast majority of Muslims were and are secular and not religious, or dogmatic. That their extremists are a small percentage, as are our own extreme evangelicals, and that any Islamic revival and extreme Islamist movements are fueled by our methodical assault on Islam especially after Bush’s trifecta. However, many are ritualistic in behavior when it comes to family ties, cultural obligations, country norms, mores, etc..
I mean ritualistic in a good sense, not a rigid religious sense. Mostly in such things as celebrations, weddings, family gatherings etc..
American has only ever done one thing and that is to sow dissension, and discord in order to manipulate and create oppugnancy.
I trust nothing coming from our media. While this story may be accurate, in it’s telling, in a world of billions and the now complete agenda driven corrupt fourth estate we have I refuse to believe this isn’t just another amplified story that wants to high-lite and demonetize the worst aspects of our manufactured enemy, the dichotomy of the “hectic relations between ally/enemy”. It’s a heck of a challenge, we gotta roll up our selves, it’s a serious matter, these difficult cultures. It’s just such hard work understanding these people.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 4 2011 21:57 utc | 1

Idolatry is the name of the error which attributes a sacred character to the collectivity; and it is the commonest of crimes, at all times, at all places
–Simone Weil
One classical limitation on free speech, as defined early in American jurisprudence is “shouting Fire! in a crowded theater (just for fun). On the other hand, the belief or beliefs of any collectivity, whether these are ideological or religious, should not be considered sacred, in the sense that they deserve to be protected by law from ridicule. I am sorry, but if someone is so offended by a cartoon, a lampoon, or a satire, that he or she feels justified in murdering the cartoonist or satirist; then I don’t feel any obligation to respect a belief that requires such an act of retribution. And the violence on this kind of level is an argument against that belief, whatever it is. For this reason, the freedom of speech should take precedence, in most cases, in these matters; and people should never be subject to being killed because someone’s religious or ideological sensibilities have been bruised with words.

Posted by: Copeland | Jan 5 2011 1:37 utc | 2

actually, the US has a kind of derivative “anti-blasphemy” doctrine with respect to cross burning. The Court basically said that burning crosses is a kind of threat.
The reason you don’t want proscriptions on “blasphemy” or any other speech, is that it invites government abuses, because the dominant religion will enjoy a disproportionate protection from criticism, and dominant religions are almost always aligned with the political class of a country.
on the other hand, if you’re German, you might say that a few anti-blasphemy laws would have been handy throughout the 19th century in order to socially construct an aversion to Jew bashing.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 5 2011 1:54 utc | 3

In the final analysis, who besides God can be the arbiter or authority, in the question of what is, or isn’t blasphemous? It seems abundantly clear that the charge of blasphemy, being absolutist in its essential nature, is a convenient weapon that ruthless people can use to permanently silence their enemies.

Posted by: Copeland | Jan 5 2011 2:05 utc | 4

slothrop says…

“…if you’re German, you might say that a few anti-blasphemy laws would have been handy throughout the 19th century in order to socially construct an aversion to Jew bashing.”

what happens when predators hide behind their jewishness and become exempt from criticism?
what happens is: america, up to its ass in wars promoted by israel, israeli americans and their warmongering, oily fellow travelers.
truth should take precedence over anti-blasphemy laws and/or traditions and/or propaganda… especially when that “anti-blasphemy” horseshit is obscuring facts we need to know if we’re to have a chance of dealing with our problems.

Posted by: flickervertigo | Jan 5 2011 2:13 utc | 5

there always remains the possibility that predators who’ve had a free lunch since the holocaust know exactly what they’re doing, and are willing to defame jewishness in order to stack up enough cash to hide out, leaving little jews holding the bag.
the “bag” being, another round of jewish persecution, this time in america… but it’s all good, since more persecution, and the inevitable whining that follows, will engender enough sympathy to set up the next cycle.
what a way to make a living.

Posted by: flickervertigo | Jan 5 2011 2:18 utc | 6

to demonstrate how it worked, probably, on 9/11…
peak oil (occuring now?) and global warming (long term) are gonna be huge problems for america, but america cannot take any action to deal with them because the american public has been either denied information (peak oil) or information has been defamed (global warming) by the powers-that-be.
the powers-that-be cant admit to either peak oil or global warming, because people would see the connections between peak oil, global warming and PNAC’s “new pearl harbor”… and it’s just too goddamned bad that PNAC was spawned by the israeli american thinktank, the AEI.
so americans are ignorant of the most immediate problem (peak oil) and are propaganized into rejecting a long term threat (global warming) even exists.
and the most likely suspects for 9/11 get away scot free, seeing as how the traditional way of compiling a suspect list considers “motive, means, and opportunity”.
considering “means and opportunity”, the most likely suspects are, hands down, the israelis and neocon israeli americans… but if you can obscure your “motives”, you’re in good shape.
the fact that supposed zionists, mostly jews, cooked this whole scheme up must be overlooked, because that would violate the unwritten anti-blasphemy laws that that american media and political process –and, after 50 years of zionist propaganda, common americans– operate under.

Posted by: flickervertigo | Jan 5 2011 2:33 utc | 7

Speaking of PNAC, I believe that the “new pearl harbor”, was but the first stage, remember the rest of the blueprint:
“Advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”
More than 1,000 dead birds fall from sky in Ark.
Yes, I believe it’s still coming…
I wouldn’t have given this a second thought had not it been for the recent report of thousands of fish too…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 5 2011 3:29 utc | 8

Yes, it’s wild speculation, and yes, I’m paranoid. Doesn’t mean I’m wrong though…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 5 2011 3:30 utc | 9

once you’ve abandoned your morals, anything is possible.
i’d guess it’s all gonna get worse before it collapses completely.
lol

Posted by: flickervertigo | Jan 5 2011 4:12 utc | 10

it just looks to me like we’ve been educated beyond our capacity to understand… and our leadership selection process routinely seems to select for psychopaths.
anybody that winds up in a position of great power should have been weeded out of the gene pool a million years ago… i think it’s got something to do with mammalian reproductive strategies…

Posted by: flickervertigo | Jan 5 2011 4:29 utc | 11

I’m Indian and I can tell you having these laws invites a special kind of riot

Religion believe is often deeply held and blasphemy laws can prevent provoked strife and heart felt outrage.

Before elections or fights between bigwigs, create a rumour over a religious slur and go hammer and tongs at people in religious clash. All over a rumour. and these laws are used on a trumped up charge against minorities as in Pakistan.
And if you read this story, the hair trigger reaction to some mundane stuff, would you still root for blasphemy laws?
Atrocity in Kerala
It’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t. I mean, I can’t make up my mind whether it’s a good or a bad thing. One thing for sure, in a place like India, say something funny about another religion, you’re dog meat.
A lot of these baptist and pentecostal ministers from America have had a pasting and even death in their evangilical zeal of converting the heathens here.

Posted by: shanks | Jan 5 2011 16:07 utc | 12

@shanks – It’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t. I mean, I can’t make up my mind whether it’s a good or a bad thing.
Same here. After studying the 16th/17th century Germany, when a third of the population was killed in religious wars (often stoked from the outside and ended in the Peace of Westphalia) I am somewhat leaning to tolerance of other religions. Blasphemy laws, with not harsh but significant penalties, can help to prevent too outrageous provocations.
As always in law, to prevent against abuse the question must always come down to intend and a court should judge based on that. The Danish Mohammad cartoons were obviously thought up to provoke outrage. To me they were blasphemous and should have been banned.
The current Pakistani blasphemy law is much too strict and should be toned down a lot but not be totally abolished. Salman Taeseer made a big mistake in demanding that. I have my doubts though that it was the real reason for his assassination.

Posted by: b | Jan 5 2011 18:59 utc | 13

it is intent instead of intend b – but i agree with what you have sd here, it is clear that the danish instance was a provocation

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 5 2011 21:44 utc | 14

Speaking of blasphemy…
Army’s “Spiritual Fitness” Test

Army’s “Spiritual Fitness” Test Comes Under Fire
Test Was Designed by Psychologist Who Inspired CIA’s Torture Program
An experimental, Army mental-health, fitness initiative designed by the same psychologist whose work heavily influenced the psychological aspects of the Bush administration’s torture program is under fire by civil rights groups and hundreds of active-duty soldiers. They say it unconstitutionally requires enlistees to believe in God or a “higher power” in order to be deemed “spiritually fit” to serve in the Army.
Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF) is a $125 million “holistic fitness program” unveiled in late 2009 and aimed at reducing the number of suicides and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) cases, which have reached epidemic proportions over the past year due to multiple deployments to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the substandard care soldiers have received when they return from combat. The Army states that it can accomplish its goal by teaching its service members how to be psychologically resilient and resist “catastrophizing” traumatic events. Defense Department documents obtained by Truthout state CSF is Army Chief of Staff George Casey’s “third highest priority.”CSF is comprised of the Soldier Fitness Tracker and Global Assessment Tool, which measures soldiers’ “resilience” in five core areas: emotional, physical, family, social and spiritual.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 5 2011 22:21 utc | 15

The problem with making it a blasphemous crime to criticize any and all forms of religions is that it enables people with religious power to get away with committing all sorts of crimes – anything from tax fraud and money laundering to screwing little choirboys and ripping off elderly churchgoers. What kills me is that many of them have got the audacity to call this God’s work!

Posted by: Cynthia | Jan 5 2011 22:48 utc | 16

“…God’s work!”

yup
and when you’re a jewish “capitalist” doing “god’s work“, you got a triple layer of protection from blasphemers.
good deal.

Posted by: flickervertigo | Jan 6 2011 1:08 utc | 17

Not long before he was assassinated, Salman Taseer made it known “that he only wanted changes in the blasphemy law which was introduced by a dictator, Ziaul Haq and was not in favour of abolishing the law.”
And in the view of a moderate politician, like Taseer, changes in the blasphemy law would help Pakistan:

the said law only promoted extremism and quarrels among Islam and other religions and the constitution and Islam called for protection of minorities’ rights.

A mouthpiece for the religious extremists in Pakistan said that Taseer could no longer remain a Muslim, after Taseer tried to intervene in the case of a Christian woman, Aasia Bibi, who had been tried for blasphemy and condemned to death.
From an article by Usman Manzoor,

On November 25, Governor Salman Taseer said that he went to meet Aasia Bibi for the sake of humanity only and the blasphemy law was man-made and not God-given, adding that his meeting with Aasia Bibi was being politicised. Taseer clarified that no Muslim could even imagine blasphemy, adding that the issue important for him was reviewing the blasphemy law. “Even now, Punjab Law Minister Rana Sanaullah, Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf chief Imran Khan, Nilofer Bakhtiar, Sherry Rehman and others have talked about bringing a change in this law,” he added. On the same day the activists of religious parties staged a demonstration in Toba Tek Singh against reports of possible pardon and release of a death convict for blasphemy. Speakers warned Governor Salman Taseer not to campaign for the release of death convict Aasia Bibi of Sheikhupura in the blasphemy case. On November 29, Salman Taseer while talking to media said that decrees were being issued against him for helping a poor, illiterate and helpless Christian woman. He said that Islam preaches harmony and peace.
On 30th December, the governor while addressing the convocation of Fatima Jinnah Women University said that the illiterate mullahs can not expel anyone from Islam. “I am answerable to Allah and not to mullahs,” the governor said.

