Here’s an interesting report from NPR on two recent prosecutions for the crime of blasphemy in Greece. In the first, the government brought a blasphemy charge against the poster of a Facebook page that mocks a famous Orthodox monk; the government has since dropped the blasphemy charge but has maintained a prosecution for the separate crime of “insulting religion.” In the second, the government is prosecuting the producers of a Greek translation of Terrence McNally’s Corpus Christi, a play that depicts Jesus and his disciples as a group of gay men in Texas.
Most European states have abolished the crime of blasphemy. The U.K. did so in 2008. Nonetheless, the European Court of Human Rights has held more than once that states may criminalize blasphemy in order to protect human dignity—that is, in order to protect the religious sensibilities of listeners from gratuitous and substantial offense. States can’t ban all criticism of religion, of course, only criticism that is insulting or abusive. Obviously, this is not an easy line to draw. In the U.S., in fact, the Supreme Court has suggested strongly that blasphemy laws are unconstitutional, in part because of the line-drawing problems.
What about the Greek prosecutions in these cases? I can’t read Greek, but the Facebook page in question, which you can access from the NPR story, seems more tongue-in-cheek than anything else. I’m not surprised the government dropped the blasphemy prosecution, though, of course, the prosecution for “insulting religion” continues. The Corpus Christi case seems closer to those in which the European Court has allowed blasphemy prosecutions in the past. In the 1990s, the court allowed Austria to ban a film that depicted sexual tensions between Christ and the Virgin Mary, and allowed the U.K. to ban a film depicting the vision of St. Teresa of Avila in erotic terms. So the Court might be inclined to allow prosecution in the Corpus Christi case, too, if the case ever reaches Strasbourg. Then again, Greece doesn’t stand so high in the opinion of European institutions these days.
Mark Movsesian is Director of the Center for Law and Religion at St. John’s University.
January 8th, 2013 | 1:22 pm
“Most European states have abolished the crime of blasphemy. The U.K. did so in 2008″
Blasphemy was abolished in England & Wales in 2008. Scotland has its own criminal law and blasphemy remains a crime there. There have been no prosecutions for many years, but the old indictments speak of “publishing or exposing for sale blasphemous works, intended to asperse, vilify, ridicule, and bring into contempt the Holy Scriptures, or the Christian Religion.” Mere spoken words are punished as a breach of the peace.
In France, the new Penal Code, proposed by Louis Michel le Peletier, Marquis de Saint-Fargeau (promulgated September 26 – October 6, 1791) abolished, without a debate, the crimes of blasphemy, sodomy and witchcraft [le blasphème, la sodomie et la sorcellerie] It is, however, an offence to insult or defame a group or individual on account of membership or non-membership, real or supposed, of a religion. A distributor of leaflets, insulting God and His Messenger, was prosecuted for endangering public safety/well-being [« le salut publique »]
January 8th, 2013 | 2:29 pm
Since atheism has been accused of being a religion does that mean supporters of blasphemy laws will support arresting and prosecuting preachers who say very insulting things about atheists? For that matter, why wouldn’t a movie like Passion of the Christ be subject to blasphemy prosecution on behalf of atheists who don’t believe Christ was supernatural?
Why should a movie depicting Christ having ‘sexual tensions’ be deemed subject to blasphemy? It can only be because the state has established one particular religious view of Christ, or God, or it seems in the case of Russia Putin himself as a state religion. You are free to offend as much as you want the religious beliefs of those outside of the in group but not those who have the power.
This demonstrates why the US’s ‘ACLU’ view of free speech is so much better.
January 8th, 2013 | 3:08 pm
Hmmm. If someone quoted Psalm 14:1, would an atheist have grounds for defamation? Why should religion get special protection from offense?
January 9th, 2013 | 11:06 am
How long before laws about ‘offense’ get expanded to include this or this?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact