This is a guest post by Saad Mustafa

As someone whose religious beliefs are a fundamental aspect of their identity, I believe that speech which is directly insulting to religious groups should be restricted.

It is not the actual act of burning the Koran which has offended Muslims. In fact, Islamic doctrine approves of burning as one of the three permissible ways of disposing of the Koran when it becomes old and unusable. Rather, it is their perception that such an act constitutes a deliberate insult to their religious identity by demeaning its most recognisable symbol.

For decades, the United Nations has been arguing over whether or not it is lawful to restrict speech which is deliberately insulting to religious groups. While there would be an obvious price to pay in terms of loss of freedom of speech, there are already precedents for such a stance. Countries such as France have strict laws against denying acts of genocide, and rightly so, because such a denial offends the sense of identity of many of its citizens.

Should the law differentiate between religious and ethnic identity? Should one be granted more protection than the other?

Most Western nations have historically opposed granting religion more protection since secularism is the bedrock of legal and social frameworks. The argument you hear is that religious identity is something you choose, not something you are born with like race or gender. This, in my opinion, is a weak argument since for people with strong religious beliefs such as myself, religion is a more fundamental aspect of identity than ethnicity or race. How can someone tell me I am wrong to think so? Would that not be impinging on my rights?

Religiously offensive speech also has a tendency to disturb public order and incite violence. The worry is, once restrictions are allowed on such grounds, where do the restrictions on free speech end? In the United States, the US Supreme Court has already placed certain restrictions. In the famous Scenck v United States case in 1919, the Court ruled that it was illegal to falsely shout “fire” in a crowded theatre since it disturbed public order and incited panic. Rightly or wrongly, burning of holy texts also elicits such a response.

Whatever side of the argument you fall on, given the increasing level of conflict between religious identities in today’s world; we can expect this debate to last a long time.

Saad Mustafa is an intern at Index on Censorship, for more on this issue read Padraig Reidy here