EU concerned by growing use of religious defamation laws worldwide

"The European Union wants to stop the growing worldwide trend of using religious defamation laws to limit free speech. EU diplomats in Geneva are asking United Nations human rights experts Wednesday to suggest ways to protect freedom of expression better in the face increasing legal threats. Slovenia, which holds the rotating EU presidency, says journalists around the world face harsh penalties ranging from indirect censorship to heavy fines. Germany says it is particularly worried about a recently signed Arab charter that limits broadcasters' rights. Islamic countries are pushing for stricter international laws against religious defamation in the wake of Muslim anger over cartoons of their prophet Muhammad."

International Herald Tribune, March 12, 2008

Blasphemy is dead! Long live blasphemy!

"England’s dusty, archaic and unpopular blasphemy laws look set to be abolished, but Ofcom and others are keeping their censorious spirit alive.

[...]

These recent bizarre events show that censorship is not being eradicated in Britain. Instead it’s having a bit of spit-and-polish applied and being rehabilitated as Brand New, Gleaming, Glistening, PC Censorship! Old forms of punishment and censure for people who ‘cross the line’ are being replaced with new forms of wrist-slapping for those who dare to speak, write or think offensively. Indeed, the blasphemy laws, very rarely used, have been abolished in practice for 20 years or more. Yet as secularists, and even the Lords (not previously known for their commitment to liberty or democracy), ‘bravely’ shadow-box with the ghost of blasphemy, they seem not to have noticed that new censorious protections for easily offended religionists – and non-religionists – are being institutionalised. Maybe it’s all that celebratory champagne they’ve prematurely been quaffing.

[...]

The new censorship makes everything into a potential blasphemy – a blasphemy against the sacred self-esteem of fragile individuals. The ASA, Ofcom and others, with their elevation of subjective feelings of offence to the moral highground of public debate, have given rise to an entire nation of little Jesus Christs, all of whom can stake a claim to protection from contumely comments, or scoffing and ridicule against their being and personal providence. They have made tyrannical gods of us all.
Also, as its name suggests, the blasphemy laws were based in law. Any bishop, Bible-basher or blue-permed lady-who-lunches who wanted something banned would have to go through the courts and try to convince a judge and jury of their case. At the very least, this meant that a jury of 12 men and women – who so often are an oasis of reason in irrational times – would have the opportunity to do some scoffing of their own and potentially throw the case into the gutter where it belonged. Not so with the new censorship."

Brendan O'Neill, Spiked Online, 13 March 2008

Read it in its entirety. It's spot on.

Plenty of the neo-censorship happens because people shit their pants over possibly offending someone. And, as O'Neill here says, 3 or 23 people whining is enough for something to be "offensive" . There's a Norwegian organisation called "Familie og Medier" which is a Christian media bitch dog, and they enthusiastically write this:

"10 to 20 inquiries are considered a "viewer storm"! The editorial boards of radio channles and TV channels are not used to a lot of responses on their programmes. You will be heard and have the opportunity influence if you use your voice"

Dr. Faysal Al-Qassem: You can't Criticize Christ in the West

"Dr. Faysal Al-Qassem, Moderator: "How come freedom of expression in the West is sacred only when it comes to degrading the Muslims? Are they allowed to talk about the Holocaust? Are they allowed to talk about Christianity? That is the question. Cinemas were burned down in the West when they talked about Christ."
Wafa Sultan: "I live in America, and I never heard of a single cinema that was burned down here. Where do you get your information from? It sounds as if you are living in America, not me."
Moderator: "In France."
Wafa Sultan: "This is completely baseless. You should criticize your own beliefs just as Christians criticize their beliefs.""

MemriTV.org, Al-Jazeera on March 4, 2008., Arab-American Psychiatrist Wafa Sultan Clashes with Egyptian Islamist Tal'at Rmeih and Dr. Faysal Al-Qassem (Moderator) (Transcript)

Wafa Sultan was great as always, and it's worth watching it. Unfortunately, her Islamist opponent, Tal'at Rmeih, is both ignorant and probably lying too because he can't possibly be that ignorant.
I was however surprised to hear this talk from the moderator, Dr. Faysal Al-Qassem, about cinemas in the west having been burnt down because of criticism against Christ or Christianity. He didn't cite any sources so I'm not sure if he's lying, or if he's picked up a rumour or if there really was a fire by Christian fanatics. (Anyone?)

What I am certain of, however, is that criticizing Christ, or blasphemy against Christ, for that matter, is a stroll in the park in Western Europe. How do I know this? Well, because I've been listening to the Anti Christian music style Black Metal for about 20 years. Other music styles have been criticizing Christianity too(Punk, Hardcore, Goth, Death Metal, Thrash Metal, Heavy Metal etc. etc.), but Black Metal has been the most explicit Anti Christian music style. Both visually (covers, logos etc.) and lyrically, the bands have been Anti Christian.
And in the early 90s, more extreme things happened: Church burnings. First and foremost in Norway(approximately 50 burnings), but it spread to other countries, so I'm not sure how many churches in the west were burnt thanks to this blasphemous music style. 200 would not be far from the truth.
At the time (92, 93) the amount of people who were into this music style were young, relatively few and extreme and impressionable teens were later a part of the picture.
Today the music style is much more popular and also less extreme. Well, the music itself is still often extreme but the people are more average. Everything has been calmed down. Plenty of the arsonists were imprisoned, churches were rebuilt, and the music style has been commercialized.
And that's just as well.

But my point is, to the European Christians' credit I heard of no attempts to get even. If the Christians had been Muslims, one might have expected attempts to blow up concert halls while Black Metal bands were playing, assassination of the band members or even killing fans displaying inverted crosses and pentagrams on their jackets.

What the Christians did (at least in Norway) was to write letters to the papers, guard their churches, and state emphatically that "Our faith just grows stronger".
Ironically, in 1997 youths in Egypt were arrested for listening to metal:

Part1. Part1

(From the Swedish fanzine "Pure Passion" #2.)

So in the vain hope that Dr. Faysal Al-Qassem is googling himself, I want to say: Yes, you can criticize Christ in Europe. The church burnings (and other things) were crimes, and were dealt with as crimes. The music style, however, as blasphemous as it was, has been given practically a free ride, even to the extent that many Christians not only can listen to it, but have even made their own Christian variety where they play music that sounds similar, but with Christian lyrics.

I don't think that Dr. Faysal Al-Qassem wishes that Middle Eastern youths try to do the same thing. But I also think that teenage "Black Metal terrorism" was fairly innocent compared to what's been going on in the Middle East between god-fearing men, women and children, for a while now.

Above you see a wide variety of blasphemy against Jesus Christ.
No cinemas were harmed.

It also has to be asked: What is it that separates BM covers (and many other Anti Christian blasphemies) from the infamous Muhammed cartoons? For the most of it, it was blasphemy for blasphemy's sake. This is definitely not true for all bands, because they're all different and some (like Darkthrone) has made very good lyrics, but it's true for many. Some just want to make a kind of horror music, others have a nihilistic attitude, others again were just keeping BM traditions alive while playing music they liked. And plenty of people have been able to compartmentalize between being extreme on stage but being law abiding citizens privately. Must of them have also grown up.

Anyway, the criticism against Christianity has, by and large, consisted of "Christianity is a stupid belief for weak and gullible people"(at a time in Western Europe when Christianity is no longer more than an annoyance) while the criticism, made by cartoonists and others against Islam is that "There is a connection between terror and Islam, and Muslims threaten our freedom of speech.". The blasphemy against Christ, then, serves only to mock a stupid belief. But the Muhammed cartoons had a more important message.
Black Metal was always a teenage riot that came for no apparent reason, while the Muhammed cartoons was a result from Islamic terrorism.

I have to mention that American Christianity is not at all as meek and mild as Western European Christianity, and you can say the same about a couple of Eastern European countries, especially Poland. And then of course, there's the Pope.
Also Western European Christianity is still irrational, and deserving of serious criticism, but I think we can agree that burning down churches was uncalled for and that probably some of the blasphemies were a tad childish.

Black Metal Nerd Alert: This has by no means meant to be a perfect report on the history of Black Metal, merely to show that criticizing Christ in the West is easier than criticizing Muhammed. For those who are interested in this subject, please read a book.

Virtual Museum of Offensive Art

In these times, when blasphemy is all the rage, the Virtual Museum of Offensive Art is a welcome resource website. You'll find a lot of controversial works of art here, that prudes of all types have wanted to ban. Plenty of blasphemy, but also plenty of sex and a little politics.

(Found at the NewHumanist blog.)

IHEU: Petition for defence of individual rights at the UN Human Rights Council

"[…] The [Human Rights Council] has become an ideological war machine against its founding principles[The Universal Declaration of Human Rights]. Ignored by the mainstream media, day after day, session after session, resolution after resolution, a political rhetoric is forged to legitimize tomorrow’s violence. A "triple alliance" of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) represented so far by Pakistan, the Non-Aligned Movement where Cuba, Venezuela and Iran have a central role, and China -- with the cynical complacency of Russia – are working together to establish of a genuine revolution in the guise of "multiculturalism". Thus, the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, Doudou Diène has said that criticism of the Burqa is a racist aggression, that secularism is rooted in a culture of slavery and colonialism and that the French law against the wearing of religious symbols in schools is part of anti-Muslim racism, renamed "Western Islamophobia ". The confusion of minds is at its peak when any criticism of religion is denounced as a racist attitude. This is a radical threat against freedom of thought which is being condoned by the United Nations. By equating with racism any criticism of the excesses of those who speak in the name of Islam, because supposedly such criticism belongs to neo-colonialist attitudes, the spokespersons of this new alliance tighten a little the noose they have put on the neck of their own peoples and undermine the foundations of a civility hard-won in Europe since the wars of religion."

[...]

If by misfortune, the United Nations should sanction the imposition of such criteria, if blasphemy should be equated with racism, the right to criticism of religion outlawed, religious law become the international norm, it would be a regression with disastrous consequences, and a radical perversion of our entire tradition of struggle against racism, which has developed and can only develop in the most absolute freedom of conscience.

[...]

To sign this petition, please send an email to licra@licra.org"

Please sign.
I've also made a new logo for the Human Rights Council:

Stats on religion: USA, Britain, Italy, France, Germany

I just feel like having drunk sour milk unknowingly, because I wrote the text below before discovering that the numbers were from December 2006. But anyway, have a look at stats from last year!

A Financial Times/Harris Poll has revealed a lot of interesting numbers on religion in USA, Britain, Italy, France and Germany. Here are some of the results I found most interesting:

As expected, Americans for a large part believe in God, so 73% is no surprise. In fact, it might as well have been higher. The French has the largest amount of Atheists, which is also no surprise. Both Britan and Germany are OK too. There are more than twice as many believers in USA as there is in Britian. That's interesting, it being often referred to as the "51st state" and all.
Now to the question of veils, France is the most trigger-happy, while USA is the most liberal. That's not so strange, but what surprised me is that USA is also a warm defender of blasphemy. While in Laicist France there are 42% who thinks blasphemy should be outlawed, and 41% who said it shouldn't, in USA 52% says blasphemy should not be outlawed. And only 31% says it should be outlawed. I find this rather heartwarming. (Unfortunately, I think Americans prefer not to take blasphemy to the courts, but rather send a well armed militia to the blasphemer.)

Anyway, it's quite clear that the French, Brits and Germans are skeptical, but not so much in a philosophical way. It's more a pragmatic attitude: no extreme displays of religion and no blasphemy either. Americans, however, like their religions loud.

The Blasphemy Collection

"The concept of blasphemy seemed for some decades to be in decline in the West, but not any more. It may be useful to look back at some recent cases of militantly religious outrage..."

Times, October 26, 2007

A fun story, listing some important blasphemies, the impact and how many people were killed in revenge and so on.

Revisiting the Danish Cartoon Crisis (interview with editor of Jyllandsposten)

"I think many people betrayed their own ideals. The history of the left, for instance, is a history of confronting authority—be it religious or political authority—and always challenging religious symbols and figures. In this case, they failed miserably. I think the left is in a deep crisis in Europe because of their lack of willingness to confront the racist ideology of Islamism. They somehow view the Koran as a new version of Das Kapital and are willing to ignore everything else, as long of they continue to see the Muslims of Europe as a new proletariat.

[...]

But what really bothers me today—and this hasn't been reported very widely—is that right after the cartoon crisis, the Organization of the Islamic Conference at the United Nations sponsored a resolution condemning the "ridiculing of religion." It didn't pass, but in March of this year the United Nations Human Rights Consul, which is the highest international body in the world for the protection of human rights, passed a resolution condoning state punishment of people criticizing religion. I think this is a big scandal. This was a direct result of the "cartoon crisis." Fortunately the European Union voted against it. But countries like Russia, Mexico and China supported the resolution. And in this resolution, they call on governments to pass laws or write provisions into their constitutions forbidding criticism of religion. This would give a free hand to authoritarian regimes around the world to clamp down on dissidents."

Flemming Rose, Reason.com, October 1, 2007

Regarding the last part, see these posts:

NGOs gagged again at UN Human Rights Council
A Catastrophe for Human Rights
Islamists Turn UN Human Rights Body into a Laughing Stock

Cult Plus Time Equals Religion

For the most part, the only difference between a "real religion" and a "cult" is longevity--a distinction that also applies to governments. If enough people believe in some form of the supernatural for a long enough period of time, we stop calling it a cult and start calling it a religion. Religions are cults that last.

[...]

One of the main reasons why it is a mistake to call atheism, freethought, or secular humanism "just another religion" is that unfettered inquiry is the basis of the secular worldview. Free inquiry is the mortal enemy of all controlling religions. Of course, secular ideologies such as Stalinist Communism can become controlling religions too, since they take on the imperviousness to evidence that is the ultimate expression of religious fanaticism. But that has nothing to do with the open-minded secularism, rooted in the Enlightenment, that is the basis of freethought today. Fear and loathing of intellectual challenge is the essence of all controlling religious factions, whether the God is called Stalin, Jehovah, or Allah.

[...]

Christian societies, of course, used to kill people for blasphemy. But time--and the rise of the great separation between church and state pioneered by the United States of America--has turned most of the Christian world away from the dogmas of controlling religion. But don't call this "real" religion, as distinct from a cult. It is simply religion moderated by secular knowledge and secular government.

Susan Jacoby, On Faith, 19. September 2007

Offensive stats

Has anyone noticed the way Muslims use statistics these days? Well, the rest of us can use statistics too.

Religion: is the fight back under way?

"Let us look at the score-sheet so far as religious evangelists try to reclaim Britain as their own.

Sikh activists in Birmingham didn’t like the way their community was presented in a play at the local Rep Theatre. They protested and eventually rioted in front of the theatre and the play was taken off.
Score: Religionists 1, Secularists 0.

The BBC came under intense pressure from religious activists when it decided to show Jerry Springer - the Opera. Tens of thousands of born-agains (very few of whom had seen the opera) bombarded the Corporation with emails and letters demanding that the show be cancelled. The BBC went ahead and showed it.
Score: Religionists 1, Secularists 1.

Stephen Green, director of Christian Voice, which had tried to stop the broadcast of Jerry Springer - the Opera, tried to bring a prosecution for blasphemy against the Director General of the BBC. The court threw his application out.
Religionists 1, Secularists 2

The Government recently wanted to change the entry requirements at “faith schools” to permit 25% intake of children from other religions. The Catholic Church screamed blue murder and the Government backed down.
Religionists 2, Secularists 2

The Catholic Church wanted an exemption from the new Sexual Orientation Discrimination Regulations which would permit it to refuse services at its adoption agencies to gay couples. The Government refused.
Score: Religionists 2, Secularists 3

Shabena Begum, a Muslim schoolgirl, wanted her school to change its uniform policy so that she could wear a flowing Islamic gown. After several appeals, the courts upheld the schools right to say no.
Score: Religionists 2, Secularists 4

In Glasgow a man defining himself as an atheist was working at a Catholic school. He was denied promotion because he wasn’t of the faith. He took the school to a tribunal and won. Glasgow City Council appealed the decision, but lost and was told by the court that it had no business promoting any particular religion.
Score: Religionists 2, Secularists 5

Employment protection for tens of thousands of non-religious head teachers and non-teaching staff in various types of “faith schools” was removed by the Government at the behest of the Church of England in the recent Education and Inspections Act, despite vigorous opposition from secular parliamentarians being advised by the National Secular Society.
Score: Religionists 3, Secularists 5

A woman working for British Airways wanted to wear a crucifix over her uniform, in contravention of the company’s policy. After the usual cries of persecution from the evangelicals, and a media humiliation led by the Daily Mail, BA backed down.
Score: Religionists 4, Secularists 5

Lydia Playfoot sued her school because it refused to let her wear a “purity ring”. The court ruled in the school’s favour.
Score: Religionists 4, Secularists 6

A gay man took the Bishop of Hereford to a tribunal for blocking his appointment to a job in the diocese as a youth worker. The tribunal said the Bishop had illegally discriminated.
Score: Religionists 4, Secularists 7

An independent adjudicator ruled that the human rights of the members of the Christian Union at Exeter University had not been infringed when its funds were frozen by the University’s Student Guild. The Guild had decided that the Christian Union’s own equal opportunity policy had been violated by the Christians. The case will now go to the High Court, so, at the moment the
score: Religionists 4, Secularists 8 (Read BBC story)

The Advertising Standards Authority ruled that a full-page advertisement taken out in The Times by a group of evangelical Christians to protest against the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Regulations had been misleading.
Score: Religionists 4, Secularists 9

Shambo the bull was designated as “holy” by a group of Hindus in Wales. When he tested positive for bovine TB it was ruled that he should be slaughtered. The Hindus went to court saying their human rights were being infringed. The judge agreed, but then the Court of Appeal overturned that decision and the law prevailed.
Score: Religionists 4, Secularists 10.

The point of listing these battles is that they are part of a growing pattern of determination by religious people to impose their way of life on to all of us. And they are trying to use parliament and the courts to do it."

National Secular Society, 08.03.2007

Well done!

A Catastrophe for Human Rights

"The root cause of the problem in the Council is the geographical distribution of its membership. The African and Asian states have an in-built majority. While this can be justified by the number of states and the populations involved, it enables a group of states, euphemistically called the "like-minded" group, to control the Council. Sadly, these states, as diverse as China, India, Pakistan and Cuba, are like-minded only in their determination to shield one another from accusations of human rights abuse.

[...]

I have been involved in the human rights bodies in Geneva for the past four years as the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) representative. It is difficult for me to describe my feelings of dismay at what has happened. It is also rare indeed for me to find myself in complete agreement with the U.S. administration. The United States, which is not a member, issued a communiqué following the last session of the Council that said in part:

"The Council focused almost exclusively during the year on a single country -- Israel -- and failed to address serious human rights violations in other countries such as Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Belarus, and Cuba."

[...]

Only Israel can be certain of condemnation. I also predict that no resolution will ever be passed condemning those who kill, or call on others to kill, in the name of religion. But I am equally certain that the Council will continue to pass resolutions "combating defamation of religion" (read "Islam")."

Roy W. Brown, HumanistNetworkNews.org July 3, 2007

See also: Islamic countries criticize UN secretary general

Two Council of Europe resolutions

"Assembly backs separation of church and state, reaffirms precedence of human rights over religious principles
Human rights must ultimately take precedence over religious principles where they conflict, PACE said today in a recommendation, following a special debate on intercultural and inter-religious dialogue. States should welcome and respect religions, in all their plurality, "as a form of ethical, moral, ideological and spiritual expression" by citizens, and should protect individuals' freedom to worship, but there should also be a clear separation of church and state, the parliamentarians said. Recommendation 1804"

Council of Europe 29/06/2007

"PACE: criticism of religions is permissible, inciting hatred against them is not
Religious groups must tolerate criticism and debate about their activities, provided it does not amount to gratuitious insult, but on the other hand hate speech – inciting discrimination or violence against people of a particular religion – should be penalised, PACE said today in a recommendation. Meanwhile blasphemy laws – which often result from the dominant position of one particular religion – should be reviewed. Recommendation 1805"

Council of Europe 29/06/2007

Christianity's sins against science

"Here's my quick list of objections to religion. Please note that I understand there will be individual variation, both between people in a sect and between sects themselves (Calvinists and Unitarians will have different views of destiny, for instance, and Buddhists seem less prone to the tyranny of authoritarianism). Also, the general public will embrace these sins a little less fervently than creationists and fundamentalists, but they're all there to some extent—while sometimes I'll mention creationists as extreme examples, that does not mean I am implying that all religious people are creationists."

Pharyngula, May 10, 2007

A good read!

[Opinion] Old-fashioned crime of "blasphemy" back with a vengeance

"In the wake of global protests over publication of the Prophet Mohammed caricatures, the archaic crime of blasphemy has re-emerged as a modern day form of insult law, says the World Press Freedom Committee (WPFC)."

IFEX, 17 April 2007

[Legal] Britain limits EU religious hatred ban

"Britain has narrowed the scope of a European Union-wide ban on incitement to religious hatred in a proposed anti-racism law, diplomats said on Tuesday."

Scotsman, Tue 17 Apr 2007

Islamists Turn UN Human Rights Body into a Laughing Stock

"Last week the United Nations' Human Rights Council condemned "defamation" of religion, and called upon member states to ban literature and other materials containing "racist or xenophobic ideas" that might lead to hostility against religious groups, although Islam is the only religion mentioned in the resolution.

[...]

None of the representatives took a position aggressively defending the virtues of free expression and secularism. The nearest we got to this came from Birgitta Siefker-Eberle of Germany who said that an "on-going dialogue" was the best way of resolving differences, and that it was problematic to reconcile "defamation" with discrimination."

Humaniststudies.org, Apr. 11, 2006

[History] The Nazis didn't like blasphemy

"According to the principles governing the compilation of this list, the following publications must be removed from public and commercial lending libraries:
[...]
c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk."