Blasphemy law#Germany

{{Further|Blasphemy#Christianity}}

In a number of states with a majority-Christian or formerly majority-Christian population blasphemy laws may criminalize abusive or scurrilous speech about Christianity, and oftentimes, other religions and their adherents, as such offenses "have the tendency to lead to a breach of peace".{{cite book|last1=Hashemi|first1=Kamran|title=Religious Legal Traditions, International Human Rights Law and Muslim States|year=2008|publisher=Brill Academic Publishers|language=en |isbn=9789004165557|page=45}}

{{Main|Blasphemy law in Australia}}

Emerging as a British colony in the 1780s, Australia received English common law, including the Blasphemy Act 1697. The first colonial laws were the Blasphemous and Seditious Libels Act 1827 for New South Wales (repealed in 1898), and legislation that governor Arthur Phillip enacted in Van Diemen's Land in the same year that regulated printing and publishing and prohibited 'blasphemous and seditious libels' as part of a law to maintain public order.{{Cite book |last1=Temperman |first1=Jeroen |last2=Koltay |first2=András |date=2017 |title=Blasphemy and Freedom of Expression: Comparative, Theoretical and Historical Reflections after the Charlie Hebdo Massacre |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AkY3DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA513 |location=Cambridge |publisher=Cambridge University Press |pages=512–514 |isbn=9781108267991 |access-date=7 June 2018 |archive-date=14 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210414015436/https://books.google.com/books?id=AkY3DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA513 |url-status=live }}

The last attempted prosecution for blasphemy by the Crown occurred in the State of Victoria in 1919.{{cite web

| last1 = Priestly

| first1 = Brenton

| title = Blasphemy and the Law: A Comparative Study (2006)

| date = n.d.

| url = http://www.brentonpriestley.com

| access-date = 6 July 2009

| archive-date = 1 December 2012

| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20121201054452/http://www.brentonpriestley.com/

| url-status = live

}}

Australia abolished and repealed all blasphemy laws at the federal level with the Australia Criminal Code Act 1995, but blasphemy laws remain in some states and territories. The states, territories, and the Commonwealth of Australia are not uniform in their treatment of blasphemy. Blasphemy is an offence in some jurisdictions, including New South Wales (section 49 of the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW)), Victoria, Tasmania, and South Australia, but is not in others. The present legal situation regarding blasphemy in the Australian Capital Territory, Western Australia and Queensland is unclear.Temperman & Koltay, p. 518.

In Austria, a section of the penal code relates to blasphemy:{{cite web|title=Strafbare Handlungen gegen den religiösen Frieden und die Ruhe der Toten: Herabwürdigung religiöser Lehren |url=https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Dokumentnummer=NOR12029737 |website=Rechtsinformationssystem des Bundes |access-date=13 October 2015|date=1975|at=§ 188}}

• § 188 : Vilification of Religious Teachings

Austria was the birthplace of the famous European Court of Human Rights test case E.S. v. Austria (2018) on blasphemy, which narrowly upheld Austria's blasphemy law by suggesting the state had a legitimate aim in maintaining it.

Art. 208 of the penal code states that "publicly vilifying an act or object of religious worship" is a crime punishable with one month to one year of prison, or fine.{{cite web | title = Art. 208 do Cód. Penal Brasileiro | year = 1940 | website = Jus Brasil | url = http://www.jusbrasil.com.br/legislacao/anotada/2329123/art-208-do-codigo-penal-decreto-lei-2848-40 | access-date = 18 July 2014 | archive-date = 24 April 2012 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120424102615/http://www.jusbrasil.com.br/legislacao/anotada/2329123/art-208-do-codigo-penal-decreto-lei-2848-40 | url-status = live }}

{{Main|Blasphemous libel}}

{{See also|Hate speech laws in Canada}}

Blasphemous libel was a crime in Canada under section 296 of the Criminal Code R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46. Subsection (1) read:

: "Every one who publishes a blasphemous libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years".

Subsection (3) read:

: "No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject".

Over the summer of 2016, a petition to Parliament asking that the blasphemous libel law be repealed was circulated by several Canadian humanist groups.{{cite web|url=http://centreforinquiry.ca/parliamentary-e-petition-opposing-canadas-blasphemy-law/|title=Parliamentary E-Petition Opposing Canada's Blasphemy Law – Centre for Inquiry Canada|website=centreforinquiry.ca|access-date=25 July 2016|archive-date=28 June 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160628233928/http://centreforinquiry.ca/parliamentary-e-petition-opposing-canadas-blasphemy-law/|url-status=live}} The petition was presented to the Government in December 2016. It responded in January 2017, stating that "blasphemous libel, along with numerous other provisions of the Criminal Code, are presently under review by the Minister [of Justice] and her officials".Petition e-382 – House of Commons E-petitions online service, as accessed 11 February 2017[http://parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/ePetitions/Responses/421/e-382/421-01047_JUS_E.pdf Response to Petition No. 421-01047] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170215053610/http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/ePetitions/Responses/421/e-382/421-01047_JUS_E.pdf |date=15 February 2017 }} – House of Commons of Canada On 6 June 2017, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould introduced Bill C-51 in the House of Commons, an Act to Amend the Criminal Code including repeal of section 296 of the Criminal Code relating to blasphemous libel and various other provisions of the Criminal Code which have been ruled or may be unconstitutional.[http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-51/first-reading/ Bill C-51] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170609182802/http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-51/first-reading |date=9 June 2017 }} | access-date = 6 June 2017 The Bill passed both the House of Commons and the Senate on 11 December 2018.{{cite news|url=https://www.bchumanist.ca/canada_repeals_blasphemy_law|title=Canada repeals blasphemy law|work=British Columbia Humanist Association|date=11 December 2018|access-date=12 December 2018|archive-date=8 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190308050111/https://www.bchumanist.ca/canada_repeals_blasphemy_law|url-status=live}} On 13 December 2018, the Governor General formally granted Royal Assent, making the repeal official.{{cite web |title=STATUTES OF CANADA 2018 CHAPTER 29 BILL C-51 |url=http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-51/royal-assent |publisher=Parliament of Canada |access-date=6 March 2019 |archive-date=10 March 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190310085151/http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-51/royal-assent |url-status=live }}{{cite web|url=https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=9002286|title=LEGISinfo – House Government Bill C-51|author=|date=13 December 2018|website=Parliament of Canada|access-date=13 December 2018|archive-date=2 February 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190202090545/http://www.parl.ca/LEGISINFO/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=9002286|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-cote-election-reform-1.4945681|title=Liberals' election reform bill becomes law on last day of parliamentary sitting|last1=Zimonjic|first1=Peter|date=13 December 2018|website=CBC News|access-date=13 December 2018|quote=C-51 was made law Thursday|archive-date=14 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181214114618/https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-cote-election-reform-1.4945681|url-status=live}}

File:Holte Kirke 2005.jpg parish church in Holte, with the Dannebrog flying in its churchyard]]

In Denmark, Paragraph 140 of the penal code was about blasphemy. Since 1866, this law has only led to two convictions, in 1938 and in 1946. A further charge was brought to court in 1971, but led to acquittal.{{cite web|url=http://www.religion.dk/religion-og-politik/bag-om-blasfemiparagraffen|title=Bag om blasfemiparagraffen|date=21 May 2014|publisher=Kristeligt Dagblad|language=da|access-date=3 January 2017|archive-date=4 January 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170104000111/http://www.religion.dk/religion-og-politik/bag-om-blasfemiparagraffen|url-status=live}} In 2017, a man was charged with blasphemy for posting a video of himself burning the Quran on social media under the slogan Yes to freedom – no to Islam.{{cite news|title=En 42-årig mand er blevet tiltalt for blasfemi ved at afbrænde koranen|url=http://jyllands-posten.dk/indland/politiretsvaesen/ECE9385281/en-42aarig-mand-er-blevet-tiltalt-for-blasfemi-ved-at-afbraende-koranen/|access-date=9 March 2017|newspaper=Jyllands-Posten|date=22 February 2017|archive-date=12 March 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170312043051/http://jyllands-posten.dk/indland/politiretsvaesen/ECE9385281/en-42aarig-mand-er-blevet-tiltalt-for-blasfemi-ved-at-afbraende-koranen/|url-status=live}}{{cite web |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/23/europe/denmark-quran-blasphemy-trnd/ |title=Danish man charged with blasphemy for burning Quran |publisher=CNN |date=23 February 2017 |access-date=24 February 2017 |archive-date=25 February 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170225051531/http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/23/europe/denmark-quran-blasphemy-trnd/ |url-status=live }} In 2012, a survey indicated that 66% of Denmark's population still supported the blasphemy law, which made it illegal to "mock legal religions and faiths in Denmark".{{cite news|url=http://www.icenews.is/2012/10/02/denmark-still-largely-in-support-of-blasphemy-law/#axzz48tCovTxj|title=Denmark still largely in support of 'blasphemy' law|date=2 October 2012|newspaper=IceNews|language=en|access-date=17 May 2016|quote=A recent survey has shown that Danish citizens still largely back the country's 'blasphemy' law. The law, which makes it illegal to "mock legal religions and faiths in Denmark", is supported by around 66 percent of Danish voters, according to a recent survey conducted by the liberal group CEPOS. Speaking about the report, religious expert Tim Jensen from the University of Southern Denmark said, "Danes may see the blasphemy law as helping integration because it promotes the acceptance of a multicultural and multi-faith society. But it can also be problematic if it reflects a belief that the feelings of religious people have a special status and require special protection," the Berlingske news agency reports.|archive-date=1 July 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160701133500/http://www.icenews.is/2012/10/02/denmark-still-largely-in-support-of-blasphemy-law/#axzz48tCovTxj|url-status=live}} Before 2017, abolition of the blasphemy clause was proposed several times by members of the parliament, but failed to win a majority vote.{{cite web |author=Søren Sandfeld Jakobsen |url=http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2006/8/article105.en.html |title=Denmark: The Case Regarding the Danish Muhammad Drawings |publisher=Merlin.obs.coe.int |access-date=2016-09-11 |archive-date=19 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150419012745/http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2006/8/article105.en.html }} The law was repealed on 2 June 2017 several days before the 2017 charge was due to come to trial. While public insults of a religion are no longer forbidden, speech and actions threatening or demeaning certain groups of people because of their religious beliefs continued to be punishable pursuant to §266(b) of the penal code.{{cite web |url=http://politiken.dk/indland/politik/art5977226/Stort-flertal-har-afskaffet-blasfemiparagraffen |title=Stort flertal har afskaffet blasfemiparagraffen |newspaper=Politiken.dk |date=2 June 2017 |language=da |access-date=2 June 2017 |archive-date=3 June 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170603032454/http://politiken.dk/indland/politik/art5977226/Stort-flertal-har-afskaffet-blasfemiparagraffen |url-status=live }}{{cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/02/denmark-scraps-334-year-old-blasphemy-law |title=Denmark scraps 334-year-old blasphemy law |newspaper=The Guardian |date=2 June 2017 |author=Agence France-Press |access-date=2 June 2017 |archive-date=2 June 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170602171306/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/02/denmark-scraps-334-year-old-blasphemy-law |url-status=live }}

Denmark reinstated blasphemy laws in 2023.{{cite web | url=https://humanists.uk/2023/12/08/dismay-as-denmark-re-introduces-blasphemy-law/ | title=Dismay as Denmark re-introduces blasphemy law }} It bans improper treatment of a significant religious writing in public or with intent to spread such act publicly.{{cite web |url=https://www.ft.dk/ripdf/samling/20231/lovforslag/l65/20231_l65_som_vedtaget.pdf |title=Til lovforslag nr. L 65 – Lov om ændring af straffeloven |date=2023-12-07 |publisher=Folketinget |access-date=2023-12-09 |language=Danish |trans-title=The same penalty is given to whoever publicly or with intent to spread in a wider circle is guilty in improper treatment of a writing, which has significant religious significance for a recognized religious community, or an object, which appears as such writing.}}

El Salvador is a mostly Catholic country, where freedom of religion is protected under the constitution, with the Catholic Church receiving some privileges. El Salvador's penal code bans insulting religion and is punishable from 1-3 years in prison. People convicted of "insulting religion" are given a maximum penalty of 3-8 years in prison.{{cite web|url=https://end-blasphemy-laws.org/countries/americas/el-salvador/|title= End Blasphemy Laws= El Salvador|website= End Blasphemy Laws}}

In Finland, section 10 of chapter 17 of the Criminal Code relates to blasphemy. The section is titled "Breach of the sanctity of religion", but the text of the law explicitly includes "publicly blaspheming against God" as well as defaming what is held sacred by a religious community.{{cite web|url=https://www.finlex.fi/fi/lainsaadanto/1889/39-001|title=FINLEX ® – Ajantasainen lainsäädäntö: Rikoslaki 39/1889|first1=Edita Publishing|last1=Oy|website=www.finlex.fi|access-date=25 August 2009|archive-date=17 October 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151017043631/http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1889/18890039001|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1889/en18890039.pdf|title=An unofficial translation of the Criminal Code of Finland] (there is no official translation)|publisher=finlex.fi|access-date=25 August 2009|archive-date=19 May 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210519154408/https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1889/en18890039.pdf|url-status=dead}} Unsuccessful attempts have been made to remove the particular reference to the Christian God in 1914, 1917, 1965, 1970, and most recently in 1998, when the Finnish Parliament unexpectedly voted to retain it.{{cite web|url=http://uskonnonvapaus.fi/artikkelit/uskontorikokset.html|title=Uskontorikoslakien historia |website= uskonnonvapaus.fi|access-date=11 September 2016|archive-date=26 June 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120626180935/http://uskonnonvapaus.fi/artikkelit/uskontorikokset.html|url-status=live}}{{cite news |last1=Hautamäki |first1=Jaakko |title=Jumalanpilkka palasi yllättäen lakitekstiin eduskunnan äänestyksessä |url=https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000003722282.html |access-date=23 September 2022 |work=Helsingin Sanomat |date=9 June 1998}} Blasphemy is punishable with fines or at most six months in prison.

This prohibition has given rise to a number of highly publicized cases in recent Finnish history. The author Hannu Salama was convicted of blasphemy for his 1964 novel Juhannustanssit.{{cite web | url=http://yle.fi/elavaarkisto/?s=s&g=4&ag=23&t=77 | title=Hannu Salama – kirjallisuuspalkittu jumalanpilkkaaja | work=Ylen Elävä arkisto | language=fi | access-date=29 July 2014 | archive-date=29 July 2014 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140729181612/http://yle.fi/elavaarkisto/?s=s&g=4&ag=23&t=77 | url-status=live }} In 1969, artist Harro Koskinen was prosecuted and fined for works including his painting Pig Messiah, a crucified pig; the works were later displayed in art galleries.{{cite web | url=http://yle.fi/elavaarkisto/artikkelit/sikamaalari_harro_koskinen_15941.html#media=15943 | title=Sikamaalari Harro Koskinen | language=fi | work=Ylen Elävä arkisto | date=7 November 2006 | access-date=30 September 2014 | archive-date=9 October 2014 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141009185735/http://yle.fi/elavaarkisto/artikkelit/sikamaalari_harro_koskinen_15941.html#media=15943 | url-status=live }} Writer and politician Jussi Halla-aho, who later became a Member of the Parliament of Finland, was fined for insinuating connections between pedophilia and Islam in a 2008 blog text.{{cite web | url=http://yle.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/2009/09/halla-aholle_tuomio_uskonrauhan_rikkomisesta_986648.html | title=Halla-aholle tuomio uskonrauhan rikkomisesta | date=8 September 2009 | language=fi | work=Yle | access-date=29 July 2014 | archive-date=8 November 2011 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111108175920/http://yle.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/2009/09/halla-aholle_tuomio_uskonrauhan_rikkomisesta_986648.html | url-status=live }}

The definition of blasphemy was introduced into French law in the 13th century (after great debate among the French Moralists), based on the definition given by St. Thomas Aquinas: a sin of language, "a failure to declare one's faith", thus representing an attack on the purity of religion. This justified punishment by law, which became extreme during the reign of Louis IX. Later canonized by the Catholic church as Saint Louis, he became highly committed to his fight against heretics, Jews and Muslims, and set the punishment for blasphemy to mutilation of the tongue and lips.Olivier Bobineau, "Retour de l'ordre religieux ou signe de bonne santé de notre pluralisme laïc ? " [archive], Le Monde.fr, 8 décembre 2011 (consulté le 15 janvier 2015) {{dead link|date=June 2018}} Louis IX passed this law against blasphemy in 1254 after his return home from the Seventh Crusade.Temperman & Koltay, p. 26.

At the beginning of the French Revolution, articles 10 and 11 of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen)Temperman & Koltay, p. 25. motivated the 1791 elimination of the notion of blasphemy from French law, but it continued to prohibit the use of abusive language or disturbance of the peace. Sacrilege actions towards cultural objects became a crime in 1825 during an extreme phase of the Bourbon Restoration (1814), to be revoked under the less conservative Louis Philippe in 1830. "Religious insult" ("outrage à la morale religieuse ") was introduced by the Act of 17 May 1819, and definitively removed from French law by the [http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070722&dateTexte=vig Act of 29 July 1881] which instituted freedom of the press.Temperman & Koltay, p. 38. {{As of|2018}}, and since the 1972 ratification of the European Convention of Human Rights, French law proscribed hate or violence against, and slander or libel against, people due to their membership of a religious group, nationality, ethnic group, race, sexual orientation or handicap (Art.23, 24, 32). The Act of 1881 protects individuals and groups of individuals against defamation or insult ("injure " and "outrage " for foreign ambassadors), but not the divinities ({{in lang|fr}} [https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechExpJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000006935227&fastReqId=2026782259&fastPos=1 like Jesus Christ]) and their doctrines as for blasphemy.

The Alsace-Moselle region was a specific exception, as it was annexed to Germany from 1871 to 1918 and therefore not part of France when the "religious insult" law was repealed. The German penal code replaced the pre-1871 French law between 1871 and 1918, and the local law in Alsace-Moselle retained some elements of both the German penal code and pre-1871 French law when the regions reverted to France in 1919, like the religious legislation and the articles 166 and 167. This long included a ban of "blasphemy" (as translated from the German word lästerung) against Christianity and Judaism, without mention of Islam which at the time had very few followers in Alsace.[http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/charlie-hebdo-has-controversial-history-of-offending-radical-islam-1.2892171 Charlie Hebdo has controversial history] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150117171608/http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/charlie-hebdo-has-controversial-history-of-offending-radical-islam-1.2892171 |date=17 January 2015 }}, CBC News, 8 January 2015 Since the dispositions of article 166 were not among those finally transposed officially in French law since the Act of 1 June 1924, whose article 1 and 1 s) introduced as well in Alsace-Moselle the generally referred to Act of 29 July 1881,{{in lang|fr}} [http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6476105c/f2.item Act of 1 June 1924] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170807105037/http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6476105c/f2.item |date=7 August 2017 }} "Mettant en vigueur la législation civile française dans les départements du Bas-Rhin, du Haut-Rhin et de la Moselle ", on gallica.bnf.fr. then translated into French in 2013 by the decrees n•2013-395 and particularly n•2013-776,{{in lang|fr}} [https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000027904809&categorieLien=id Decree n°2013-776 of 27 August 2013 about Alsace-Moselle laws and regulations, as retained in 1924, without their later modifications] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170730231700/https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000027904809&categorieLien=id |date=30 July 2017 }} on legifrance.gouv.fr.{{in lang|fr}} [http://www.haut-rhin.gouv.fr/content/download/11747/81770/file/recueil40.pdf "Arrêté n°2013241-0001 portant publication de la traduction de lois et règlements locaux maintenus en vigueur par les lois du 1er juin 1924 dans les départements du Bas-Rhin, du Haut-Rhin et de la Moselle "] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170730224610/http://www.haut-rhin.gouv.fr/content/download/11747/81770/file/recueil40.pdf |date=30 July 2017 }} Special "Recueil des Actes Administratifs "n°40 of the Haut-Rhin departement, August 2013, p. 6.According to the Act of 24 July 1921 and the Decree of 15 May 1922, German remained, until 2012, the official judiciary language in the maintained local law matters, as was confirmed by article 12 of the Act of 1 June 1924 which considered the French version for "documentary" purposes only. they received no application since then, as the appeal court of Colmar refused to apply this article in 1954, contrary to article 167 (obstacle to the exercise of worship). The minister of justice replied to some senators that article 166 was already implicitly repealed because contrary to the French fundamental law.{{in lang|fr}} [http://www.senat.fr/basile/rechercheQuestion.do?idRecherche=2dc6bbf1%3A15d01e1cd7a%3A-6f07&unk=blasph%E8me+alsace+1881&radio=dp&dp=10+ans&de=03%2F07%2F2007&au=03%2F07%2F2017&action=OK&rch=qs Answers to the written questions of senators Laborde and Abate n°11076 of 27 March 2014 and n°15521 of 2 April 2015] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210307194514/http://www.senat.fr/basile/rechercheQuestion.do?idRecherche=2dc6bbf1%3A15d01e1cd7a%3A-6f07&unk=blasph%E8me+alsace+1881&radio=dp&dp=10+ans&de=03%2F07%2F2007&au=03%2F07%2F2017&action=OK&rch=qs |date=7 March 2021 }}, on senat.fr. Its validity could have also been questioned by a court since 1975 and by a prioritary question of constitutionality since 2008. In response to the Charlie Hebdo attack and with the full support of the Alsatian churches, an October 2016 vote of the French parliament symbolically repealed this long-dormant Alsace-Moselle blasphemy law{{Cite web |url=http://end-blasphemy-laws.org/2016/10/blasphemy-law-abolished-in-alsace-moselle-region-of-france/ |title=Blasphemy law abolished in Alsace-Moselle region of France |work=End Blasphemy Laws |publisher=IHEU & EHF |date=31 October 2016 |access-date=7 June 2018 |archive-date=12 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180612143454/http://end-blasphemy-laws.org/2016/10/blasphemy-law-abolished-in-alsace-moselle-region-of-france/ |url-status=live }} which was long implicitly unenforceable.{{Cite web |url=http://www.patronagelaique.fr/index.php/ressources/telechargements/354-le-senat-supprime-le-delit-de-blaspheme-qui-s-applique-en-alsace-moselle |title=Le Sénat supprime le délit de blasphème qui s'applique en Alsace-Moselle |work=Patronage Laïque Jules Vallès |date=14 October 2016 |access-date=7 June 2018 |language=fr |archive-date=12 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180612144306/http://www.patronagelaique.fr/index.php/ressources/telechargements/354-le-senat-supprime-le-delit-de-blaspheme-qui-s-applique-en-alsace-moselle |url-status=live }}

In Germany, religious defamation is covered by Article 166 of the Strafgesetzbuch, the German criminal law. If a deed is capable of disturbing the public peace, defamation is actionable. The article reads as follows:{{cite web|url=http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__166.html|title=StGB – Einzelnorm|access-date=11 September 2016|archive-date=6 July 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220706152455/http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__166.html|url-status=live}}

::§ 166 Defamation of religious denominations, religious societies and World view associations

::(1) Whoever publicly or by dissemination of writings (§ 11 par. 3) defames, in a manner suitable to disturb the public peace, the substance of the religious or world view conviction of others, shall be fined or imprisoned for up to three years.

::(2) Whoever publicly or by dissemination of writings (§ 11 par. 3) defames, in a manner suitable to disturb the public peace, a church established in Germany or other religious society or world view association, or their institutions or customs, shall be punished likewise.

In 2006, the application of this article received much media attention when a Manfred van H. (also known as "Mahavo") was prosecuted for defamation for distributing rolls of toilet paper with the words "Koran, the Holy Koran" stamped on them.{{cite news|url=https://www.expatica.com/de/suspended-prison-for-german-who-insulted-koran/|title=Suspended prison for German who insulted Koran|date=23 February 2006|newspaper=Expatica|access-date=2 May 2010|archive-date=9 July 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190709204937/https://www.expatica.com/de/suspended-prison-for-german-who-insulted-koran/|url-status=live}}[https://web.archive.org/web/20060603033137/http://www.ksta.de/html/artikel/1140561279892.shtml Report] in the Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger (in German)

{{cite magazine|title=Urteil: Ein Jahr Bewährung für Koran auf Klopapier|url=http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/urteil-ein-jahr-bewaehrung-fuer-koran-auf-klopapier-a-402647.html|access-date=3 March 2016|magazine=Spiegel-Verlag|date=23 February 2006|archive-date=7 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160307182209/http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/urteil-ein-jahr-bewaehrung-fuer-koran-auf-klopapier-a-402647.html|url-status=live}} The defendant claimed he wanted to protest the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004 and the London bombings of 2005. Beyond the sentence he also received death threats from Islamists and needed a police bodyguard.

Until 2019, articles 198, 199, and 201 of the Greek Penal Code created offenses which involved blasphemy. Article 198 "Malicious Blasphemy" provided:

:1. One who...blasphemes God shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years.

:2. [O]ne who...manifests a lack of respect for the divinity shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three months.{{cite web|url=http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2008/CDL(2008)090add2-e.asp |title=Analysis of the domestic law concerning blasphemy, religious insults and inciting religious hatred |access-date=17 June 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090401145655/http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2008/CDL%282008%29090add2-e.asp |archive-date=1 April 2009 }}

Article 199 "Blasphemy Concerning Religions" restated most of Article 198, and criminalized blasphemy against the Greek Orthodox Church.

Article 201 criminalized acts committed "blasphemously and improperly toward a grave".

Greece had not used its laws about blasphemy to protect any religion other than the Greek Orthodox Church, which is the state church of Greece. In December 2003, Greece prosecuted for blasphemy Gerhard Haderer, an Austrian, along with his Greek publisher and four booksellers. Haderer is the author of an illustrated, humorous book entitled The Life of Jesus. The prosecutor contended that the book's depiction of Jesus as a hippie was blasphemous. On 13 April 2005, the Court of Appeal of Athens, reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, and acquitted Haderer.{{cite web|url=http://www.ifex.org/greece/2005/04/25/austrian_author_acquitted_on_appeal/|title=Austrian author acquitted on appeal in blasphemy case|via =IFEX|date=25 April 2005|access-date=11 September 2016|archive-date=9 February 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130209013824/http://ifex.org/greece/2005/04/25/austrian_author_acquitted_on_appeal/|url-status=live}}

Greece complemented its laws against blasphemy with laws against "religious insult". The laws forbade the creation, display or trade in work that "insults public sentiment" or that "offends people's religious sentiments".[http://www.caslon.com.au/blasphemyprofile9.htm "Blasphemy and Sacrilege: European Law and Cases"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090713032058/http://www.caslon.com.au/blasphemyprofile9.htm |date=13 July 2009 }}{{cite web |url=http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2008/CDL-AD(2008)026-e.asp |title=Report: On the Relationship Between Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion: The Issue of Regulation and Prosecution of Blasphemy, Religious Insult and Incitement to Religious Hatred |website=Venice Commission |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090401150123/http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2008/CDL-AD%282008%29026-e.asp |archive-date=1 April 2009}}

The new Criminal Code, which came into force in July 2019, under the Syriza government, removed articles 198 and 199, thus ending its ban on blasphemy.[https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/06/17/at-long-last-greece-will-finally-get-rid-of-its-blasphemy-laws/ At Long Last, Greece Will Finally Get Rid of Its Blasphemy Laws] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190620211941/https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/06/17/at-long-last-greece-will-finally-get-rid-of-its-blasphemy-laws/ |date=20 June 2019 }}, Patheos

The conservative New Democracy government initially announced in November its intention to reintroduce the criminalization of blasphemy, with punishment up to two years in jail{{Cite web |last=NEWSROOM |date=2019-11-11 |title=Ποινικός Κώδικας: Ποινή φυλάκισης για καθύβριση των θείων- Αυστηρότερες ποινές για παιδεραστία, διακίνηση μεταναστών |url=https://www.news247.gr/politiki/poinikos-kodikas-poini-filakisis-gia-kathivrisi-ton-theion-afstiroteres-poines-gia-paiderastia-diakinisi-metanaston/ |access-date=2024-08-07 |website=News 24/7 |language=el}}{{Cite web |date=November 11, 2019 |title=Φυλάκιση έως δύο έτη για όποιον καθυβρίζει τον Θεό και τη θρησκεία |url=https://www.voria.gr/article/pio-afstires-i-pines-gia-pederastia-ke-diakinisi-metanaston |access-date=August 6, 2024 |website=www.voria.gr}}{{Cite web|url=https://orthodoxtimes.com/up-to-two-years-in-prison-for-malicious-blasphemy/|title=Up to two years in prison for malicious blasphemy|date=2019-11-11|website=Orthodox Times|language=en-US|access-date=2019-11-13|archive-date=13 November 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191113104551/https://orthodoxtimes.com/up-to-two-years-in-prison-for-malicious-blasphemy/|url-status=live}}{{Cite web|url=https://orthodoxtimes.com/archbishop-ieronymos-reinstating-malicious-blasphemy-aims-to-preserve-religious-sentiment/|title=Archbishop Ieronymos: Reinstating malicious blasphemy aims to preserve religious sentiment|date=2019-11-12|website=Orthodox Times|language=en-US|access-date=2019-11-13|archive-date=6 July 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220706152500/https://orthodoxtimes.com/archbishop-ieronymos-reinstating-malicious-blasphemy-aims-to-preserve-religious-sentiment/|url-status=live}} but backtracked on the announcement following a domestic and international outcry.{{Cite web |last=Kampouris |first=Nick |date=November 12, 2019 |title=Greece Scraps Reinstatement of Blasphemy Law Following Public Outcry |url=https://greece.greekreporter.com/2019/11/12/greece-scraps-reinstatement-of-blasphemy-law-following-public-outcry/ |access-date=August 6, 2024 |website=greece.greekreporter.com}}

The Icelandic blasphemy law was repealed on 2 July 2015, after a strong push by the Icelandic Pirate Party and a number of associations including Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association (Siðmennt), the bishop of Iceland, the Icelandic priesthood, the Association of Publishers, PEN Iceland, IMMI (The International Modern Media Institute) an Icelandic-based international organization of information and freedom of expression, and an atheist group called Vantrú.{{cite web |url=http://sidmennt.is/2015/07/02/blasphemy-law-abolished-in-iceland-2/ |title=Blasphemy Law Abolished in Iceland! |date=2 July 2015 |publisher=Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association |access-date=7 June 2018 |archive-date=5 September 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180905043704/http://sidmennt.is/2015/07/02/blasphemy-law-abolished-in-iceland-2/ |url-status=live }} Formerly, blasphemy was forbidden with a fine or prison sentence up to three months (Article 125 of the General Penal Code of Iceland, enacted on 12 February 1940).{{cite web |url=http://www.althingi.is/lagas/133b/1940019.html |title=Almenn hegningarlög (General Criminal Code) |language=is |publisher=Parliament of Iceland |access-date=7 June 2018 |archive-date=15 May 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140515175037/http://www.althingi.is/lagas/133b/1940019.html |url-status=live }} The constitution also mentions the state religion and religion in general.{{Citation needed|date=June 2018|reason=What does it mention?}}

{{Main|Blasphemy law in the Republic of Ireland}}

File:Stephen Fry June 2016.jpg in June 2016]]

In Ireland, blasphemy against any form of religion was prohibited by the 2009 Defamation Act until its repeal on 17 January 2020.{{cite journal |last1=Jacob |first1=Katherine A. E. |title=Defending Blasphemy: Exploring Religious Expression under Ireland's Blasphemy law |journal=Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law |date=2012 |volume=44 |issue=3 |url=https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1134&context=jil |access-date=16 August 2024 |publisher=Case Western Reserve University School of Law}} Blasphemy against Christianity was prohibited by the constitution and carried a maximum fine of €25,000; however, the offence of blasphemous libel, last prosecuted in 1855 in connection to an alleged Bible-burning, was ruled in 1999 to be incompatible with the Constitution's guarantee of religious equality. A controversial law was passed on 9 July 2009 and went into effect on 1 January 2010.Henry MacDonald, [http://www.theage.com.au/world/irish-to-vote-on-lifting-blasphemy-ban-20100316-qcif.html "Irish to vote on repealing blasphemy ban"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121104184213/http://www.theage.com.au/world/irish-to-vote-on-lifting-blasphemy-ban-20100316-qcif.html |date=4 November 2012 }}, Melbourne Age, 17 March 2010. The law prohibited publishing or uttering "matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion".

The Irish Constitutional Convention in 2013 recommended, and the Government endorsed, the repeal of the constitutional prohibition on blasphemy (Article 40.6.1.i.), but the Taoiseach indicated to postpone the issue.{{Cite news |url=https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/blasphemy-law-needs-to-be-repealed-1.2068942 |title=Blasphemy law needs to be repealed |newspaper=The Irish Times |date=17 January 2015 |access-date=8 June 2018 |archive-date=18 October 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161018160220/http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/blasphemy-law-needs-to-be-repealed-1.2068942 |url-status=live }} Calls for repeal resurged after the January 2015 Charlie Hebdo shooting.

