[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]We the undersigned respectfully urge the Danish Parliament to vote in favour of bill L 170 repealing the blasphemy ban in section 140 of the Danish criminal code, punishing “Any person who, in public, ridicules or insults the dogmas or worship of any lawfully existing religious community”.
Denmark is recognised as a global leader when it comes to the protection of human rights and freedom of expression. However, Denmark’s blasphemy ban is manifestly inconsistent with the Danish tradition for frank and open debate and puts Denmark in the same category as illiberal states where blasphemy laws are being used to silence dissent and persecute minorities. The recent decision to charge a man – who had burned the Quran – for violating section 140 for the first time since 1971, demonstrates that the blasphemy ban is not merely of symbolic value. It represents a significant retrograde step in the protection of freedom of expression in Denmark.
The Danish blasphemy ban is incompatible with both freedom of expression and equality before the law. There is no compelling reason why the feelings of religious believers should receive special protection against offence. In a vibrant and pluralistic democracy, all issues must be open to even harsh and scathing debate, criticism and satire. While the burning of holy books may be grossly offensive to religious believers it is nonetheless a peaceful form of symbolic expression that must be protected by free speech.
Numerous Danes have offended the religious feelings of both Christians and Muslims without being charged under section 140. This includes a film detailing the supposed erotic life of Jesus Christ, the burning of the Bible on national TV and the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammed. The Cartoon affair landed Denmark in a storm of controversy and years of ongoing terrorist threats against journalists, editors and cartoonists. When terror struck in February 2015 the venue was a public debate on blasphemy and free speech.
In this environment, Denmark must maintain that in a liberal democracy, laws protect those who offend from threats, not those who threaten from being offended.
Retaining the blasphemy ban is also incompatible with Denmark’s human rights obligations. In April 2017 Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagtland emphasised that “blasphemy should not be deemed a criminal offence as the freedom of conscience forms part of freedom of expression”. This position is shared by the UN’s Human Rights Committee and the EU Guidelines on freedom of expression and religion.
Since 2014, The Netherlands, Norway, Iceland and Malta have all abolished blasphemy bans. By going against this trend Denmark will undermine the crucial European and international efforts to repeal blasphemy bans globally.
This has real consequences for human beings, religious and secular, around the globe. In countries like Pakistan, Mauretania, Iran, Indonesia and Russia blasphemy bans are being used against minorities as well as political and religious dissenters. Denmark’s blasphemy ban can be used to legitimise such laws. In 2016 the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief pointed out that “During a conference held in Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) [in 2015], the Danish blasphemy provision was cited by one presenter as an example allegedly indicating an emerging international customary law on “combating defamation of religions”.
Blasphemy laws often serve to legitimise violence and terror. In Pakistan, Nigeria and Bangladesh free-thinkers, political activists, members of religious minorities and atheists have been killed by extremists. In a world where freedom of expression is in retreat and extremism on the rise, democracies like Denmark must forcefully demonstrate that inclusive, pluralistic and tolerant societies are built on the right to think, believe and speak freely. By voting to repeal the blasphemy ban Denmark will send a clear signal that it stands in solidarity with the victims and not the enforcers of blasphemy laws.
Jacob Mchangama, Executive director, Justitia
Steven Pinker, Professor Harvard University
Ahmedur Rashid Chowdhury, Exiled editor of Shuddhashar, 2016 winner International Writer of Courage Award
Pascal Bruckner, Author
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Human Rights Activist Founder of AHA Foundation,
Dr. Elham Manea, academic and human rights advocate (Switzerland)
Sultana Kamal, Chairperson, Centre for Social Activism Bangladesh
Deeyah Khan, CEO @Fuuse & founder @sister_hood_mag.
Fatou Sow, Women Living Under Muslim Laws
Elisabeth Dabinter, Author
William Nygaard, Publisher
Flemming Rose, Author and journalist
Jodie Ginsberg, CEO, Index on Censorship
Kenan Malik, Author of From Fatwa to Jihad
Thomas Hughes, Executive Director Article 19
Suzanne Nossel, executive director of PEN America
Pragna Patel – Director of Southall Black Sisters
Leena Krohn, Finnish writer
Jeanne Favret-Saada, Honorary Professor of Anthropology, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes,
Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Fariborz Pooya, Host of Bread and Roses TV
Frederik Stjernfelt, Professor, University of Aalborg in Copenhagen
Marieme Helie Lucas, Secularism Is A Women’s Issue
Michael De Dora, Director of Government Affairs, Center for Inquiry
Robyn Blumner, President & CEO, Center for Inquiry
Nina Sankari, Kazimierz Lyszczynski Foundation (Poland).
Sonja Biserko, Founder and president of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia
James Lindsay, Author
Malhar Mali, Publisher and editor, Areo Magazine
Julie Lenarz – Executive Director, Human Security Centre, London
Terry Sanderson President, National Secular Society
Greg Lukianoff, CEO and President, FIRE
Thomas Cushman, Professor Wellesley College
Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, New York Law School
Simon Cottee, the Freedom Project, Wellesley College
Paul Cliteur, professor of Jurisprudence at Leiden University
Lino Veljak, University of Zagreb, Croatia
Lalia Ducos, Women’s Initiative for Citizenship and Universals Rights , WICUR
Lepa Mladjenovic, LC, Belgrade
Elsa Antonioni, Casa per non subire violenza, Bologna
Bobana Macanovic, Autonomos Women’s Center, Director, Belgrade
Harsh Kapoor, Editor, South Asia Citzens Web
Mehdi Mozaffari, Professor Em., Aarhus University, Denmark
Øystein Rian, Historian, Professor Emeritus University of Oslo
Kjetil Jakobsen, Professor Nord University
Scott Griffen, Director of Press Freedom Programmes International Press Institute (IPI)
Henryk Broder, Journalist
David Rand, President, Libres penseurs athées — Atheist Freethinkers
Tom Herrenberg, Lecturer University of Leiden
Simone Castagno, Coordinamento Liguria Rainbow
Laura Caille, Secretary General Libres
Mariannes Andy Heintz, writer
Bernice Dubois, Conseil Européen des Fédérations WIZO
Ivan Hare, QC[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1495443304735-e4b217b9-25e4-0″ taxonomies=”88, 53″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
When feminist punk group Pussy Riot staged a protest performance on the altar of the Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Saviour on 21 February 2012, Russia’s government set in motion legislation that would severely punish blasphemy and drastically change relations between the country’s believers and non-believers.
Pussy Riot launched the performance to highlight the Russian Orthodox Church’s support for Vladimir Putin’s 2012 election and the ongoing collaboration between church and state. But Russia’s religious community took offence, calling the protest blasphemous and demanding action from prosecutors.
Within days, police arrested three of the group’s members. Later that year they were found guilty of “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred” and sentenced to two years in prison.
In June 2013, following the Pussy Riot case, new legal amendments to toughen punishment for blasphemy were enacted. The new Federal Law on Countering Insulting Religious Beliefs and Feelings of Citizens introduced changes into Article 148, “Obstructing the exercise of the right to freedom of conscience and religious belief,” of the Criminal Code. The new edition of the article included criminal liability for “public actions expressing obvious disrespect to society and committed with a view to insulting religious feelings of believers”, and for actions committed “in places specially designed for worship, other religious rites and ceremonies”.
The punishments vary from fines of up to 500,000 rubles (€8,000), compulsory labour and imprisonment for up to three years.
However, despite demands by a large part of society to toughen punishments for blasphemy, monitoring of trials involving Article 148 for the last three-and-a-half years has demonstrated its uselessness.
According to the report “Unlawful Implementation of the Anti-Extremist Legislation” by SOVA, a Moscow-based analytical centre studying relations between churches and secular society, only six sentences under the revised Article 148 were registered since 2013.
Aleksandr Verkhovski of SOVA told Index on Censorship that there will be no more in the future: “There’s no reason to use this article unless there is a new ideological mobilisation like in 2012 [with Pussy Riot].” Verkhovski said the blasphemy article does not work because the judiciary has been for years using Article 282 (incitement to racial, national or religious hatred and hostility) of the Criminal Code to prosecute offences of this nature.
According to SOVA, since 2007, Article 282 has been used in 1,477 cases. Not all of the cases are based on religious hatred, Article 282 has long been used to harassing opposition leaders, journalists and bloggers when they cover abuse of power by the state officials.
Articles 282 and 148, in addition to the Law on Countering Extremism, have been used to target a popular Moscow-based vlogger and comedian Ilia Davydov, known under the pseudonym Maddison. Davydov, who was named a hero of the Russian internet in 2009, became popular for his internet reviews and standup performances.
In January 2017, despite wide popularity, he suddenly deleted all his social media accounts and went into hiding. His disappearance from the internet was driven by accusations that he had insulted the “religious feelings of believers”. The uproar stemmed from a 2012 video in which he reportedly mocked both the Koran and the Bible. In the video, posted to YouTube, Maddison appeared with a book which he called “the Koran” and told a story about wanting to use it as toilet paper but opted for a sock instead. He then told his viewers it was actually the Bible, not the Koran. But then he opened the book to reveal that it was neither holy text.
The video on YouTube did not arouse much interest for three years. But in November 2016, Demand Knowledge, an Islamic Telegram channel geotagged in Chechnya, re-posted the video with a comment (in Russian): “An infidel is insulting Islam and Koran. If you find him, you know what to do.”
The video went viral and Maddison was inundated with abuses and death threats. In late January 2017 some Russian media outlets reported that a financial reward had been offered for reprisals against the comedian. Following the threats, Davydov left Russia.
The threats on his life were only part of the story. On 3 February 2017, the Prosecutor of the Republic of Chechnya appealed to a local court to prosecute Davydov. According to the Chechen Prosecutor’s Office, a review of the video and eight others on Davydov’s channel contain speech and actions that are humiliating to human dignity of Muslim and Christian believers. Prosecutors demanded the courtfile a criminal case under the Article 282 of the Russian Criminal Code. The court is currently considering the request.
Davydov declined to speak to Index on Censorship stressing he does not give interviews to any media.
Maddison’s case is not isolated. Chechnya counts as one of the most closed and media-intolerant regions of Russia. Independent media and bloggers have been pushed out of the area in during the rise to power of the Chechen autocratic leader Ramzan Kadyrov. [/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”10″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1491398230204-8311d8c4-ec30-9″ taxonomies=”15″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Few people take religion less seriously than the Danes.
Only 19% consider religion to be an important factor in their day to day lives. While some 76% remain members of the state church, that figure is down from 83% in 2006, and more than 24,000 people left the institution last year. Church going remains popular at Christmas, weddings and baptisms, but many churches are almost empty on any given Sunday. Long gone are the days when criticising the doctrines of Lutheranism or the Lutheran state church would land you in prison (or on the scaffold). So it created quite a stir when in February a local prosecutor announced that a Danish man was being charged for violating Denmark’s blasphemy law, which has been dormant since 1971 and last resulted in a conviction in 1946. A move approved by Denmark’s chief prosecutor.
How was a dead letter such as the Danish blasphemy ban suddenly revived?
The first step was taken by the Danish Criminal Law Council, an expert body advising the Ministry of Justice. In 2015 it released a lengthy statement on the blasphemy ban arguing that the burning of holy books would still be punishable, despite the decades-long practice of emphasising the importance of free speech over religious feelings. However, suspiciously, the expert body omitted any reference to a case from 1997 in which a Danish artist burned the Bible on national television.
Back then a number of complaints from the public were dismissed by the chief prosecutor emphasising among other things the importance of freedom of expression. It is difficult to understand why this seemingly clear precedent was disregarded by the expert body. But it was this questionable interpretation that paved the way for bringing back from the dead a ban thought of as antiquated and incompatible with a secular liberal democracy by most Danes, and indeed by most Europeans, since only five EU-member states still have blasphemy bans on the books.
One of the reasons cited by the expert body for punishing the burning of holy books is the need to prevent religious extremists – at home and abroad – from instigating riots and violence as a result of having their religious feelings insulted. This is a deeply problematic argument in and of itself, but even more so in the context of Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten having been the target of at least four foiled terrorist attacks since publishing cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in 2005, the murderous attack on Charlie Hebdo in 2015 and the killings of atheists and free thinkers in Bangladesh. A blasphemy ban indirectly legitimizes the Jihadist’s Veto, rather than confronting it. It is not punishable – nor should it be – to burn the Danish flag as has happened repeatedly in protests against the cartoons both in Denmark and abroad. No one would dream of arguing that it should be a crime to burn the Communist manifesto, Burke’s Reflection on the French Revolution, or Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations even though communists, conservatives and classical liberals might view these works as essential to their identities and deeply held beliefs. In all likelihood one of the most frequently burned book of the 20th century was Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, which went up in flames all over the world as offended Muslims took to the streets. Offended Muslims were free to do so, while Rushdie had to spend years living underground.
While burning books is certainly a crude and primitive practice with deeply troublesome historical connotations, it is nonetheless a peaceful symbolic expression, that should be protected free speech, whether the content of the scorched paper is secular or religious. By solely protecting religious books against such desecration the Danish blasphemy ban not only violates free speech and equality before the law, it is also tantamount to victim blaming and a dereliction of duty on the part of a liberal society which in no uncertain terms should make clear to religious fundamentalists that they cannot hope to have democracies impose their religious red lines on the rest of society through threats, intimidation and violence.
This was a point made clear by both Norway and Iceland whose parliaments chose to abolish these countries’ respective blasphemy bans as a direct consequence of the attack against Charlie Hebdo.
It would be wrong however, to suggest that Denmark has succumbed to the will of Islamists in particular, rather than to a loss of faith in free speech in general. Last year Parliament adopted a bill prohibiting “religious teachings” that “expressly condone” certain punishable acts and allows the government to maintain a dynamic list of “hate preachers” barred from entering Denmark. These initiatives were the direct consequence of a documentary exposing radical imams in Danish mosques preaching that the punishment for adultery and apostasy is stoning. And the current government has also presented a bill that would criminalize the mere sharing of “terrorist propaganda” online and allow the police to block access to websites containing criminal material such as terrorist propaganda or racist content. These developments signal a marked shift in the Danish approach to free speech.
In the post-World War II era Denmark has with a few exceptions been a liberal democracy committed to the idea that freedom of expression was an essential tool in defeating extremism and totalitarian ideologies. But Denmark is turning towards a model of militant democracy where free speech is often seen as the problem rather than the solution, and as a hindrance rather than the foundation of social peace. The revival of the Danish blasphemy ban should therefore be seen in the wider context of a world where respect for freedom of expression is at its lowest level in 12 years, a development that has now affected even one of the global bastions and beacons of free speech.
Jacob Mchangama is director of Justicia, a Copenhagen think tank focusing on human rights and the rule of law[/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1489139072253-6b7daeee-fe12-8″ taxonomies=”53″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
On 27 March, thousands gathered in Islamabad’s twin city Rawalpindi to commemorate the Chehlum of Mumtaz Qadri, marking 40 days since his death. Qadri was executed for the 2011 murder of the governor of the province of Punjab, Salman Taseer, who opposed Pakistan’s blasphemy law. Many extremists in Pakistan welcomed the murder of Taseer and celebrated Qadri as a hero before and a martyr after his death.
Supporters of Qadri from all over the country were called on by two extremist parties, Sunni Tehreek (ST) and Tehreek-i-Labbaik ya Rasool (SAW), to march on the Parliament House in Islamabad, under heavy resistance of riot police and paramilitary forces.
In an attempt to hold back protesters, police fired tear gas into the crowds. When the protesters reached D-Chowk in the city’s Red Zone, the square in front of the Parliament House, the situation turned more violent as participants removed and torched containers and destroyed private and public property. Police officials later denied firing live rounds at protesters.
Around 1000 people were arrested and over a dozen injured. “We are considering imposing Anti-Terrorism Act Section 7 on these protesters”, City Police Officer Israr Ahmed Abbasi told Dawn Newspaper, referring to a law dealing with creating terror and violence in society. “A case has not been registered yet, but consultations with legal experts are underway.”
The protests were largely ignored by the media leading to a major lack of coverage. Media regulatory body Pemra warned channels to avoid coverage “driven by crass commercialisation like in India.”
At D-Chowk, nearly 2000 pro-Qadri protesters continued a sit-in, demanding the establishment of Shariah law, the release of arrested Sunni clerics and leaders, and a guaranty for the enforcement of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. They also insisted that the government should officially declare Mumtaz Qadri a martyr.
Protesters ended the sit-in after four days, claiming the government had agreed to their demands, but interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan later denied any deal had been made.
Simon Engelkes studied political science at Freie Universität Berlin and American University of Beirut, with a focus on armed conflict and political violence. He is currently working as a research intern with a think tank in Islamabad. He tweets @englks.
Few people take religion less seriously than the Danes.