Posted by: Copeland | Jan 6 2011 4:58 utc | 18

This is the non-botched link to the Usman Manzoor piece: here

Posted by: Copeland | Jan 6 2011 5:06 utc | 19

Just to play devil’s advocate… rather than make blasphemy a crime, why not make it illegal to kill people for what they speak, no matter how hateful?
What’s worse? Being some freaky religious zealot and having someone dis your big guy? Or being an atheist and going to prison because you don’t believe in some particular big guy? I know this may not seem like what we’re discussing, but isn’t this the gist of the problem when trying to legislate humanity to act humanely? Laws continue to be created trying to address every variation of human behavior, but such a thing is impossible. And worse, we eventually weaken the value of the laws we do need because it becomes impossible to enforce them all.
Wouldn’t it be better to teach people to simply tolerate the words of others, no matter how hateful? Couldn’t we make that the law? Make it illegal to be upset by other’s speech? How about dress? Conservative religious types complain about the way modern people dress, should we make short-shorts illegal? (personally, there are some people who SHOULD be outlawed from wearing certain outfits…) Once laws are created making specific speech illegal, you open the door for laws outlawing all kinds of personal behavior… however, this isn’t what governments are good at, as has been proven again and again by history.
Besides, the Danish political cartoons were carried by the mouthpiece of empire, a newspaper… Same with the crap being spewed by the good reverend from, I think FL, who was advocating some nastiness against Muslims. Without the mouthpiece of media, how would anyone know what these haters had to say? Thinking about this and I imagine an image of a snake eating it’s tail.
Media is foul and very insulated against new ideas being broadcast or published. There is little or no variation to the stories coming from the MSM, despite what all the viewers consuming the crap think. The arguments people are having over beers and dinners are created with the agendas being discussed at the big think-tank mind-meld events, which happen all over the world for those who move and shake. The fact we’re arguing about blasphemy shows how effective they are at creating the agenda people think about.
When it’s a crime to criticize something with speech and yet legal to steal people’s land and property with a pen and sword, I think we’re arguing about the wrong thing…
Peace

Posted by: DaveS | Jan 6 2011 15:37 utc | 20

@DaveS #20
‘How to “Question Authority,” when it’s Authority telling us how to question it?”
It isn’t just propaganda any more, it’s ‘prop-agenda ‘. It’s not so much the control of what we think, but the control of what we think about.~Brain Eno
—
Where the fuck is Malooga?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 6 2011 15:58 utc | 21

I miss the Malooga whale too 🙂
I hope he is well and doing well…

Posted by: DaveS | Jan 6 2011 16:21 utc | 22

Good write up about Pakistan and the assassination by Londonstani Pakistan’s dilemma at Salmaan Taseer’s murder

Taseer’s death, like the blasphemy debate that preceded it, was about much more than religion; it was about the politics of resentment in a state that’s failing. Not long before his death, Taseer posted on twitter; “It is the rich educated & privileged who have destroyed Pak not the poor illeterate & dispossessed”. He had a very good point. Decades of failed governance in Pakistan has led to the emergence of very different communities living side by side in one country. I don’t mean ethnicities or religious groups.
…
The rich – the ones who were able to afford the opportunity – often do not share any public space with the poor. The chai khaane (tea houses) are similar to Arab qahwas in that they both serve hot caffeinated beverages. The local area’s wealthy and not-so wealthy do not sit in corner cafes reading the same newspaper. In fact, often, the wealthy and poor read newspapers in different languages; the English ones being much more balanced and sophisticated than the Urdu ones. With very few reference points in common; to the wealthy, the poor are to be mistrusted. To the poor, the wealthy (the “elites”) are practically aliens. Having recently spent time in various rural parts of Pakistan, I find myself being asked to explain the rest of the country to Pakistani friends. To many Pakistanis, much of their country is a foreign place.
Like many other elements of public discourse in Pakistan, your position on the blasphemy law has become a measure of you as a person; much like the abortion debate in the US. Those “elites” who don’t reflect “real” Pakistani/Muslim values are portrayed in the argument as sellouts and traitors. A much cleverer person than I (Ms Henley-on-Thames) suggested this was economic resentment manifesting itself as cultural resentment. The wealthy in Pakistan, it seems, drew up the drawbridge on the rest of the country many years ago, but in the process left themselves outnumbered and at risk of being overwhelmed.

Posted by: b | Jan 9 2011 16:53 utc | 23

Back to Main