The law had not been invoked until in February 2015 English comedian Stephen Fry, when asked during an RTÉ programme what he might say to God at the gates of heaven, responded, without specifying any religion,{{Cite news |url=https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/02/stephen-fry-anti-god-rant |title=What Would Actor Stephen Fry Say If He Met God? "How Dare You" |author=Joanna Robinson |magazine=Vanity Fair |date=3 February 2015 |access-date=8 June 2018 |archive-date=12 April 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160412230653/http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/02/stephen-fry-anti-god-rant |url-status=live }}

{{blockquote|I'd say: "Bone cancer in children, what's that about? How dare you? How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault? It's not right. It's utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?" That's what I'd say ... the god who created this universe, if it was created by a god, is quite clearly a maniac, an utter maniac, totally selfish ...}}

An allegation of blasphemy was made to police at the time, and in 2017 police contacted Fry to inform him that the incident was being investigated.{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39830447|title=Stephen Fry faces blasphemy probe after God comments|website=BBC News|date=6 May 2017|access-date=6 May 2017|archive-date=6 May 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170506161215/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39830447|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/may/07/stephen-fry-investigated-by-irish-police-for-alleged-blasphemy|title=Stephen Fry investigated by Irish police for alleged blasphemy|website=The Guardian|date=7 May 2017|access-date=8 June 2017|archive-date=4 June 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170604171824/https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/may/07/stephen-fry-investigated-by-irish-police-for-alleged-blasphemy|url-status=live}} News of the investigation caused a big stir, but a few days later it was reported that the police, the Garda Síochána, had dropped the case as there was no injured party.{{cite web |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39857543 |title=Irish police drop Stephen Fry blasphemy probe |website=BBC News |date=9 May 2017 |access-date=9 May 2017 |archive-date=9 May 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170509154106/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39857543 |url-status=live }} The Garda Síochána could not find enough people outraged over the actor's anti-God remarks. One individual complaint alone cannot result in a prosecution under the legislation and only one viewer made a formal complaint against Fry's comments. The complainant said that he was not personally offended by the programme but simply believed that the comments made by Fry on RTÉ were criminal blasphemy and that he was doing his civic duty by reporting a crime.{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/may/09/irish-police-halt-prosecution-of-stephen-fry-for-blasphemy|title=Irish police halt investigation of Stephen Fry for blasphemy|website=The Guardian|date=9 May 2017|access-date=8 June 2017|archive-date=6 June 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170606193818/https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/may/09/irish-police-halt-prosecution-of-stephen-fry-for-blasphemy|url-status=live}}

In June 2018, the Irish government agreed to a referendum to remove the offense of blasphemy from the Constitution. The referendum, which took place on 26 October 2018, abolished the constitutional ban on blasphemy by a margin of 64.85% to 35.15%.{{Cite news |url=https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1027/1007130-blasphemy-referendum/ |title=Ireland votes to remove blasphemy from Constitution by 64.85% to 35.15% |work=RTÉ |date=28 October 2018 |access-date=28 October 2018 |archive-date=28 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181028022809/https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1027/1007130-blasphemy-referendum/ |url-status=live }} In January 2020, Minister of Justice and Equality Charles Flanagan signed an order commencing an amendment to the law.{{Cite news |url=https://www.irishlegal.com/article/blasphemy-officially-abolished-as-a-criminal-offence |title=Blasphemy officially abolished as a criminal offence |work=Irish Legal News |language=en |access-date=2020-01-21 |archive-date=8 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308185930/https://www.irishlegal.com/article/blasphemy-officially-abolished-as-a-criminal-offence |url-status=live }} Until then, blasphemy had been prohibited by sections 36 and 37 of the Defamation Act 2009, for which offenders could face a fine of up to €25,000.{{Cite news |url=https://www.local10.com/news/international/ireland-awaits-result-in-referendum-on-repealing-blasphemy-ban |title=Ireland awaits result in referendum on repealing blasphemy ban |author=Peter Taggart |work=Local 10 |publisher=WPLG |date=27 October 2018 |access-date=28 October 2018 |archive-date=28 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181028033811/https://www.local10.com/news/international/ireland-awaits-result-in-referendum-on-repealing-blasphemy-ban |url-status=live }}

In 2021, the Irish government proposed legislation criminalizing hate speech. Previously, Irish politicians Mattie McGrath and Keith Redmond stated that hate speech legislation was "secular blasphemy law" in their unsuccessful attempts to oppose it.[https://www.irishcatholic.com/hate-crime-laws-are-a-secular-blasphemy-says-mattie-mcgrath/ Hate crime laws are a 'secular blasphemy' says Mattie McGrath] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220127200311/https://www.irishcatholic.com/hate-crime-laws-are-a-secular-blasphemy-says-mattie-mcgrath/ |date=27 January 2022 }} by Chai Brady, The Irish Catholic, November 14, 2019

In Italy, under article 724 of the Penal Code, blasphemy in public is considered an "administrative offense" and punished with a fine ranging from €51 to €309. First introduced in 1930 under Mussolini, blasphemy was decriminalized as per art.57, d.lgs. n.507 of 30 December 1999. Following a ruling of the Corte Costituzionale in sentence n.440 of 18 October 1995, the law punishes only blasphemy against the "Deity".{{cite web |url=http://www.brocardi.it/codice-penale/libro-terzo/titolo-i/capo-ii/sezione-i/art724.html |title=Art. 724 codice penale – Bestemmia e manifestazioni oltraggiose verso i defunti |publisher=Brocardi.it |access-date=2016-09-11 |archive-date=17 September 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160917210322/http://www.brocardi.it/codice-penale/libro-terzo/titolo-i/capo-ii/sezione-i/art724.html |url-status=live }} Article 404 of the penal code also punishes public offenses to religion, and has been invoked against artists using religious imagery in satirical art.{{Cite web|url=https://hyperallergic.com/410323/hogre-jesus-chared-with-public-offense-italy/|title=Artist Charged with Public Offense to Religion in Italy Over Image of Aroused Jesus|last1=Ro|first1=Christine|date=7 November 2017|website=Hyperallergic|access-date=14 August 2018|archive-date=13 February 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190213073510/https://hyperallergic.com/410323/hogre-jesus-chared-with-public-offense-italy/|url-status=live}}

At the end of July 2019, public blasphemy was also made illegal on the local level in the Italian town of Saonara, punishing alleged blasphemers with a fine of €400.{{Cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/26/thou-shalt-not-take-lords-name-vain-italian-town-issue-400-blasphemy/ |title=Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain: Italian town to issue €400 blasphemy fines |author=Josephine McKenna |work=The Daily Telegraph |date=26 July 2019 |access-date=31 July 2019 |archive-date=28 July 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190728030058/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/26/thou-shalt-not-take-lords-name-vain-italian-town-issue-400-blasphemy/ |url-status=live }}{{Cite news |url=https://www.newsweek.com/italian-town-issue-fines-blasphemy-cursing-public-1451413 |title=Italian Town to Issue Fines for Blasphemy, Cursing in Public |author=Donica Phifer |work=Newsweek |date=27 July 2019 |access-date=31 July 2019 |archive-date=30 July 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190730225410/https://www.newsweek.com/italian-town-issue-fines-blasphemy-cursing-public-1451413 |url-status=live }}

Instead of a law against blasphemy, Malta had laws against the vilification of religion, and against immorality. Enacted in 1933, Article 163 of Malta's Criminal Code prohibited "vilification of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion",{{cite web |url=http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=8574 |title=Title IV: Of crimes against the religious sentiment. Chapter 9. Article 163: Vilification of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion. |work=Criminal Code of Malta |publisher=Court Services |access-date=7 June 2018 |archive-date=17 June 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160617024610/http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=8574 |url-status=live }} which is Malta's state religion. Vilification of Malta's religion made the vilifier liable to imprisonment for a term from one to six months. By Article 164, vilification of any cult "tolerated by law" made the vilifier liable to imprisonment for a term from one to three months. Article 338(bb) imposes liability upon anyone who, "even though in a state of intoxication, publicly utters any obscene or indecent words, or makes obscene acts or gestures, or in any other manner not otherwise provided for in this Code, offends against public morality, propriety or decency". Article 342 provides:

:In respect of the contravention under article 338(bb), where the act consists in uttering blasphemous words or expressions, the minimum punishment to be awarded shall in no case be less than a fine (amenda) of eleven euro and sixty-five cents (11.65) and the maximum punishment may be imprisonment for a term of three months ...

In 2008, criminal procedures were initiated against 162 people for blaspheming in public.{{cite web|url=http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091014/local/cigarette-butts|title=Criminal proceedings for blaspheming and littering with cigarette butts|date=14 October 2009 |publisher=Allied Newspapers Ltd|access-date=11 September 2016|archive-date=17 October 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091017000827/http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091014/local/cigarette-butts|url-status=live}}

In July 2016, the parliament of Malta repealed articles 163 and 164 of the criminal code, the country's blasphemy laws.{{cite web |url=http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160714/local/repealing-blasphemy-law-a-victory-for-freedom-of-speech-says-humanist.618859 |title=Repealing blasphemy law a victory for freedom of speech, says Humanist Association |publisher=Allied Newspapers Ltd |date=14 July 2016 |access-date=11 September 2016 |archive-date=12 August 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160812032504/http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160714/local/repealing-blasphemy-law-a-victory-for-freedom-of-speech-says-humanist.618859 |url-status=live }}{{Cite web |url=http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lp&itemid=27811&l=1 |title=Criminal Code (Amendment) Act 2016 |access-date=15 August 2016 |archive-date=24 January 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170124191446/http://justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lp&itemid=27811&l=1 |url-status=live }}

{{Main|Blasphemy law in Nigeria}}

Nigeria prohibits blasphemy by section 204 of its Criminal Code and by permitting Sharia courts to operate in some states.{{cite web

| title = Criminal Code Act

| work = Chapter 77 (Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990)

| publisher = Nigeria

| url = http://www.nigeria-law.org/Criminal%20Code%20Act-Tables.htm

| access-date = 2 August 2009

| archive-date = 27 June 2013

| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130627202302/http://www.nigeria-law.org/Criminal%20Code%20Act-Tables.htm

}}{{cite web

| title = Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999

| publisher = Nigeria

| url = http://www.nigeria-law.org/ConstitutionOfTheFederalRepublicOfNigeria.htm

| access-date = 2 August 2009

| archive-date = 27 July 2011

| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110727124236/http://www.nigeria-law.org/ConstitutionOfTheFederalRepublicOfNigeria.htm

| url-status = live

}} Vigilantism frequently usurps the jurisdiction of the courts.{{cite web

| title = 2008 Human Rights Report: Introduction

| publisher = U.S. State Department

| date = 25 February 2008

| url = https://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/frontmatter/118984.htm

| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090226174552/http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/frontmatter/118984.htm

| archive-date = 26 February 2009

| access-date = 2 August 2009}}

File:Gerard Kornelis van het Reve (1969).jpg kisses a donkey (1969). Found guilty of 'blasphemy' in 1966 for describing a sex scene with God-turned-donkey in his novel Nader tot U, he successfully appealed in 1968.]]

With the introduction of the Dutch Criminal Code of 1881, in force since 1886, the Netherlands obtained its first law against blasphemy. The Minister of Justice argued that, although God would be perfectly capable of protecting his own rights, the Dutch legislator had to 'protect the rights of society'.Temperman & Koltay, p. 620.

In 1932, a bill was proposed to tighten the 1886 law. Parliament was divided between confessional and non-confessional parties, but also between different confessional parties on the question whether the purpose of the bill was protecting God or religion, or religious people. The bill passed on 1 June 1932 with 49 against 44 votes in the House, 28 against 18 votes in the Senate, and was adopted on 4 November 1932.Temperman & Koltay, p. 623.

Article 147 punished (by up to three months in jail or a fine of the second category (i.e. up to €3,800{{cite web|url=http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/EersteBoek/TitelII/Artikel23|title=Penal code of the Netherlands, article 23|access-date=9 October 2010|language=nl|archive-date=26 May 2024|archive-url=https://archive.today/20240526203546/https://www.webcitation.org/6JIRaoAOD?url=http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/EersteBoek/TitelII/Artikel23/geldigheidsdatum_01-09-2013|url-status=live}})) anyone who publicly, orally or in writing or depiction, offends religious feelings by scornful blasphemy.{{cite web

| title = Europe: Where there's a will, there is a law

| work = Straits Times

| publisher = AsiaMedia

| date = 8 February 2006

| url = http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-world.asp?parentid=38666

| access-date = 28 August 2009

| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110709200454/http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-world.asp?parentid=38666

| archive-date = 9 July 2011 }} Furthermore, article 429bis prohibited displaying blasphemous material at places visible from the public road.{{cite web|url=http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/DerdeBoek/TitelII/Artikel429bis|title=Penal code of the Netherlands, article 429bis|access-date=9 October 2010|language=nl|archive-date=26 May 2024|archive-url=https://archive.today/20240526203627/https://www.webcitation.org/6JIRcS9CJ?url=http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/DerdeBoek/TitelII/Artikel429bis/geldigheidsdatum_01-09-2013|url-status=live}} The law came into being in the 1930s after the Communist Party called for Christmas to be dropped from the list of state holidays.{{cite web|last1=Conger |first1=George |title=Blasphemy law is dropped in Netherlands |publisher=Religious Intelligence |date=9 November 2008 |url=http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=3256 |access-date=28 August 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090211213056/http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=3256 |archive-date=11 February 2009 }} The last successful conviction under Article 147 took place in the early 1960s when a student newspaper was fined 100 guilders for satirizing the New Testament. The law against blasphemy complements laws against racial discrimination and incitement to violence.{{Citation needed|date=January 2015}}

In 1966, the Public Prosecution Service prosecuted writer Gerard Reve under Article 147. In his novel Nader tot U ("Nearer to Thee"), Reve describes the narrator's sexual intercourse with God, who is incarnated in a donkey. The court of first instance convicted Reve, but he appealed. In April 1968, an appeals court quashed the conviction.{{cite web | title = Blasphemy law ditched by the Dutch | publisher = Radio Netherlands Worldwide | date = 1 November 2008 | url = http://www.rnw.nl/pt-pt/node/1445 | archive-url = https://archive.today/20130112051746/http://www.rnw.nl/pt-pt/node/1445 | archive-date = 12 January 2013 | access-date = 28 August 2009 }}{{cite web

| last1 = Tamis

| first1 = Theo

| title = Nearer to Thee, Gerard Reve dies

| publisher = Radio Nederland Wereldomroep

| date = 9 April 2006

| url = http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/060409reve

| access-date = 28 August 2009

| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110726003423/http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/060409reve

| archive-date = 26 July 2011

}} This effectively made the Dutch blasphemy law dead letter.

In November 2008, Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin expressed the country's coalition government's intent to repeal Article 147. He said the government would strengthen the legislation against discrimination to prohibit any insult to any group of people.{{cite web | title = Cabinet drops repeal of blasphemy law | publisher = DutchNews.nl | date = 28 May 2009 | url = http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2009/05/cabinet_drops_repeal_of_blasph.php | access-date = 28 August 2009 | archive-date = 25 February 2013 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130225030639/http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2009/05/cabinet_drops_repeal_of_blasph.php | url-status = live }} In May 2009, the government decided to leave the law as it is. The decision followed a high court ruling in which a man who had put up a poster that read "stop the tumour that is Islam" was found not guilty of insulting a group of people on the grounds of their religion. The decision not to abolish the ban on blasphemy was partly motivated to ensure the support of the orthodox Christian SGP for the minority government in the senate. After a general election in 2012, a new coalition government was formed and a majority of parliament pledged to support a proposal to repeal the blasphemy law.{{cite web

| title = Liberal VVD ensure majority support for scrapping blasphemy laws

| publisher = DutchNews.nl

| date = 28 November 2012

| url = http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2012/11/liberal_vvd_ensure_majority_su.php

| access-date = 28 November 2012

| archive-date = 30 November 2012

| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20121130093728/http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2012/11/liberal_vvd_ensure_majority_su.php

| url-status = live

}}

In November 2012, parliament decided to overturn the blasphemy laws.{{cite news|last1=Bezhan|first1=Frud|title=Dutch Parliament To Revoke Blasphemy Law|url=http://www.rferl.org/content/dutch-parliament-revokes-blasphemy-law/24785198.html|work=Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty|date=29 November 2012|access-date=28 December 2012|archive-date=18 December 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121218042445/http://www.rferl.org/content/dutch-parliament-revokes-blasphemy-law/24785198.html|url-status=live}} It would pass with support from the VVD, but the fundamentalist Christian group SGP were strongly opposed to the measure. According to the SGP, the decision to lift the ban on blasphemy is a "painful loss of a moral anchor and a symptom of a spiritual crisis".

On 1 February 2014, the law on blasphemy was officially abolished.Wet van 23 januari 2014 tot wijziging van het Wetboek van Strafrecht in verband met het laten vervallen van het verbod op godslastering, Stb. 2014, 39. (Law of 23 January 2014 to amend the Criminal Code in connection with the abolishment of the ban on blasphemy)Temperman & Koltay, p. 619.

File:Film Censor's Office Correspondence - Monty Python's Flying Circus (21875502775).jpg (1979) should be banned in New Zealand for blasphemy]]

{{Main|Blasphemy law in New Zealand}}

In New Zealand, Section 123{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329036.html?search=ts_act_Crimes%20Act%201961#DLM329036|title=Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 07 November 2015), Public Act 123 Blasphemous libel – New Zealand Legislation|access-date=11 September 2016|archive-date=25 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180825143357/http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329036.html?search=ts_act_Crimes%20Act%201961#DLM329036|url-status=live}} of the Crimes Act 1961 allowed for imprisonment of up to one year for anyone who published any "blasphemous libel". Cases were only prosecuted at the discretion of the New Zealand Attorney-General, who usually cited overriding free speech objections so as not to pursue such a case. The only prosecution for blasphemous libel in New Zealand was the case of John Glover, publisher of the newspaper The Maoriland Worker, in 1922. Glover was acquitted.

The British comedy film Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) about a fictional Jewish man living at the same time and neighbourhood as Jesus Christ, generated significant international controversy and was banned in several countries including Ireland and Norway. Hundreds of letters were sent to the Film Censor's Office to have the film banned in New Zealand as well on the grounds of it being 'blasphemous' against the Christian faith, but the Chief Censor of Films responded by stating that they had found no evidence of blasphemy or sacrilegiousness in the film.

In March 2018, Justice Minister Andrew Little (Labour Party) introduced a Crimes Amendment Bill that included repeal of Section 123, the crime of blasphemous libel. The bill passed the third reading on 5 March 2019 with the unanimous support of parliament, received the royal assent on 11 March and came into force on 12 March 2019.{{cite news |last1=Little |first1=Andrew |title=Blasphemous libel law repealed |url=http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1903/S00033/blasphemous-libel-law-repealed.htm |access-date=5 March 2019 |issue=5 March 2019 |publisher=Scoop |archive-date=6 March 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190306042650/http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1903/S00033/blasphemous-libel-law-repealed.htm |url-status=live }} An earlier Labour repeal attempt in 2017 was blocked by the then governing National Party.{{Cite news |url=https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/352935/outdated-blasphemy-law-to-be-repealed |title=Outdated blasphemy law to be repealed |author=Craig McCulloch |work=Radio New Zealand |date=20 March 2018 |access-date=6 June 2018 |archive-date=26 April 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180426125940/http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/352935/outdated-blasphemy-law-to-be-repealed |url-status=live }}

In 2009, the Norwegian Parliament voted to remove the dormant law against blasphemy (§ 142 in the penal code).{{cite web|last1=Gran|first1=Even|title=Norge har fortsatt en blasfemiparagraf|url=http://fritanke.no/index.php?page=vis_nyhet&NyhetID=8893|website=fritanke.no|publisher=Human-Etisk Forbund|access-date=8 January 2015|language=no|date=27 August 2012|archive-date=8 January 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150108102937/http://fritanke.no/index.php?page=vis_nyhet&NyhetID=8893|url-status=live}} It was, however, removed from the penal code of 2005, which did not come into force until October 2015.{{Cite web |url=https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/2005-05-20-28 |title=The Penal Code (Norwegian penal code of 2005) |work=Lovdata |publisher=Government of Norway |access-date=8 June 2018 |archive-date=12 April 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190412191545/https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/2005-05-20-28 |url-status=live }} Therefore, blasphemy was illegal until 2015 under the old Penal Code of 1902.{{cite web |last1=Hultgren |first1=Gunnar |title=Åtte år etter at Stortinget vedtok ny lov, er loven fortsatt ikke tatt i bruk |url=http://www.dagbladet.no/2013/04/17/nyheter/straffeloven/per_sandberg/ikt/26713356/ |publisher=Dagbladet |access-date=8 January 2015 |language=no |date=22 April 2013 |archive-date=8 January 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150108112359/http://www.dagbladet.no/2013/04/17/nyheter/straffeloven/per_sandberg/ikt/26713356/ |url-status=live }}

The famous writer and social activist Arnulf Øverland was the last to be tried by this law, in 1933,[http://www.human.no/Livssynspolitikk/Blasfemiparagrafen/ Blasfemiparagrafen]{{dead link|date=July 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} {{in lang|no}} Human.no, retrieved 15 February 2015 after giving a speech named "Kristendommen – den tiende landeplage" ("Christianity – the tenth plague"), but was acquitted. The last person sentenced for blasphemy in Norway was Arnfred Olsen in 1912, and he had to pay a fine of 10 Norwegian krone.[http://www.nored.no/Juss/Andre-krenkelser Andre krenkelser] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130504152415/http://www.nored.no/Juss/Andre-krenkelser |date=4 May 2013 }} {{in lang|no}} Nored.no, retrieved 2 June 2013

The British comedy film Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) was briefly banned in Norway by the authorities in early 1980, because it 'was believed to commit the crime of blasphemy by violating people's religious feelings'. However, the ban was lifted in October 1980 after a group of theologians who had seen the film produced a statement saying that there was no good reason for a total ban. Life of Brian was allowed on the big screen, provided with a poster at the beginning which stated that Brian was not Jesus.{{Cite news |url=https://www.nrk.no/kultur/30-ar-siden-life-of-brian-forbud-1.6942449 |title=Norsk forbud absolutt nonsens |author=Marit Hverven & Mehda Ghalegolabi |work=NRK |date=12 January 2010 |access-date=8 June 2018 |language=no |archive-date=1 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201101091520/https://www.nrk.no/kultur/30-ar-siden-life-of-brian-forbud-1.6942449 |url-status=live }} It was then marketed in Sweden as "The film so funny that it was banned in Norway".{{Cite web|date=2007-03-27|title=Python's Jones Passionate About 'Life Of Brian's' Return |url=http://www.wnbc.com/entertainment/3316054/detail.html|access-date=2020-09-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070327153944/http://www.wnbc.com/entertainment/3316054/detail.html|archive-date=27 March 2007}}

{{see|Offending religious feelings (Philippines)}}

"Crimes against religious worship" are stated under section four of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. Under article 132 and 133, respectively, "interruption of religious worship" and "offending the religious feelings" are punishable by law. "Interruption of religious worship" is defined as "preventing or disturbing the ceremonies or manifestations of any religion" and "offending the religious feelings" is defined as "performing acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful" in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony.{{Cite web |url=http://www.dpwh.gov.ph/about_us/reforms/graft_n_corruption/pdf/Revised%20Penal%20Code1.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=8 September 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120710120119/http://www.dpwh.gov.ph/About_Us/reforms/graft_n_corruption/pdf/Revised%20Penal%20Code1.pdf |archive-date=10 July 2012 }}

Penalties range from imprisonment of four months and a day to six months; crimes that involve violence or threats can carry a penalty of up to six years in jail.

{{Main|Offending religious feelings (Poland)}}

While Poland's penal code makes no reference to any sort of blasphemy law, it states that "Whoever offends religious feelings of other people by publicly insulting an object of religious cult or a place for public holding of religious ceremonies, is subject to a fine, restriction of liberty or loss of liberty for up to 2 years". The article has been used by pro-Church politicians and activists on numerous occasions, whenever they felt their religious feelings had been offended in any way.{{cite web|url=http://www.racjonalista.pl/kk.php/s,345|title=Obraza uczuć religijnych|first1=Mariusz|last1=Agnosiewicz|trans-title=Offense of Religious Feelings|website=Racjonalista|language=pl|access-date=10 February 2017|archive-date=6 June 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170606191122/http://www.racjonalista.pl/kk.php/s,345|url-status=live}} Opponents of the article maintain that due to its vagueness it is abused by seriously limiting the freedom of speech and effectively preventing any kind of debate on Church's sexual crimes and the Church's widespread influence on social, sexual and political life of Poland.{{cite web|url=http://www.racjonalista.pl/kk.php/s,3440/q,Uczucia.religijne.ochrona.czy.cenzura|title=Uczucia religijne: ochrona czy cenzura?|first1=Mariusz|last1=Agnosiewicz|trans-title=Religious Feelings: Defense or Censorship?|website=Racjonalista|language=pl|access-date=10 February 2017|archive-date=11 February 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170211075130/http://www.racjonalista.pl/kk.php/s,3440/q,Uczucia.religijne.ochrona.czy.cenzura|url-status=live}}

A notable conviction on the basis of this law was that of the pop singer Dorota "Doda" Rabczewska who in 2012 was fined for the amount of 5,000 złotych for saying in an interview that the Bible was written by people 'drunk on wine and smoking some kind of herbs'.[http://www.rp.pl/artykul/894222-Doda-skazana-za-obraze-uczuc-religijnych.html#ap-1 Doda skazana za obrazę uczuć religijnych] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170719231250/http://www.rp.pl/artykul/894222-Doda-skazana-za-obraze-uczuc-religijnych.html#ap-1 |date=19 July 2017 }}, rp.pl Her complaint was rejected by the Constitutional Tribunal, which confirmed that the law did not violate the Constitution.{{cite web|url=https://www.tvn24.pl/r/583217|title=Trybunał Konstytucyjny odrzucił skargę Dody. W sprawie obrazy uczuć religijnych|website=TVN24.pl}} In March 2019, a notable Polish journalist Jerzy Urban was fined 120,000 złotych (around US$30,000) and additional 28,000 PLN of court costs for publishing an image of christ astonished in his newspaper "NIE".

In 2022 United Poland part of the ruling government called for tougher blasphemy laws in Poland, such as three-year jail terms for insulting church or interrupting mass. {{cite web | url=https://notesfrompoland.com/2022/04/14/polish-coalition-party-proposes-three-year-jail-terms-for-insulting-church-or-interrupting-mass/ | title=Polish coalition party proposes three-year jail terms for insulting church or interrupting mass | date=14 April 2022 }}

In October 2022, they submitted a citizens' legislative initiative for the tougher blasphemy laws with close to 400,000 signatures to parliament.{{cite web | url=https://notesfrompoland.com/2022/10/07/insulting-or-ridiculing-church-to-be-jailable-crime-under-bill-supported-by-polish-justice-minister/ | title="Insulting or ridiculing church" to be jailable crime under bill supported by Polish justice minister | date=7 October 2022 }}{{cite web | url=https://cne.news/artikel/1824-blasphemy-law-poland-may-be-toughened | title=Blasphemy law Poland may be toughened }}

Romania never had blasphemy laws active. According to Romanian law, "cults, religious associations and religious groups ... must not infringe upon ... fundamental human rights and liberties",{{cite web | url=http://www.dreptonline.ro/legislatie/lege_libertate_religioasa_regimul_cultelor.php | title=Law no. 489/2006 on religious freedom and the general status of cults | access-date=26 January 2013 | archive-date=25 January 2013 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130125073806/http://www.dreptonline.ro/legislatie/lege_libertate_religioasa_regimul_cultelor.php | url-status=live }} which, according to the Constitution of Romania, include freedom of conscience and freedom of expression.{{cite web | url=http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_1&par1=2#t2c2 | title=Constitution of Romania, Chapter II | access-date=26 January 2013 | archive-date=4 April 2020 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200404231522/http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_1&par1=2#t2c2 | url-status=live }}

In May 2011, a National Liberal deputy proposed a bill for the prevention of religious intolerance, which would have criminalized blasphemy. The bill was withdrawn, however, later that month.{{cite web | url=http://www.cdep.ro/pls/proiecte/upl_pck.proiect?idp=16050&cam=1 | title=BP264/2011 Propunere legislativă pentru prevenirea intoleranţei religioase | access-date=24 November 2015 | archive-date=25 November 2015 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151125052434/http://www.cdep.ro/pls/proiecte/upl_pck.proiect?idp=16050&cam=1 | url-status=live }}

File:Art safari Bucharest 2023 Paul Baraka.jpg

In January 2024, the management of the CNCD (National Council for Combating Discrimination) decided to fine{{cn|date=February 2024}} the Bucharest City Museum, the Cultural Centre Art Society Foundation and the British curator Ruth Hibbard, for the Nymphs & Zombies exhibition, organized by Art Safari{{cite web | url=https://www.artsafari.ro/project/nymphs-and-zombies/ | title=Nymphs and Zombies: Ondine's Hope and Baraka's Despair – Art Safari }} in the summer of 2023 to Bucharest. Artist Paul Baraka{{cite web | url=https://propagarta.ro/interviuri-acasa-la-in-atelier-la/peopleofgeorge/de-vorba-cu-artistii-mihai-toth-si-paul-baraka-marat-despre-spatiul-baraka-din-timisoara/ | title=De vorbă cu artiștii Mihai Toth și Paul Baraka Marat despre Spațiul Baraka din Timișoara | date=6 December 2023 }} also received a warning for his works, including an installation in which Jesus is crucified in boxers and wearing deer horns, being worshiped by a group of "zombies" and an oil on canvas painting with elements from the Virgin Mary and the Child icon. In September 2023, the works were described by Vasile Bănescu,{{cite web | url=https://infocultural.eu/purtatorul-de-cuvant-al-patriarhiei-romane-si-un-deputat-independent-au-criticat-in-termeni-duri-o-expozitie-din-art-safari/ | title=Purtătorul de cuvânt al Patriarhiei Române şi un deputat independent au criticat în termeni duri o expoziţie din Art Safari » Interne | date=8 September 2023 }} the spokesperson of the Romanian Orthodox Church, in terms such as "obscenity", "mockery", "blasphemy", "sacrilege".

After the Pussy Riot incident, Russian lawmakers started considering a bill proposing prison sentences for desecration.{{Cite web |title=End Blasphemy Laws Russia| url=https://end-blasphemy-laws.org/countries/europe/russia/|access-date=2023-09-25 |date=2018-07-16 |website=End Blasphemy Laws}} The State Duma investigated "the situation of sacrilegious acts against Church property and proposed amendments to the Russian Penal Code" in their 2012 Autumn Session.{{citation needed|date=December 2020}} The Union of Orthodox Citizens and MP of United Russia supported the proposal, the latter stating: "We really should make some amendments to the Penal Code in order to cool down these outcasts who have nothing else to do in their lives other than commit such offenses."{{cite web|title=Les miliciens orthodoxes déclarent ouverte la chasse aux hérétiques|url=http://www.lecourrierderussie.com/2012/08/22/les-miliciens-orthodoxes-declarent-ouverte-la-chasse-aux-heretiques/|publisher=Le Courrier de Russie|date=22 August 2012|access-date=22 August 2012|archive-date=27 August 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120827161018/http://www.lecourrierderussie.com/2012/08/22/les-miliciens-orthodoxes-declarent-ouverte-la-chasse-aux-heretiques/}}

The bill was accepted 11 June 2013.[http://en.ria.ru/crime/20130611/181617271.html Russian Lawmakers Back Jail Terms for Insulting Religion] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130612195914/http://en.ria.ru/crime/20130611/181617271.html |date=12 June 2013 }} // RIA Novosti, 11/06/2013 According to Article 148 of Russian Criminal Code it is declared a crime to conduct "public actions expressing explicit disrespect for society and committed for the purpose of offending the religious feelings of believers". Part 2 of the same article establishes stricter punishments for the aforementioned actions when coupled with desecration of holy symbols and (or) religious texts.

Blasphemy is a common law offence in South Africa, defined as "unlawfully, intentionally and publicly acting contemptuously towards God."{{cite book |first1=John |last1=Milton |title=South African Criminal Law and Procedure: Common-law Crimes |edition=3rd |year=1996 |location=Cape Town |publisher=Juta |isbn=9780702137730 |chapter=Chapter 17: Blasphemy |pages=293–300}}{{cite book |first1=Jonathan |last1=Burchell |title=Principles of Criminal Law |edition=3rd |year=2005 |location=Cape Town |publisher=Juta |isbn=9780702165573 |chapter=Chapter 74: Blasphemy |pages=880–883}} Several legal writers have suggested that the illegality of blasphemy has become unconstitutional as a result of the adoption in 1994 of the Bill of Rights, which includes the right to freedom of expression.{{cite journal |first1=Nicholas |last1=Smith |title=The crime of blasphemy and the protection of fundamental human rights |journal=South African Law Journal |year=1999 |volume=116 |number=1 |pages=162–173}}{{cite web |first1=Pierre |last1=de Vos |author-link=Pierre de Vos |title=On Woolworths and freedom of conscience |date=2 November 2012 |work=Constitutionally Speaking |url=http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/on-woolworths-and-freedom-of-conscience/ |access-date=4 September 2012 |archive-date=19 October 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121019080640/http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/on-woolworths-and-freedom-of-conscience/ |url-status=live }} It has also been suggested that it is unconstitutional because the criminal prohibition only applies to blasphemy against Christianity, and therefore discriminates on the basis of religion.

Blasphemy prosecutions have been rare since the start of the twentieth century, to the point that writers in the early part of the century suggested that the crime had been abrogated through disuse. However, in 1934 a newspaper editor was convicted of blasphemy for publishing a story in which a nun has a vision of a sexual relationship with Jesus Christ, and the validity of the conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Division. In 1962 Harold Rubin was prosecuted for a painting depicting Christ naked on the cross along with inversions of Biblical sayings, but he was acquitted. In 1968 the editor of Varsity was prosecuted for publishing a report of a symposium on the topic "Is God Dead?", which quoted statements that "We must write God off entirely" and "[God] is beginning to stink".{{cite news |first1=Stanley |last1=Uys |title='Is God Dead?': Court Case Centers on Issue |date=20 January 1968 |newspaper=The St. Petersburg Times |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19680120&id=cHJQAAAAIBAJ&pg=6289,6778619 |access-date=4 September 2012 |archive-date=24 February 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210224221729/https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19680120&id=cHJQAAAAIBAJ&pg=6289,6778619 |url-status=live }} He was convicted, but at sentencing received only a caution and discharge.{{cite book |first1=Christopher Edmond |last1=Merrett |title=A Culture of Censorship: Secrecy and Intellectual Repression in South Africa |year=1994 |location=Cape Town |publisher=David Philip |isbn=0864862598 |page=[https://archive.org/details/cultureofcensors00merr/page/67 67] |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/cultureofcensors00merr/page/67 }}

The Equality Act of 2000 forbids hate speech, which is defined as "words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to: (a) be hurtful; (b) be harmful or to incite harm; (c) promote or propagate hatred." The "prohibited grounds" include religion, and thus some blasphemous speech falls within the scope of hate speech. The prohibition of hate speech is, however, not a criminal prohibition, and only civil penalties would result.{{cite web|title=Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000|url=http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2000-004.pdf|publisher=Department of Justice and Constitutional Development|access-date=2 June 2013|archive-date=3 June 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110603050532/http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2000-004.pdf|url-status=live}}

In 1988, the Spanish Parliament removed the blasphemy law from their legal system. However, article 525 of the Penal Code in Spain considers "vilification" of religious "feelings", "dogmas", "beliefs" or "rituals". This extension to "dogmas" and "beliefs" is considered by some as very close to a blasphemy law in practice.

For instance, in 2012 it was used to prosecute a famous artist, Javier Krahe, for a scene (shot 34 years earlier, and lasting just 54 seconds) in a documentary about him.{{cite web|url=http://www.publico.es/espana/314232/juicio-oral-contra-javier-krahe-por-su-corto-como-cocinar-a-un-cristo|title=Juicio oral contra Javier Krahe por su corto 'Cómo cocinar a un Cristo'|date=20 May 2010 |access-date=11 September 2016|archive-date=20 November 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141120181637/http://www.publico.es/espana/314232/juicio-oral-contra-javier-krahe-por-su-corto-como-cocinar-a-un-cristo|url-status=live}} He was discharged the same year.{{cite news|url=https://elpais.com/sociedad/2012/06/08/actualidad/1339148077_418557.html|title=Krahe, absuelto en el juicio por el vídeo en el que se cocinaba un Cristo|first1=Rosario G.|last1=Gómez|newspaper=El País|date=8 June 2012|via=elpais.com|access-date=9 July 2017|archive-date=13 October 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171013172620/https://elpais.com/sociedad/2012/06/08/actualidad/1339148077_418557.html|url-status=live}}

In 2018, following the case of Willy Toledo and three feminist protesters accused of blasphemy, the governing PSOE and supporting party Unidas Podemos pledged an end to the "medieval laws on offending religious sentiments and insult to the Crown". Legislation was suspended following the announcement of the 2019 Spanish general election. The government and its allies were subsequently returned to power, which means the proposals will now likely return to the national parliament.{{cite web|url=https://eltorotv.com/noticias/espana/las-propuestas-de-psoe-y-podemos-esto-es-lo-que-se-nos-viene-encima-20190429|title=Las propuestas de PSOE y Podemos... esto es lo que se nos viene encima|work=El Toro TV|date=29 April 2019|access-date=7 May 2019|archive-date=7 May 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190507095029/https://eltorotv.com/noticias/espana/las-propuestas-de-psoe-y-podemos-esto-es-lo-que-se-nos-viene-encima-20190429|url-status=live}}{{Update inline|date=May 2025|reason=This is information 6 years old. What was the progress on this?}}

Swedish laws do not explicitly prohibit blasphemy. In Sweden the 20th century saw the public adoption of the principle that religion was a personal matter.{{citation needed|reason= Why was Church of Sweden only disestablished in 2000 then?|date=March 2022}} King Erik XIV had introduced a law in 1563 that specifically protected religion. That was followed by similar Acts until 1949, when they were replaced by an Act on "Peace of Faith" which was a milder form of restriction. In 1970, the 1949 Act was repealed and a new Act was introduced on "agitation against a specific group of people". The new Act protects minority groups who share "race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation". Thus, the Act does not protect any religion as such, but instead can protect the religion's practitioners. The new Act has most often been enforced when Jews and homosexuals have been attacked.[http://www.eurel.info/spip.php?rubrique542&lang=en eurel Sociological and legal data on religions in Europe, Sweden, Blasphemy] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170730223345/http://www.eurel.info/spip.php?rubrique542&lang=en |date=30 July 2017 }} 16 May 2014 Retrieved 6 June 2017 The lack of prohibition and therefore legality to blaspheme the Quran, has been in the spotlight since 2020 as some people burnt the Quran in public. Some Muslim countries have demanded this be stopped by law in Sweden.{{citation needed|date=March 2025}} In 2023, a man was given a suspended sentence for "agitation against a specific group of people", after having burnt a Quran and published a video of the event.{{cite web |url=https://www.domstol.se/nyheter/2023/10/dom-i-mal-om-hets-mot-folkgrupp/ |title=Dom i mål om hets mot folkgrupp |date=2023-10-12 |publisher=Swedish Courts of Law |access-date=2025-03-14 |language=Swedish}} More people have been sentenced since this, including far-right politician Rasmus Paludan, who was given a prison sentence.{{cite web |url=https://crd.org/sv/2024/11/05/efter-civil-rights-defenders-anmalan-paludan-doms-for-hets-mot-folkgrupp/ |title=Efter Civil Rights Defenders anmälan – Paludan döms för hets mot folkgrupp |date=2024-11-05 |publisher=Civil Rights Defenders |access-date=2025-03-14 |language=Swedish}}

In Switzerland, Article 261 of the penal code titled "Attack on the freedom of faith and the freedom to worship" (Störung der Glaubens- und Kultusfreiheit) is defined as:{{cite web|url=https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/en#art_261|title=SR 311.0 Schweizerisches Strafgesetzbuch vom 21. Dezember 1937|first1=Bundeskanzlei -|last1=P|access-date=11 September 2016|archive-date=9 April 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210409224255/https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/en#art_261|url-status=live}}

"Any person who publicly and maliciously insults or mocks the religious convictions of others, and in particularly their belief in God, or maliciously desecrates objects of religious veneration, any person who maliciously prevents, disrupts or publicly mocks an act of worship, the conduct of which is guaranteed by the Constitution, or any person who maliciously desecrates a place or object that is intended for a religious ceremony or an act of worship the conduct of which is guaranteed by the Constitution, shall be liable to a monetary penalty."

The Constitution of Tanzania defines it as a secular state (Article 3), and protects freedom of expression (Article 18), freedom of conscience, faith and choice in matters of religion (Article 19). However, these provisions are not always upheld in practice.{{Cite web |url=https://fot.humanists.international/countries/africa-eastern-africa/tanzania/ |title=Tanzania |work=Freedom of Thought Report |publisher=Humanists International |access-date=30 December 2020 |archive-date=28 December 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201228170307/https://fot.humanists.international/countries/africa-eastern-africa/tanzania/ |url-status=live }} Zanzibar is a semi-autonomous island of Tanzania with its own constitution and a separate judicial system of Khadi's courts that may apply sharia in certain cases.

On mainland Tanzania, the Penal Code criminalises acts of sacrilege (destroying, damaging or defiling buildings or objects 'held sacred by any class of persons') and acts of uttering words with intent to wound religious feelings of any person under Articles 125 and 129 respectively; both count as misdemeanours that may be punished with imprisonment for up to one year. No information is available regarding whether or to what extent this provision is enforced. In Zanzibar, Section XIV of the Penal Decree Act of 2004 similarly criminalises acts of sacrilege (Article 117); Article 21 clarifies that this offence is punishable by imprisonment not exceeding two years and/or a fine. Uttering words with the intent to wound the religious feelings of any other person is punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year (Article 121).

In July 2012, Eva Abdulla was sentenced to two years' imprisonment on charges of blasphemy after she was accused of having urinated on a Quran. Abdullah was acquitted on appeal and released in January 2013.

{{Main|Blasphemy law in the United Kingdom}}

The United Kingdom is made up of four distinct parts and several legal jurisdictions. In criminal justice matters, these jurisdictions are England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Blasphemy laws dating back to the medieval times were abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and Scotland in 2021. Equivalent laws remain in Northern Ireland but have not been used for many years.

English blasphemy laws were historically defended{{by whom|date=August 2024}} with the following reasoning: the "[blasphemy] law is needed to uphold the national law, which is based on Christianity. Thus, targeting Christianity is targeting the very foundation of England."{{cite book|last1=Gubo|first1=Darara Timotewos|title=Blasphemy And Defamation of Religions in a Polarized World: How Religious Fundamentalism Is Challenging Fundamental Human Rights|date=24 December 2014|publisher=Lexington Books|language=en|isbn=9780739189733|page=89}}

The last attempted prosecution under these laws was in 2007 when the evangelical group Christian Voice sought a private prosecution against the BBC over its broadcasting of the show Jerry Springer: The Opera (which includes a scene depicting Jesus, dressed as a baby, professing to be "a bit gay"). The charges were rejected by the City of Westminster magistrates court. Christian Voice applied to have this ruling overturned by the High Court, but the application was rejected. The court found that the common law blasphemy offences specifically did not apply to stage productions (s. 2(4) of the Theatres Act 1968) and broadcasts (s. 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1990).{{cite news

| title =Springer opera court fight fails

| work =BBC News

| date =5 December 2007

| url =http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7128552.stm

| access-date =5 December 2007

| archive-date =15 January 2009

| archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20090115043115/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7128552.stm

| url-status =live

}}{{cite BAILII

|country=ew

|litigants=Green, R (on the application of) v The City of Westminster Magistrates' Court

|court=EWHC

|division=Admin

|year=2007

|num=2785

|para=

|date=5 December 2007}}

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. His newspaper had published James Kirkup's poem "The Love that Dares to Speak its Name", which allegedly vilified Christ and his life. Lemon was fined £500 and given a suspended sentence of nine months' imprisonment. It had been "touch and go", said the judge, whether he would actually send Lemon to jail.{{Cite web |url=http://www.pinktriangle.org.uk/glh/214/humphreys.html |title=Brett Humphreys: The Law That Dared to Lay the Blame |access-date=17 May 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303172729/http://www.pinktriangle.org.uk/glh/214/humphreys.html |archive-date=3 March 2016 }} In 2002, a deliberate and well-publicized public repeat reading of the poem took place on the steps of St Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square, but did not lead to any prosecution.{{cite web|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1401051/Erotic-poem-challenges-blasphemy-law.html|title=Erotic poem challenges blasphemy law|date=11 July 2002 |access-date=11 September 2016|archive-date=29 February 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160229023207/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1401051/Erotic-poem-challenges-blasphemy-law.html|url-status=live}}

In 1696, a Scottish court sentenced Thomas Aikenhead to death for blasphemy.{{cite news |title=McLaurin's Arguments and Definitions |work=The Scots Magazine |date=1 July 1774 |access-date=10 January 2015 |url=http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000545/17740701/009/0028 |via=British Newspaper Archive |url-access=subscription }} The last prosecution for blasphemy in Scotland was in 1843.Hugh Barclay: A Digest of the Law of Scotland: With Special Reference to the Office, T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1855, p.86

The last person in Britain to be imprisoned for blasphemy was John William Gott on 9 December 1921. He had three previous convictions for blasphemy when he was prosecuted for publishing two pamphlets which satirized the biblical story of Jesus entering Jerusalem (Matthew 21:2–7), comparing Jesus to a circus clown. He was sentenced to nine months' hard labour.{{citation needed|date=May 2013}}

In 1985, the Law Commission (England and Wales) published a report, Criminal Law: Offences against Religious and Public Worship, that concluded that the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel should be abolished without replacement. On 5 March 2008, an amendment was passed to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in England and Wales. (Common law is abolished, not repealed.) The Act received royal assent on 8 May 2008,{{cite web|access-date=6 June 2008 |publisher=Institute for Humanist Studies |author=Ruth Geller |title=Goodbye to Blasphemy in Britain |url=http://humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=348&article=0 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080607204857/http://humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=348&article=0 |archive-date=7 June 2008 }}[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_1 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090829000238/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_1 |date=29 August 2009 }}, see section 79 and Part 5 of Schedule 28. and the relevant section came into force on 8 July 2008.[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/03/uk-house-of-lords-votes-to-abolish.php JURIST – Paper Chase: UK House of Lords votes to abolish criminal blasphemy] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090509145839/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/03/uk-house-of-lords-votes-to-abolish.php |date=9 May 2009 }}[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_17#pt12-l1g153 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100806163938/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_17#pt12-l1g153 |date=6 August 2010 }}, section 153: Commencement

Blasphemy remains an offence under the common law in Northern Ireland.{{Cite web |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/91105-0006.htm |title=5 Nov 2009: Column 402 |work=Hansard |publisher=House of Commons |date=5 November 2009 |access-date=6 June 2018 |archive-date=25 August 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180825212558/https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/91105-0006.htm |url-status=live }}

The 1989 film Visions of Ecstasy was the only film ever banned in the UK for blasphemy. Following the abolition of the blasphemy laws in England and Wales in 2008, the film was eventually classified by the BBFC for release as 18-rated in 2012.{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16809977|title=Visions of Ecstasy gets UK rating after 23-year ban|date=31 January 2012|work=BBC News|access-date=20 June 2018|archive-date=8 October 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131008185319/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16809977|url-status=live}}

On 24 April 2020, the Scottish Government published a new bill that sought to reform hate crime legislation to provide better protection against race, sex, age and religious discrimination, and also decriminalised blasphemy. This bill was approved by Holyrood on 11 March 2021 and the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021{{Cite web |url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14 |title=Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. |access-date=26 March 2022 |archive-date=26 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220326184831/https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14 |url-status=live }} received royal assent on 23 April 2021.{{cite web |url=https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill |title=Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill |date= |website=Scottish Parliament |access-date=23 August 2021 |archive-date=23 August 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210823212658/https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill |url-status=live }} The abolition of the common law offence of blasphemy formally took effect when section 16 of the Act was brought into force on 1 April 2024.{{Cite legislation Scotland | type = ssi | year = 2024 | number = 82 | ssi = The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 (Commencement and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2024}}

Humanists UK, that had been campaigning for repealing Scotland's blasphemy law since 2015, welcomed the bill.{{Cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/24/blasphemy-to-be-decriminalised-in-scottish-hate-bill |title=Blasphemy to be decriminalised in Scottish hate crime bill |work=The Guardian |date=24 April 2020 |access-date=25 April 2020 |archive-date=24 April 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200424232451/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/24/blasphemy-to-be-decriminalised-in-scottish-hate-bill |url-status=live }}

{{Main|Blasphemy law in the United States}}

File:An Act against Atheism and Blasphemy - Mass Bay Colony 1697.jpg

A prosecution for blasphemy in the United States has been seen by the courts in recent decades as be a violation of the U.S. Constitution, and no blasphemy laws exist at the federal level. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution (adopted in 1791) provides:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...

Before winning their independence from the British Empire in the late 18th century, some of the British colonies in North America such as the Province of Massachusetts Bay had blasphemy laws. The 1791 First Amendment effectively put an end to them in the new American republic.

Because of the First Amendment's protection of free speech and religious exercise from federal interference, and the Supreme Court's extension of those protections against state regulation, the United States and its constituent state governments may not prosecute blasphemous speech or religious insults and may not allow civil actions on those grounds. In Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1952 that New York could not enforce a censorship law against filmmakers whose films contained "sacrilegious" content. The opinion of the Court, by Justice Clark, stated that:{{cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0343_0495_ZO.html|title=Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson|access-date=11 September 2016|archive-date=17 January 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130117061318/http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0343_0495_ZO.html|url-status=live}}

From the standpoint of freedom of speech and the press, it is enough to point out that the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them which is sufficient to justify prior restraints upon the expression of those views. It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches, or motion pictures.

The United States and some individual state jurisdictions provide for stronger criminal penalties for crimes when committed against a person because of that person's religious or some other affiliations. For instance, Section 3A1.1 of the 2009 United States Sentencing Guidelines states that: "If the finder of fact at trial or, in the case of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court at sentencing determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected any victim or any property as the object of the offense of conviction because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person," the sentencing court is required to increase the standard sentencing range.[http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/GL2009.pdf United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual § 3A1.1 (2009)] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100215045940/http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/GL2009.pdf |date=15 February 2010 }}

{{Islamization}}

In a number of countries where Islam is the state religion or where Muslims are a majority, values and attitudes derived from Islam have influenced censorious laws criminalising blasphemy, often attached to heavy punishments. Blasphemy in Islam is broadly defined as impious utterance or action concerning God, Muhammad or anything considered sacred in Islam.[https://books.google.com/books?id=-oDRAwAAQBAJ&dq=lorenz%20langer%20cambridge&pg=PA331 Langer] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190128191354/https://books.google.ch/books?id=-oDRAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PR4&ots=8k7rBtiUDw&dq=lorenz%20langer%20cambridge&hl=de&pg=PA331 |date=28 January 2019 }}, 2014, 331 The Islamic holy book, the Quran, admonishes blasphemy, but does not specify the punishment. The hadiths, which are another source of sharia, suggest various punishments for blasphemy, including death.

{{Main|Blasphemy law in Afghanistan}}

An Islamic emirate, Afghanistan prohibits blasphemy as an offense under Sharia. Blasphemy can be punished by retaliatory penalties up to and including execution by hanging. {{cite web

| title = 2008 Report on International Religious Freedom – Afghanistan

| publisher = United States Department of State

| date = 19 September 2008

| url = http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/48d5cbf4c.html

| access-date = 2 July 2009

| archive-date = 8 October 2012

| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20121008133833/http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/48d5cbf4c.html

| url-status = live

}} Since the Taliban takeover in 2021, people have been arrested for blasphemy.{{cite news

| title = The Taliban Arrests Afghan YouTuber and Colleagues on Charges of Blasphemy

| newspaper = Khaama Press

| publisher = The KHAAMA PRESS News Agency

| date = 8 June 2022

| url = https://www.khaama.com/the-taliban-arrests-afghan-youtuber-and-colleagues-on-charges-of-blasphemy-46485/

| access-date = 11 August 2022

}}

{{Main|Blasphemy law in Algeria}}

Although ninety-nine percent of Algeria's population is Sunni Muslim, and the Constitution declares that Islam is the state religion, Algeria uses retaliatory legislation rather than Sharia to combat blasphemy against Islam. The penalty for blasphemy can be up to 5 years of imprisonment and a fine.{{Cite web |title=Algeria |url=https://end-blasphemy-laws.org/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/algeria/ |access-date=2023-06-27 |website=End Blasphemy Laws}}{{Cite web |title=Country Update: Algeria |url=https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/2021 |website=United States Commission on International Religious Freedom }}{{Dead link|date=November 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}

{{Main|Blasphemy law in Bangladesh}}

Bangladesh forbids blasphemy by a provision in its penal code that prohibits "hurting religious sentiments", and by other laws and policies that attack freedom of speech.{{cite web

|title=Strict blasphemy laws limit religious debate in Bangladesh

|publisher=AsiaMedia

|date=18 May 2006

|url=http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/religion/article.asp?parentid=45887

|access-date=5 August 2009

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100712204543/http://asiamedia.ucla.edu/religion/article.asp?parentid=45887

|archive-date=12 July 2010

}}

In April 2013, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina rejected calls for new laws from radical Islamist groups, notably Hefajat-e Islam, demanding death penalty for people involved in blasphemy. She described Bangladesh as a "secular democracy, where every religion had a right to be practiced freely and fairly", and that "if anyone was found guilty of hurting the sentiments of the followers of any religion or its venerable figures, there was a law to deal with it".[https://web.archive.org/web/20130415085401/http://www.asianewsnet.net/No-blasphemy-law-needed-Bdesh-PM-45204.html "No blasphemy law needed: B'desh PM"], Asia News Net[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22058462 "Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina rejects blasphemy law"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181009062735/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22058462 |date=9 October 2018 }}, BBC News[http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/south-asia/sheikh-hasina-rejects-call-for-blasphemy-law/article4594982.ece "Sheikh Hasina rejects call for blasphemy law"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130410093715/http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/south-asia/sheikh-hasina-rejects-call-for-blasphemy-law/article4594982.ece |date=10 April 2013 }}, The Hindu

{{Main|Blasphemy law in Egypt}}

Article 98(f) of the Egyptian Penal Code, as amended by Law 147/2006 states the penalty for blasphemy and similar crimes:

{{Blockquote|Confinement for a period of not less than six months and not exceeding five years, or a fine of not less than five hundred pounds and not exceeding one thousand pounds shall be the penalty inflicted on whoever makes use of religion in propagating, either by words, in writing, or in any other means, extreme ideas for the purpose of inciting strife, ridiculing or insulting a heavenly religion or a sect following it, or damaging national unity.{{Cite web|last1 = Farahat|first1 = Cynthia|title = In protection of religion or protection from it?|date = 24 February 2008|url = http://www.ahewar.org/eng/show.art.asp?aid=546|access-date = 13 July 2009|archive-date = 14 April 2019|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190414192415/http://www.ahewar.org/eng/show.art.asp?aid=546|url-status = live}}}}

{{multiple image

| footer = Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (left) was convicted of blasphemy against Islam and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. His speech in which he referenced a verse from the Quran sparked wide protests asking for his conviction.{{cite web|url=http://en.metrotvnews.com/read/2017/05/09/697761/ahok-jailed-for-two-years|title=Ahok Jailed for Two Years|publisher=metrotvnews.com|date=9 May 2017|access-date=9 May 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170922194644/http://en.metrotvnews.com/read/2017/05/09/697761/ahok-jailed-for-two-years|archive-date=22 September 2017}}

| width1 = 107

| align =

| direction =

| width =

| image1 = Gubernur DKI Basuki TP 鐘萬學.jpg

| alt1 = Basuki Tjahaja Purnama

| caption1 =

| width2 = 250

| image2 = Aksi 2 Desember (VOA).jpg

| alt2 = Protests against Basuki

| caption2 =

}}

{{Main|Blasphemy law in Indonesia}}

Article 156(a) of Indonesia's Criminal Code forbids anyone from deliberately, in public, expressing feelings of hostility, hatred, or contempt against religions with the purpose of preventing others from adhering to any religion, and forbids anyone from disgracing a religion. The penalty for violating Article 156(a) is a maximum of five years of imprisonment.{{cite web|title=Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom May 2009 |work=Indonesia |publisher=United States Commission on International Religious Freedom |date=May 2009 |url=http://www.uscirf.gov/images/AR2009/indonesia.pdf |access-date=24 June 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090508193759/http://www.uscirf.gov/images/AR2009/indonesia.pdf |archive-date=8 May 2009 }}{{cite news | url = http://zfikri.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/ruling-against-blasphemy-unconstitutional/ | title = Ruling against blasphemy unconstitutional | last1 = Al 'Afghani | first1 = Mohamad Mova | date = 3 December 2007 | newspaper = The Jakarta Post | access-date = 20 June 2009 | archive-date = 19 July 2009 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090719085113/http://zfikri.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/ruling-against-blasphemy-unconstitutional/ | url-status = live }}

{{Main|Blasphemy law in Iran}}

An Islamic theocracy, Iran derives its law against blasphemy from Sharia. The law against blasphemy complements laws against criticizing the Islamic government, insulting Islam, and publishing materials that deviate from Islamic standards.{{cite web

|title=Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom May 2009

|url=http://www.uscirf.gov/images/AR2009/iran.pdf

|access-date=6 July 2009

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090508182312/http://www.uscirf.gov/images/AR2009/iran.pdf

|archive-date=8 May 2009

}}

{{Main|Blasphemy law in Jordan}}

Article 273 of Jordan's Penal Code criminalizes "scorning or reviling any of the Prophets" with imprisonment for up to three years. While article 278 criminalizes "publishing anything that would insult the religious feelings or religious beliefs of other people".{{cite web

|last1 = Ma'ayeh

|first1 = Suha

|title = Jordan court to rule on cartoon case

|publisher = The National (United Arab Emirates)

|date = 30 May 2008

|url = http://www.thenational.ae/article/20080529/FOREIGN/715595686/1011/SPORT&Profile=1011

|access-date = 30 June 2009

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090720010847/http://www.thenational.ae/article/20080529/FOREIGN/715595686/1011/SPORT%26Profile%3D1011

|archive-date = 2009-07-20

}}

{{Main|Legal system of Kuwait}}

Article 6 of Kuwait's cybercrime laws mention a punishment of up to 12 months in prison and a 20,000 KWD (US$66,000) fine for insulting "God, the Holy Quran, Prophets, the Noble Companions of Prophet Muhammad, Wives of the Prophet, or persons who are part of the Prophet's family".{{Cite web|url = https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/07/22/kuwait-cybercrime-law-blow-free-speech|title = Kuwait: Cybercrime Law a Blow to Free Speech|date = 22 July 2015|access-date = 8 April 2020|archive-date = 28 May 2020|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20200528044500/https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/07/22/kuwait-cybercrime-law-blow-free-speech|url-status = live}}

{{Main|Blasphemy law in Malaysia}}

Malaysia prevents insult to religion and to the religious by education, by restrictions upon the broadcasting and publishing media, and by the legal system. Some states in the Malaysian federation operate Sharia courts to protect Islam, and, when Sharia is not applicable, the Malaysian Penal Code provides penalties for offenses against religion.{{cite web

| title = Background Note: Malaysia

| publisher = U.S. State Department

| date = July 2009

| url = https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2777.htm

| access-date = 31 August 2009

| archive-date = 4 June 2019

| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190604190416/https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2777.htm

| url-status = live

}}

The crime of apostasy is defined in section IV (entitled Act of Indecency toward Islam) of the Mauritanian Penal Code, established under the order of 9 July 1983. Article 306, paragraph 1 of the criminal code indicates, "Every Muslim guilty of the crime of apostasy, either by word or by action of apparent or obvious, will be invited to repent within three days."{{cite web |url=http://talsou.wesign.it/en |title=TALSOUH: Free Mohamed Cheikh sentenced to death in Mauritania |publisher=Talsou.wesign.it |access-date=2016-09-11 |archive-date=19 October 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161019085428/http://talsou.wesign.it/en |url-status=live }}

{{Main|Blasphemy law in Pakistan}}

File:Anti-Pakistani blasphemy law protest, Centenary Square, Bradford (8th November 2014) (cropped 1).JPG (2014)]]

More people are on death row or serving life sentences for blasphemy in Pakistan than in any other country in the world.Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, 2016 page 2

The anti-blasphemy laws in Pakistan are quite complicated. Offenders may be vigorously prosecuted. Chapter XV of Pakistan Penal Code deals with "offences relating to religion":[http://www.fmu.gov.pk/docs/laws/Pakistan%20Penal%20Code.pdf Pakistan Penal Code] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120227061721/http://www.fmu.gov.pk/docs/laws/Pakistan%20Penal%20Code.pdf |date=27 February 2012 }} Chap. XV "Of Offences Relating to Religion" pp. 79–81

• §295. Injuring or defiling place of worship, with intent to insult the religion of any class.
• §295-A. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting Its religion or religious beliefs.
• §295-B. Defiling, etc., of Holy Qur'an.
• §295-C. Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet.
• §296. Disturbing religious assembly.
• §297. Trespassing on burial places, etc.
• §298. Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings.
• §298-A. Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of holy personages.
• §298-B. Misuse of epithets, descriptions and titles, etc., reserved for certain holy personages or places.
• §298-C. Person of Qadiani group, etc., calling himself a Muslim or preaching or propagating his faith:

There is a death penalty for blasphemy in Pakistan (only under section 295 c). Those prosecuted are usually minorities such as Ahmadiyya and Christians but it seems that they are also increasingly other Muslims.{{cite news | last1 = Ahmed | first1 = Akbar S. | title = Pakistan's Blasphemy Law: Words Fail Me | newspaper = The Washington Post | date = 19 May 2002 | url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A36108-2002May17¬Found=true | access-date = 28 June 2009}}{{dead link|date=June 2021|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}} Persons accused of blasphemy as well as police, lawyers, and judges have been subject to harassment, threats, attacks, and murders when blasphemy is the issue.{{cite web | last = United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights | title = Asma Jahangir | publisher = United Nations | date = 8 October 2008 | url = http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/opinion/articles1920_iccpr/docs/experts_cvs/Jaghanfir%20bis.doc | access-date = 27 June 2009 | archive-date = 31 July 2009 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090731142650/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/opinion/articles1920_iccpr/docs/experts_cvs/Jaghanfir%20bis.doc | url-status = live }}

In November 2008 Pakistan's government appointed Shahbaz Bhatti as Federal Minister for Minorities and gave him cabinet rank. Bhatti had promised that the Asif Ali Zardari government would review Pakistan's blasphemy laws.{{cite web|title=Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom May 2009 |work=Pakistan |publisher=United States Commission on International Religious Freedom |date=May 2009 |url=http://www.uscirf.gov/images/AR2009/pakistan.pdf |access-date=24 June 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090508182340/http://www.uscirf.gov/images/AR2009/pakistan.pdf |archive-date=8 May 2009 }} Pakistan has been an active supporter of the campaign by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to create global laws against blasphemy.

Minister Bhatti was shot dead on 2 March 2011 in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan. On 19 March 2014, Pakistani English-language newspaper, The Nation, conducted a poll of its readers that showed 68% of Pakistanis believe the blasphemy law should be repealed.{{cite web |author=Share |url=http://www.nation.com.pk/E-Paper/lahore/2014-03-19/page-7 |title=ePaper & Archives – The Nation |publisher=Nation.com.pk |date=2014-03-19 |access-date=2016-09-11 |archive-date=26 April 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160426091322/http://nation.com.pk/E-Paper/lahore/2014-03-19/page-7 |url-status=live }}

In September 2016 a sixteen-year-old Christian teenage boy, Nabeel Chohan, was arrested in Pakistan after he "liked" a Facebook post that was allegedly blasphemous. According to Punjab Police, the teenager was jailed and was awaiting trial for sharing the post on social media.{{Cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/teenage-boy-christian-arrested-sharing-blasphemous-facebook-post-in-pakistan-nabeel-chohan-kaaba-a7321156.html|title=Teenage boy arrested for sharing 'blasphemous' Facebook post|date=2016-09-21|work=The Independent|access-date=2017-12-10|archive-date=10 December 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171210231910/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/teenage-boy-christian-arrested-sharing-blasphemous-facebook-post-in-pakistan-nabeel-chohan-kaaba-a7321156.html|url-status=live}}

In November 2017 an obscure Islamist group Tehreek-i-Labaik Ya Rasool Allah Pakistan in Pakistan staged a sit-in in the capital Islamabad. They forced the government to abandon an amendment to the oath sworn by election candidates that allowed for a variation in the oath because of the candidates religious beliefs. They also caused the law minister Zahid Hamid to resign.{{Cite web|url=https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/1/34511/Pakistan-s-blasphemy-law-hands-fringe-Islamists-dangerous-weapon|title=Pakistan's blasphemy law hands fringe Islamists dangerous weapon |website=www.egypttoday.com|date=28 November 2017|access-date=2017-12-10|archive-date=10 December 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171210180533/https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/1/34511/Pakistan-s-blasphemy-law-hands-fringe-Islamists-dangerous-weapon|url-status=live}}

File:Waleed Al-Husseini.png signs a copy of The Blasphemer in 2015.]]

The Palestinian National Authority has several provisions in civil and military law against blasphemy. An infamous 2010 case, in which these were employed to attempt a prosecution, was that of Waleed Al-Husseini, a young man from the West Bank town of Qalqilya who had left Islam to become an atheist, and openly challenged and ridiculed religion online. He was arrested without charges and jailed in October 2010, after which the Palestinian Authority alleged Al-Husseini had committed blasphemy on the Internet.{{cite news |title=Palestinian Blogger Angers West Bank Muslims |author=Isabel Kershner |newspaper=The New York Times |date=15 November 2010 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/world/europe/16blogger.html |access-date=7 June 2018 |archive-date=9 November 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171109013217/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/world/europe/16blogger.html |url-status=live }} A Palestinian human rights expert at the time expected Al-Husseini to be tried according to a 1960 Jordanian law against defaming religion, which was still in force in the West Bank. Instead, Al-Husseini was charged with three counts of incitement according to the Palestine Military Code of Justice, namely: "inciting religious hatred" (Article 177), "insulting religious leaders" (Article 225 and 226/B), and "offending religious views" (Article 230/A).{{Cite book |last1=Al-Husseini |first1=Waleed |date=2017 |title=The Blasphemer: The Price I Paid for Rejecting Islam |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JwuqDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT95 |page=95 |publisher=Arcade |isbn=9781628726749 |access-date=7 June 2018 |archive-date=14 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210414044814/https://books.google.com/books?id=JwuqDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT95 |url-status=live }} He was eventually released after 10 months in prison due to heavy international diplomatic pressure, primarily exerted by France.{{cite news |last1=al-Husseini |first1=Waleed |date=8 December 2014 |title=What It's Like to Be an Atheist in Palestine |url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/08/what-it-s-like-to-be-an-atheist-in-palestine.html |newspaper=The Daily Beast |access-date=7 June 2018 |archive-date=11 December 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141211073618/http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/08/what-it-s-like-to-be-an-atheist-in-palestine.html |url-status=live }}

The penalty for committing blasphemy in Qatar is a jail sentence of up to seven years.{{cite web|url=http://iheu.org/religious-law-prison-for-blasphemy-severe-sexual-inequalilty-qatars-human-rights-review/|title=Religious law, prison for "blasphemy", severe sexual inequalilty: Qatar's human rights review|publisher=International Humanist and Ethical Union|date=22 September 2014|access-date=27 January 2015|archive-date=18 March 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150318210908/http://iheu.org/religious-law-prison-for-blasphemy-severe-sexual-inequalilty-qatars-human-rights-review/|url-status=live}} Additionally, the law stipulates a one-year prison sentence or QR1,000 fine for defamation of Islam by producing or promoting defamatory imagery.{{cite web|url=https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/208620.pdf|title=2012 International Religious Freedom Report on Qatar|publisher=The United States Federal Government|access-date=27 January 2015|archive-date=28 March 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170328183256/https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/208620.pdf|url-status=live}}

Religious criticism on websites is censored in Qatar.{{cite book|last1=Blanchard|first1=Christoper|title=Qatar: Background and U.S. Relations|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Y7GCvg2eCx4C|publisher=Congressional Research Service|year=2014|page=17|isbn=9781437987089|access-date=28 January 2015|archive-date=18 March 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150318213358/https://books.google.com/books?id=Y7GCvg2eCx4C|url-status=live}} The censorship office of the Qatar General Broadcasting and Television Corporation monitors imported foreign broadcasting for sensitive religious content.{{cite book|last1=Figenschou|first1=Tine Ustad|title=Al Jazeera and the Global Media Landscape: The South is Talking Back|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iZJmAQAAQBAJ|publisher=Routledge|page=38|year=2013|isbn=978-0415814430|access-date=28 January 2015|archive-date=6 June 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150606225805/https://books.google.com/books?id=iZJmAQAAQBAJ|url-status=live}}

A blasphemy accusation against a Muslim could be taken as 'evidence' of apostasy from Islam, a separate criminal offence which carries the death penalty. However, no punishment for apostasy has been recorded since 1971.{{Cite web |url=https://fot.humanists.international/countries/asia-western-asia/qatar/ |title=Qatar |work=Freedom of Thought Report |publisher=Humanists International |access-date=15 July 2020 |archive-date=11 July 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200711185504/https://fot.humanists.international/countries/asia-western-asia/qatar/ |url-status=live }}

File:Raif Badawi cropped.jpg was arrested for blasphemy.]]

{{Main|Blasphemy law in Saudi Arabia}}

Islam is Saudi Arabia's state religion. The country's monarchy follows Sunni Islam.Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom May 2009. The country's laws are an amalgam of rules from Sharia, royal edicts, and fatawa from the Council of Senior Religious Scholars; they prescribe penalties up to the death penalty for blasphemy.{{cite web|url=http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=4FBA416ABC8805C2802569A600603109|title=News|access-date=11 September 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110322025221/http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=4FBA416ABC8805C2802569A600603109|archive-date=22 March 2011}}

Section 125 of the Sudanese Criminal Act prohibits "insulting religion, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs". The section includes as penalties: imprisonment, a fine, and a maximum of forty lashes. In November 2007, the section gave rise to the Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case. In December 2007, the section was used against two Egyptian booksellers. They were sentenced to six months in prison because they sold a book that the court deemed an insult to Aisha, one of Prophet Mohammed's wives.{{cite news

| title = Sudan jails two Egyptians for blasphemy

| work = Sudan Tribune

| date = 18 December 2007

| url = http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article25212

| access-date = 28 July 2009

| archive-date = 14 February 2008

| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080214051438/http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article25212

| url-status = live

}}

In May 2005, the authorities arrested Mohammed Taha Mohammed Ahmed, and charged him with violating section 125. Ahmed was the editor-in-chief of a daily newspaper Al-Wifaq. The paper had published an article about a 500-year-old Islamic manuscript which says the real name of Mohammed's father was not Abdallah but Abdel Lat, or Slave of Lat, an idol of the pre-Islamic era.{{cite web|title=Alarm about trial of journalist on blasphemy charge |publisher=Reporters Without Borders |date=12 May 2005 |url=http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=13760 |access-date=29 July 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071030205732/http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=13760 |archive-date=30 October 2007 }} A court fined Al-Wifaq eight million Sudanese pounds—the paper was shut down for three months—but acquitted Ahmed. Ahmed was found decapitated in September 2006.{{cite web

| title = Kidnapped Sudanese Editor Found Slain / Journalist beheaded in Khartoum

| publisher = One-click News

| date = 6 September 2006

| url = http://platform.blogs.com/passionofthepresent/2006/09/kidnapped_sudan.html

| access-date = 28 July 2009

| archive-date = 8 July 2011

| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110708020702/http://platform.blogs.com/passionofthepresent/2006/09/kidnapped_sudan.html

| url-status = live

}}

In July 2020, Sudan repealed its apostasy law (Article 126 of the Penal Code). The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) applauded this on 15 July 2020, but urged Sudanese lawmakers to repeal the blasphemy law (Article 125 of the Sudanese Penal Code) as well.{{Cite web |url=https://www.uscirf.gov/news-room/press-releases-statements/uscirf-applauds-sudan-s-repeal-apostasy-law-through-passage-new |title=USCIRF Applauds Sudan's Repeal of Apostasy Law through Passage of New Fundamental Rights and Freedoms Act |publisher=United States Commission on International Religious Freedom |date=15 July 2020 |access-date=17 July 2020 |archive-date=16 July 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200716153533/https://www.uscirf.gov/news-room/press-releases-statements/uscirf-applauds-sudan-s-repeal-apostasy-law-through-passage-new |url-status=live }}

File:Fazıl Say during rehearsals in 2011.jpg during rehearsals in 2011]]

Article 216 of the Turkish Penal Code ("Provoking people to be rancorous and hostile") criminalizes blasphemy and religious insult, as well as hate speech. The article, which is in the fifth section of the Turkish Penal Code ("Offenses Against Public Peace") is as follows:{{cite web |url=http://legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/6872/preview |title=Legislationline |publisher=Legislationline |access-date=2016-09-11 |archive-date=10 July 2012 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120710103852/http://legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/6872/preview |url-status=live }}

:Article 216. – Provoking people to be rancorous and hostile

:(1) Any person who openly provokes a group of people belonging to different social class, religion, race, sect, or coming from another origin, to be rancorous or hostile against another group, is punished with imprisonment from one year to three years in case of such act causes risk from the aspect of public safety.

:(2) Any person who openly humiliates another person just because they belong to different social class, religion, race, sect, or comes from another origin, is punished with imprisonment from six months to one year.

:(3) Any person who openly disrespects the religious belief of a group is punished with imprisonment from six months to one year if such act causes potential risk for public peace.

On 1 June 2012, pianist Fazıl Say came under investigation by the Istanbul Prosecutor's Office over statements made on Twitter, declaring himself an atheist and retweeting a message poking fun at the Islamic conception of paradise.{{cite news | url=http://www.todayszaman.com/news-277221-probe-launched-against-pianist-say-over-controversial-tweets.html | title=Probe launched against pianist Say over controversial tweets | date=12 April 2012 | access-date=26 May 2012 | work=Today's Zaman | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120615231035/http://www.todayszaman.com/news-277221-probe-launched-against-pianist-say-over-controversial-tweets.html | archive-date=15 June 2012 }}{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/02/world/europe/turkey-charges-pianist-fazil-say-over-twitter-posts.html?_r=1 | title=Turkish Pianist is Accused of Insulting Islam | date=1 June 2012 | access-date=2 June 2012 | author=Sebnem Arsu and Daniel J. Wakin | work=The New York Times | archive-date=2 June 2012 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120602151925/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/02/world/europe/turkey-charges-pianist-fazil-say-over-twitter-posts.html?_r=1 | url-status=live }} On 15 April 2013, Say was sentenced to 10 months in jail, reduced from 12 months for good behavior in court. The sentence was suspended, meaning he was allowed to move freely provided he did not repeat the offence in the next five years.{{cite news | work=Gulf News | agency=AFP | url=http://gulfnews.com/news/world/other-world/pianist-fazil-say-gets-jail-term-for-blasphemy-1.1170770 | title=Pianist Fazil Say gets jail term for blasphemy | publisher=Gulf News | date=2013-04-15 | access-date=2013-04-15 | archive-date=31 May 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210531121655/https://gulfnews.com/world/oceania/australias-victoria-covid-19-cluster-swells-to-51-next-few-days-critical-1.1622452878415?articleTypeSuffix=Package | url-status=live }} On appeal, Turkey's Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the conviction on 26 October 2015, ruling that Say's Twitter posts fell within the bounds of freedom of thought and freedom of expression.{{cite news |title=Top appeals court reverses blasphemy decision against Turkish pianist Say |author=Mesut Hasan Benli |url=http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/top-appeals-court-reverses-blasphemy-decision-against-turkish-pianist-say.aspx?pageID=238&nid=90336 |newspaper=Hürriyet Daily News |date=26 October 2015 |access-date=26 October 2015 |archive-date=17 November 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151117024332/http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/top-appeals-court-reverses-blasphemy-decision-against-turkish-pianist-say.aspx?pageID=238&nid=90336 |url-status=live }}

{{Main|Blasphemy law in the United Arab Emirates}}

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) law against blasphemy is governed by article 312 of the United Arab Emirates Penal Code. The country's state religion is Islam. According to the article, the following offences if perpetrated publicly shall be a subject to a jail sentence for a minimum period of one year or a fine:{{cite web|url=http://www.dji.gov.ae/Documents/Laws/Oqobat%20El%202020%20PW.pdf|page=117|title=قانون العقوبات لدولة الامارات العربية المتحدة|publisher=Dubai Judicial Institute|date=2020|access-date=30 November 2021|archive-date=30 November 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211130134529/http://www.dji.gov.ae/Documents/Laws/Oqobat%20El%202020%20PW.pdf|url-status=live}}

• Offence to any of the Islamic sacred beliefs or rites.
• Insult to any of the divine recognized religions.
• Approving, encouraging or promoting sinful actions.
• Knowingly eating pork meat by Muslims

{{Main|Blasphemy law in Yemen}}

{{Unreferenced section|date=May 2013}}

Accusations of blasphemy in Yemen are often aimed at religious minorities, intellectuals and artists, reporters, human rights defenders, and opponents of the ruling party. Vigilantism or abuse by the authorities can kill an accused or force them into exile. The accused in Yemen is subject to Islamic law (Sharia). Sharia, according to some interpretations, prescribes death as the proper punishment for blasphemy.

China, officially an atheist state,{{cite book|last1=Formichi|first1=Chiara|title=Religious Pluralism, State and Society in Asia|date=1 October 2013|publisher=Taylor & Francis|language=en|isbn=9781134575428|page=152|quote=China is officially an atheist state. Communist Party members cannot be religious believers, or take part in religious activities.}} banned a book titled "Xing Fengsu" ("Sexual Customs"), which had allegedly insulted Islam, and placed its authors under arrest in 1989, after protests in Lanzhou and Beijing by Chinese Hui Muslims, during which the Chinese police provided protection to the Hui Muslim protestors, and the Chinese government organized public burnings of the book.[https://books.google.com/books?id=qBINAQAAMAAJ&q=sexual+customs+banned+book+Islam Beijing Review, Volume 32 1989] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150912153133/https://books.google.com/books?id=qBINAQAAMAAJ&q=sexual+customs+banned+book+Islam&dq=sexual+customs+banned+book+Islam&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vm7OVJDXOoKigwT9ioOgCw&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBg |date=12 September 2015 }}, p. 13.[https://archive.org/details/muslimchineseeth00glad Gladney 1991], p. 2.[https://books.google.com/books?id=GomyOthrHjUC&dq=xing+fengsu+sexual&pg=PA154 Schein 2000] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150915133755/https://books.google.com/books?id=GomyOthrHjUC&pg=PA154&dq=xing+fengsu+sexual&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bHDOVO75GMe7ggSL1oOwAg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=xing%20fengsu%20sexual&f=false |date=15 September 2015 }}, p. 154.[https://books.google.com/books?id=mzxSNM3_vCEC&dq=xing+fengsu+sexual&pg=PA66 Gladney 2004] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150912151503/https://books.google.com/books?id=mzxSNM3_vCEC&pg=PA66&dq=xing+fengsu+sexual&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bHDOVO75GMe7ggSL1oOwAg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=xing%20fengsu%20sexual&f=false |date=12 September 2015 }}, p. 66.[https://books.google.com/books?id=sQLiMYUk-nIC&dq=xing+fengsu+sexual&pg=PA104 Bulag 2010] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150915133247/https://books.google.com/books?id=sQLiMYUk-nIC&pg=PA104&dq=xing+fengsu+sexual&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bHDOVO75GMe7ggSL1oOwAg&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=xing%20fengsu%20sexual&f=false |date=15 September 2015 }}, p. 104.[https://books.google.com/books?id=icZJJN0wYPcC&dq=xing+fengsu+sexual&pg=PA257 Gladney 2005] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150912145027/https://books.google.com/books?id=icZJJN0wYPcC&pg=PA257&dq=xing+fengsu+sexual&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bHDOVO75GMe7ggSL1oOwAg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=xing%20fengsu%20sexual&f=false |date=12 September 2015 }}, p. 257.[https://books.google.com/books?id=8WGOAQAAQBAJ&dq=xing+fengsu+sexual&pg=PA144 Gladney 2013] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150915154435/https://books.google.com/books?id=8WGOAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA144&dq=xing+fengsu+sexual&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dHLOVPb1BOjCsASe0YDADg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=xing%20fengsu%20sexual&f=false |date=15 September 2015 }}, p. 144.[https://books.google.com/books?id=HH94dPJrkA4C&dq=xing+fengsu+sexual&pg=PA79 Sautman 2000] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150915154243/https://books.google.com/books?id=HH94dPJrkA4C&pg=PA79&dq=xing+fengsu+sexual&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dHLOVPb1BOjCsASe0YDADg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=xing%20fengsu%20sexual&f=false |date=15 September 2015 }}, p. 79.[https://books.google.com/books?id=_hJ9aht6nZQC&dq=xing+fengsu+sexual&pg=PA341 Gladney 1996] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150915120440/https://books.google.com/books?id=_hJ9aht6nZQC&pg=PA341&dq=xing+fengsu+sexual&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dHLOVPb1BOjCsASe0YDADg&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=xing%20fengsu%20sexual&f=false |date=15 September 2015 }}, p. 341.[https://books.google.com/books?id=AvDOudr5M6MC&dq=xing+fengsu+sexual&pg=PA299 Lipman 1996] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150908051921/https://books.google.com/books?id=AvDOudr5M6MC&pg=PA299&dq=xing+fengsu+sexual&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dHLOVPb1BOjCsASe0YDADg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=xing%20fengsu%20sexual&f=false |date=8 September 2015 }}, p. 299. The Chinese government assisted them and gave into their demands because Hui do not have a separatist movement, unlike the Uyghurs,{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VIWC9wCX2c8C&pg=PA581 |title=China: a history |author=Harold Miles Tanner |year=2009 |publisher=Hackett Publishing |page=581 |isbn=978-0-87220-915-2 |access-date=2010-06-28 |archive-date=20 March 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150320192355/http://books.google.com/books?id=VIWC9wCX2c8C&pg=PA581 |url-status=live }} Hui Muslim protestors who violently rioted by vandalizing property during the protests against the book were let off by the Chinese government and went unpunished while Uyghur protestors were imprisoned.[https://books.google.com/books?id=mzxSNM3_vCEC&dq=sexual+customs+banned+book&pg=PA232 Gladney 2004] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150915151706/https://books.google.com/books?id=mzxSNM3_vCEC&pg=PA232&dq=sexual+customs+banned+book&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o23OVLLEGoaxggTAj4TwBw&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=sexual%20customs%20banned%20book&f=false |date=15 September 2015 }}, p. 232.

In 2007, anticipating the coming "Year of the Pig" in the Chinese calendar, depictions of pigs were banned from CCTV "to avoid conflicts with ethnic minorities".{{cite web|url= https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7213210|title= Ban Thwarts 'Year of the Pig' Ads in China|last1= Lim|first1= Louisa|date= 6 February 2007|publisher= National Public Radio|access-date= 3 April 2018|archive-date= 4 May 2019|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20190504175540/https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7213210|url-status= live}} This is believed to refer to China's population of 20 million Muslims (to whom pigs are considered "unclean").

In response to the 2015 Charlie Hebdo shooting Chinese state-run media attacked Charlie Hebdo for publishing the cartoons insulting Muhammad, with the state-run Xinhua advocated limiting freedom of speech, while another state-run newspaper Global Times said the attack was "payback" for what it characterized as Western colonialism and accusing Charlie Hebdo of trying to incite a clash of civilizations.{{cite news|url=https://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2015/01/12/charlie-hebdo-attack-shows-need-for-press-limits-xinhua-says/|title=Charlie Hebdo Attack Shows Need for Press Limits, Xinhua Says|work=The Wall Street Journal|access-date=14 January 2015|archive-date=13 January 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150113190612/http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2015/01/12/charlie-hebdo-attack-shows-need-for-press-limits-xinhua-says/|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/01/13/asia-pacific/beijing-jumps-onto-paris-attack-to-feed-state-propaganda-machine/|title=Beijing jumps onto Paris attack to feed state propaganda machine|work=The Japan Times|access-date=14 January 2015|archive-date=18 May 2016|archive-url=https://archive.today/20160518195956/http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/01/13/asia-pacific/beijing-jumps-onto-paris-attack-to-feed-state-propaganda-machine/|url-status=live}}

In Israel, blasphemy laws were first enacted by the pre-State British Mandate in an attempt to suppress the 1929 Palestine riots.[http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/make-fun-of-god-but-leave-his-believers-alone-1.98346 "Make fun of God, but leave his believers alone"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170423053309/http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/make-fun-of-god-but-leave-his-believers-alone-1.98346 |date=23 April 2017 }}, Haaretz, 27 August 2003

Blasphemy is covered by Articles 170 and 173 of the penal code:{{cite web|url=http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7_%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9F|title=חוק העונשין – ויקיטקסט|access-date=11 September 2016|archive-date=5 May 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160505084727/https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7_%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9F|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/58/43289694.pdf|title=Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development|access-date=13 November 2010|archive-date=16 April 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120416100201/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/58/43289694.pdf|url-status=live}}

:Insult to religion

:170. If a person destroys, damages, or desecrates a place of worship or any object which is held sacred by a group of persons, with the intention of reviling their religion, or in the knowledge that they are liable to deem that act an insult to their religion, then the one is liable to three years' imprisonment.

:Injury to religious sentiment

:173. If a person does any of the following, then the one is liable to one year's imprisonment:

:(1) One publishes a publication that is liable to crudely offend the religious faith or sentiment of others;

:(2) One voices in a public place and in the hearing of another person any word or sound that is liable to crudely offend the religious faith or sentiment of others.

The law has been rarely enforced. However, one right-wing Jewish activist was sentenced to two years in prison after scattering leaflets in Hebron in 1997, which pictured Muhammed as a pig desecrating the Quran.{{cite journal |last1=Aran |first1=Gideon |title=Khilul Hashem: Blasphemy in Past and Present Israel |journal=Israel Studies |date=2016 |volume=21 |issue=2 |pages=155–181 |doi=10.2979/israelstudies.21.2.07 |jstor=10.2979/israelstudies.21.2.07 |s2cid=147665850 |issn=1084-9513}}

{{Main|Hate speech laws in India|Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code}}

Indian religions (also called Dharmic religions), Hinduism and its offshoots Buddhism and Jainism, traditionally have no concept of blasphemy. Nāstika, roughly translated as atheist or atheism, are valid and accepted streams of in Indian religions where Buddhism, Jainism, as well as Samkhya, Cārvāka and Ājīvika in Hinduism are considered atheist or agnostic school of philosophy in the Indian religions.For [http://www.iheu.org/node/185 instance], the Atheist Society of India produces a monthly publications Nastika Yuga, which it translates as 'The Age of Atheism'. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070418105244/http://www.iheu.org/node/185|date=18 April 2007}}.Nicholson, Andrew J. 2013. Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History. Columbia University Press. {{ISBN|978-0231149877}}. ch. 9.{{cite book |ref=none |author=Francis Clooney |chapter=Restoring 'Hindu Theology' as a category in Indian intellectual discourse |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SKBxa-MNqA8C |title=The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism |publisher=Blackwell Academic |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-470-99868-7 |editor=Gavin Flood |pages=451–455 |access-date=5 August 2021 |archive-date=23 December 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191223102025/https://books.google.com/books?id=SKBxa-MNqA8C |url-status=live }} "By {{IAST|Sāṃkhya}} reasoning, the material principle itself simply evolves into complex forms, and there is no need to hold that some spiritual power governs the material principle or its ultimate source."{{cite book |editor-last=Flood |editor-first=Gavin |author-link= Gavin Flood|title=Blackwell companion to Hinduism |publisher=Blackwell Publishing |year=2003 |isbn=0-631-21535-2 |author=Francis Clooney}}, pp=82, 224–49.

Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code has been used as a blasphemy law to prevent insulting Christianity, Islam and other religions practised in India.{{cite book|last1=Price|first1=Monroe|last2=Stremlau|first2=Nicole|title=Speech and Society: Comparative Perspectives|date=30 November 2017|publisher=Cambridge University Press|language=en|isbn=9781108117678|pages=241–}} The British-era section 295A of the penal code is extant and has not been repealed; it contains an anti-blasphemy law.{{cite book|last1=Esmaeili|first1=Hossein|last2=Marboe|first2=Irmgard|last3=Rehman|first3=Javaid|title=The Rule of Law, Freedom of Expression and Islamic Law|date=14 December 2017|publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing|isbn=9781782257509|page=151|quote=The original intent of the British instigated anti-blasphemy law as contained in the Indian Penal Code (1860) had been the maintenance of public order in a multireligious and religiously sensitive society.}} Section 295A was introduced in 1927, in the aftermath of Rangila Rasul incident, to prevent "hate speech that insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs" of any class of citizen with deliberate and malicious intention to outrage their religious feelings but the main purpose of this law has been to maintain "public order in a multireligious and religiously sensitive society."{{cite web

|title = Indian Penal Code Section 295A

|publisher = Vakil No1

|url = http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/IndianPenalCode/S295A.htm

|access-date = 21 May 2010

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100526140706/http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/indianpenalcode/S295A.htm

|archive-date = 26 May 2010

}}

An important difference between the offence in the Indian Penal Code and English common law is that the defendant must have a "deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feelings" in the Indian code while English common law had no such inclusion.{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HV99AgAAQBAJ|title=Religious Discrimination and Hatred Law|first1=Neil|last1=Addison|date=12 March 2007|publisher=Routledge|via=Google Books|isbn=9781134110087|access-date=24 August 2017|archive-date=14 April 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210414044958/https://books.google.com/books?id=HV99AgAAQBAJ|url-status=live}} Section 295A has, nevertheless, been used a number of times to prevent free and honest discussion on religious issues and remains a threat to freedom of expression. The same section 295A appears in the penal codes of Pakistan and Myanmar where it is used as a blasphemy law. There have been widespread calls in India from civil society to repeal the regressive British-era code.{{cite news|url=http://www.telegraphindia.com/1121205/jsp/opinion/story_16275811.jsp#.V-NVxPArJPY|title=Thou shalt not blaspheme|newspaper=The Telegraph|date=5 December 2012|access-date=22 September 2016|archive-date=23 September 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160923024748/http://www.telegraphindia.com/1121205/jsp/opinion/story_16275811.jsp#.V-NVxPArJPY|url-status=dead}} In 1860, laws were created in British India that made it a "crime to disturb a religious assembly, trespass on burial grounds, insult religious beliefs or intentionally destroy or defile a place or an object of worship, punishable by up to 10 years in jail."{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46040515#|title=Asia Bibi: Pakistan acquits Christian woman on death row|date=31 October 2018|publisher=BBC|language=en|access-date=31 October 2018|archive-date=8 May 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190508171515/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46040515|url-status=live}} In India, many people are arrested in accordance with the above-mentioned laws. Cases include those of: Kamlesh Tiwari,{{Cite news|url=http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/lucknow-man-arrested-for-derogatory-remark-against-prophet/|title=Lucknow: Man arrested for 'derogatory remark' against Prophet|date=2015-12-03|work=The Indian Express|access-date=2017-05-11|archive-date=12 October 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161012170110/http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/lucknow-man-arrested-for-derogatory-remark-against-prophet/|url-status=live}} Tarak Biswas,{{Cite news|url=http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/blogger-arrested-in-indias-bengal-for-criticising-islam-on-social-media-6588|title=Blogger arrested in India's Bengal for criticising Islam on social media|date=2016-09-20|work=WION|access-date=2017-05-11|archive-date=20 May 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170520182759/http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/blogger-arrested-in-indias-bengal-for-criticising-islam-on-social-media-6588|url-status=live}} and Sanal Edamaruku.{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26815298|title=The Indian miracle-buster stuck in Finland|last1=Dissanayake|first1=Samanthi|date=2014-06-03|work=BBC News|access-date=2017-05-11|archive-date=25 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180825143320/https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26815298|url-status=live}} Many books are banned for blasphemous content.

Section 295A and 298 of the Myanmar Penal Code are used to prosecute people for blasphemy.{{cite web|url=http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/research/myanmar/Annex%20K%20-%20Myanmar%20Penal%20Code.pdf|title=Myanmar Penal Code|access-date=2 November 2016|archive-date=3 November 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161103234144/http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/research/myanmar/Annex%20K%20-%20Myanmar%20Penal%20Code.pdf|url-status=live}}{{cite news |url=http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Blasphemy-in-Myanmar:-three-people-convicted-for-insulting-Buddhism-33738.html |title="Blasphemy" in Myanmar: three people convicted for "insulting Buddhism" |work=AsiaNews |date=17 March 2015 |access-date=2 November 2016 |archive-date=4 November 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161104014250/http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Blasphemy-in-Myanmar:-three-people-convicted-for-insulting-Buddhism-33738.html |url-status=live }} The Myanmar Penal Code shares a common origin with the penal codes of Pakistan and India and other British colonies in the Penal Code of 1860.{{cite web|url=http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs17/1861-Penal_Code-ocr-en+bu.pdf|title=Myanmar Penal Code 1861|access-date=2 November 2016|archive-date=12 February 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140212224858/http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs17/1861-Penal_Code-ocr-en+bu.pdf|url-status=live}}{{cite magazine |url=https://thediplomat.com/2016/05/myanmars-religious-hate-speech-law/ |title=Myanmar's Religious Hate Speech Law |magazine=The Diplomat |date=5 May 2015 |access-date=2 November 2016 |archive-date=3 November 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161103233757/http://thediplomat.com/2016/05/myanmars-religious-hate-speech-law/ |url-status=live }} The offences are:

Chapter XV

OF OFFENCES RELATING TO RELIGION

• 295. Injuring or defiling place of worship, with intent to insult the religion of any class.
• 295A. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
• 296. Disturbing religious assembly.
• 297. Trespassing on burial – places, etc.
• 298. Uttering words, etc.; with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings.

Section 295 and 295A carry a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment, a fine, or both, and sections 296, 297 and 298 a maximum of one year's imprisonment, a fine, or both. Section 295A was added to the Penal code by a legislative amendment in 1927, in the aftermath of Rangeela Rasool incident where a Muslim fatally stabbed a Hindu editor after he was acquitted by the then existing law. It was intended to protect religious minorities. It was a response to a perceived need to prohibit incitement against Muslim minorities by Hindu nationalists in India, but is now used in Myanmar to protect Buddhist nationalists against prosecution for incitement against Muslim minorities.

In December 2014, bar owner Tun Thurein and bar managers Htut Ko Lwin and New Zealander Philip Blackwood who ran the VGastro Bar in Yangon were arrested and sentenced in March 2015 to two-and-a-half years of hard labour after posting a psychedelic image of the Buddha wearing headphones to promote their bar on the internet.{{cite news |title="Blasphemy" in Myanmar: three people convicted for "insulting Buddhism" |url=http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Blasphemy-in-Myanmar:-three-people-convicted-for-insulting-Buddhism-33738.html |access-date=30 October 2020 |work=AsiaNews |date=March 17, 2015 |archive-date=9 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201109203054/http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Blasphemy-in-Myanmar:-three-people-convicted-for-insulting-Buddhism-33738.html |url-status=live }} In June 2015, writer and former National League for Democracy information officer, Htin Lin Oo was sentenced to two years of hard labour for violating section 295A. The charge resulted from a speech in which he accused several prominent Buddhist organisations of extreme nationalism with particularly reference to Ashin Wirathu, who has been accused of hate speech and incitement of violence against Muslims by international observers many times since anti-Rohingya violence erupted in 2012.{{cite news |url=http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/opinion/15579-blasphemy-statutes-deny-human-rights.html |title=Myanmar's Blasphemy statutes deny human rights |newspaper=Myanmar Times |date=21 July 2015 |access-date=2 November 2016 |archive-date=4 November 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161104002907/http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/opinion/15579-blasphemy-statutes-deny-human-rights.html |url-status=live }}{{cite web |url=https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/06/29/they-can-arrest-you-any-time/criminalization-peaceful-expression-burma |title="They can arrest you at any time" − The Criminalization of Peaceful Expression in Burma |publisher=Human Rights Watch |date=29 June 2016 |access-date=2 November 2016 |archive-date=4 November 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161104003822/https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/06/29/they-can-arrest-you-any-time/criminalization-peaceful-expression-burma |url-status=live }}

Section 9.156 of a new criminal code act passed by parliament on 8 August 2017 serves as a blasphemy law. It criminalised for the first time the 'hurting of religious sentiment' and carries a penalty of up to two years imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 Rupees.{{cite news |last1=World Watch Monitor Nepal |title=Nepal criminalises conversions and 'hurting religious sentiment' |url=https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/coe/nepal-criminalises-conversions-hurting-religious-sentiment/ |access-date=10 March 2019 |publisher=World Watch Monitor |date=22 August 2017 |archive-date=29 December 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181229183323/https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/coe/nepal-criminalises-conversions-hurting-religious-sentiment/ |url-status=live }}{{cite magazine |last1=Ochab |first1=Ewelina |title=Nepal's Protection of Religious Freedom on Downward Spiral |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2018/02/07/nepals-protection-of-religious-freedom-on-downward-spiral/#e9044c8c87bb |access-date=10 March 2019 |magazine=Forbes |date=7 February 2018 |archive-date=24 March 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180324042252/https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2018/02/07/nepals-protection-of-religious-freedom-on-downward-spiral/#e9044c8c87bb |url-status=live }}{{cite book |last1=International Commission of Jurists |title=Challenges to Freedom of Religion or Belief in Nepal A Briefing Paper |date=July 2018 |publisher=International Commission of Jurists |location=Geneva, Switzerland |url=https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Nepal-Freedom-of-religion-brief-Advocacy-Analysis-brief-2018-ENG.pdf |access-date=10 March 2019 |archive-date=9 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309000918/https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Nepal-Freedom-of-religion-brief-Advocacy-Analysis-brief-2018-ENG.pdf |url-status=live }} The new law came into force on 17 August 2018{{cite news |last1=World Watch Monitor Nepal |title=Nepali law criminalising 'hurting of religious feelings' comes into force |url=https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2018/08/nepali-law-criminalising-hurting-of-religious-feelings-comes-into-force/ |access-date=10 March 2019 |publisher=World Watch Monitor |date=17 August 2018 |archive-date=5 April 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190405105603/https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2018/08/nepali-law-criminalising-hurting-of-religious-feelings-comes-into-force/ |url-status=live }}

Despite Thailand's constitution declaring freedom of religion and the lack of an official religion, Theravada Buddhism still plays a very important role in Thai society, both legally and culturally. The constitution declares that the King of Thailand must be Buddhist and a defender of Buddhism.{{Cite web|url=https://www.chiangmaitemples.com/buddhism-in-thailand/|title=Buddhism in Thailand – Chiang Mai Temples|language=en-US|access-date=2019-02-19|archive-date=19 February 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190219084450/https://www.chiangmaitemples.com/buddhism-in-thailand/|url-status=live}} The 1962 Sangha Act outlaws insults or defamation of Buddhism and Buddhist clergy. These include damaging statues of the Buddha; stealing, buying or taking these out of Thailand; taking photos of them; sitting with feet facing them; touching these on the head; and wearing tattoos depicting the Buddha. Foreigners visiting Thailand are sternly warned not to do the aforementioned acts when entering the country. The 1956 penal code, in sections 206 and 208, also outlaws insulting or disrupting places and services of any religion recognized by the Thai government. Violations range from 1 to 7 years imprisonment, to a fine of 2,000 to 14,000 baht.{{Cite web|url=https://end-blasphemy-laws.org/countries/asia-central-southern-and-south-eastern/thailand/|title=Thailand|website=End Blasphemy Laws|language=en-US|access-date=2019-02-19|archive-date=19 February 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190219130140/https://end-blasphemy-laws.org/countries/asia-central-southern-and-south-eastern/thailand/|url-status=live}}

{{Main|Defamation of religion and the United Nations}}

Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1976 obliges signatory countries to guarantee everyone the right to hold opinions without restriction and to guarantee the right to freedom of expression, to impart information and ideas of all kinds, either orally, in writing or in print, in art, or through any other media. Paragraph 3 of article 19 allows for certain restrictions to freedom expression that are both necessary and provided by law to safeguard the reputations of others, for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals and article 20 obliges countries to prohibit "propaganda for war or advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."

In July 2011, the UN Human Rights Committee released a 52-paragraph statement, General Comment 34 on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, concerning freedoms of opinion and expression.{{cite web|url=http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/GC34.pdf|title=United Nations Human Rights Committee General Comment 34 on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1976|access-date=25 October 2015|archive-date=26 June 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110626065955/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/GC34.pdf|url-status=live}} Paragraph 48 states:

:Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. Such prohibitions must also comply with the strict requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, as well as such articles as 2, 5, 17, 18 and 26. Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favour of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation have petitioned the "United Nations to create global laws criminalising insults to religion".{{cite book|last1=Lester|first1=Anthony|title=Five Ideas to Fight For: How Our Freedom Is Under Threat and Why It Matters|date=18 April 2016|publisher=Oneworld Publications|language=en|isbn=9781780747620|page=128}}

Three United Nations Special Rapporteurs—the Special Rapporteurs on freedom of religion or belief, on the right to freedom of opinion and expression and on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance—released a joint statement during the Durban Review Conference in Geneva in 2009. They stated that: "the difficulties in providing an objective definition of the term "defamation of religions" at the international level make the whole concept open to abuse. At the national level, domestic blasphemy laws can prove counter-productive, since this could result in the de facto censure of all inter-religious and intra-religious criticism. Many of these laws afford different levels of protection to different religions and have often proved to be applied in a discriminatory manner. There are numerous examples of persecution of religious minorities or dissenters, but also of atheists and non-theists, as a result of legislation on religious offences or overzealous application of laws that are fairly neutral."[http://www2.ohchr.org/English/issues/religion/docs/SRjointstatement22april09.pdf Freedom of expression and incitement to racial or religious hatred] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170730232145/http://www2.ohchr.org/English/issues/religion/docs/SRjointstatement22april09.pdf |date=30 July 2017 }} Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) side event 22 April 2009

The Rabat Plan of Action (2012) on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence Conclusions and recommendations emanating from the four regional expert workshops organised by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), in 2011, and adopted by experts in Rabat, Morocco on 5 October 2012 stated that: "At the national level, blasphemy laws are counter-productive, since they may result in the de facto censure of all inter-religious/belief and intra-religious/belief dialogue, debate, and also criticism, most of which could be constructive, healthy and needed. In addition, many of these blasphemy laws afford different levels of protection to different religions and have often proved to be applied in a discriminatory manner. There are numerous examples of persecution of religious minorities or dissenters, but also of atheists and non-theists, as a result of legislation on religious offences or overzealous application of various laws that use a neutral language. Moreover, the right to freedom of religion or belief, as enshrined in relevant international legal standards, does not include the right to have a religion or a belief that is free from criticism or ridicule." The Plan of Action recommended that: "States that have blasphemy laws should repeal these as such laws have a stifling impact on the enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief and healthy dialogue and debate about religion".Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) 5 October 2012

France (apart from Alsace-Moselle) repealed its blasphemy law in 1881, Sweden in 1970. A series of countries, especially in Europe, began repealing their blasphemy laws in the early 21st century. A systematic global campaign to abolish all blasphemy laws around the world was launched under the slogan "End Blasphemy Laws" by secular humanist and atheist organizations, such as International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), the European Humanist Federation (EHF) and numerous coalition partners on 30 January 2015, in direct response to the Charlie Hebdo shooting on 7 January 2015.{{Cite web |url=http://end-blasphemy-laws.org/2015/01/lets-abolish-all-blasphemy-laws-worldwide/#more-396 |title=Let's abolish all blasphemy laws, worldwide |work=End Blasphemy Laws |publisher=IHEU & EHF |date=30 January 2015 |access-date=6 June 2018 |archive-date=12 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180612143924/http://end-blasphemy-laws.org/2015/01/lets-abolish-all-blasphemy-laws-worldwide/#more-396 |url-status=live }}

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France, which has been deliberating on the issue of blasphemy law, the resolution that blasphemy should not be a criminal offence,{{cite web|url=http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17569&lang=en|title=PACE – Recommendation 1805 (2007) – Blasphemy, religious insults and hate speech against persons on grounds of their religion|website=assembly.coe.int|access-date=11 May 2017|archive-date=27 February 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170227175448/http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17569&lang=en|url-status=live}} adopted on 29 June 2007 in the Recommendation 1805 (2007) on blasphemy, religious insults and hate speech against persons on grounds of their religion. This Recommendation set a number of guidelines for member states of the Council of Europe in view of Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In place of blasphemy or in addition to blasphemy in some European countries is the crime of "religious insult", which is a subset of the crime of blasphemy. {{As of|2009|3}}, it was forbidden in Andorra, Cyprus, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Spain, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Norway, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Slovakia, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine.Matthew Vella. [http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2009/03/08/t13.html "Blasphemy? It's not criminal – Council of Europe"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120826235637/http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2009/03/08/t13.html |date=26 August 2012 }}, Malta Today. 8 March 2009

On 23 October 2008, the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe's advisory body on constitutional matters, issued a report about blasphemy, religious insult, and incitement to religious hatred.European Commission for Democracy through Law. [http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(2008)026-e 'Report on the Relationship between Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion: The issue of Regulation and Prosecution of blasphemy, religious insult, and incitement to religious hatred'] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170511021508/http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(2008)026-e |date=11 May 2017 }}. Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 76th Plenary Session at Venice, Italy, on 17–18 October 2008. The report noted that, at the time in Europe, blasphemy was an offence in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, and San Marino.

The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were abolished in England and Wales in 2008 with the passage of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act.{{cite news|last1=Beckford|first1=Martin|title=Blasphemy laws are lifted|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1942668/Blasphemy-laws-are-lifted.html|work=The Telegraph|date=10 May 2008|access-date=7 June 2018|archive-date=16 June 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180616062951/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1942668/Blasphemy-laws-are-lifted.html|url-status=live}} Other countries to abolish or repeal blasphemy laws include France in 1881 (except for the Alsace-Moselle region, part of Germany at the time), Sweden in 1970, Norway with Acts in 2009 and 2015, the Netherlands in 2014, Iceland in 2015, Malta in 2016, France for its Alsace-Moselle region in 2016, Denmark in 2017, Canada in 2018, New Zealand and Greece in 2019, Ireland in 2020, and Scotland in 2021. Australia abolished and repealed all blasphemy laws at the Federal Level in 1995 but blasphemy laws remain in some States and Territories. On 26 October 2018, a referendum in the Republic of Ireland resulted in the removal of the Constitutional provision and the 2009 Defamation Act provision against blasphemy, which was implemented in January 2020.

• Freedom of speech
• Backlash against anti–blasphemy laws
• Defamation of religion and the United Nations
• International Blasphemy Day
• Islam and blasphemy
• Insult (legal)

{{Reflist}}

• {{cite book |last1=Langer |first1=Lorenz |title=Religious Offence and Human Rights: The Implications of Defamation of Religions |date=2014 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge, United Kingdom |isbn=978-1-107-03957-5 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-oDRAwAAQBAJ&q=lorenz%20langer%20cambridge&pg=PP1 }}
• {{cite book |last1 = Temperman |first1 = Jeroen |last2 = Koltay |first2 = András |year = 2017 |title = Blasphemy and Freedom of Expression: Comparative, Theoretical and Historical Reflections after the Charlie Hebdo Massacre |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=AkY3DwAAQBAJ |location = Cambridge, England |publisher = Cambridge University Press |page = 770 |isbn = 9781108267991 }}

• [https://web.archive.org/web/20090901075909/http://www.caslon.com.au/blasphemyprofile14.htm Landmarks in blasphemy]
• Thomas Hammarberg, CoE Commissioner for Human Rights: [https://web.archive.org/web/20091213164515/http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/Viewpoints/070611_en.asp Do not criminalize critical remarks against religions], 2007
• [http://end-blasphemy-laws.org/ End Blasphemy Laws]
• [http://blasphemy.nz/ Blasphemy in New Zealand] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161014064825/http://blasphemy.nz/ |date=14 October 2016 }}

{{Blasphemy law}}

{{Religious persecution}}

{{Authority control}}

Category:Crimes in religion

Category:Freedom of expression

Category:Censorship