Letter: Workable blasphemy laws in a liberal society
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The legal concept of blasphemy is fraught with difficulty. Is it the sacred offence of profaning God? Then it is uniquely important. But because it impinges so deeply on the individual conscience, its criminalisation would inhibit the expression of thought in a way which could be uniquely destructive. Is it the secular offence of causing pain to people? Then who defines what quality of pain should be prohibited?
Two options here are regularly confused: a (relatively) objective one in terms of the nature of the writing - the writing is scurrilous or abusive; and a subjective one in terms of the upset of the reader - he is offended. Mr Justice King- Hamilton in the Gay News case (1977) defined blasphemy using both: '. . . in terms so scurrilous
or offensive as to shock or
outrage . . .'
Scurrilous is a very strong word. The OED quotes Johnson in its definition: 'Using such language as only the licence of a buffoon can warrant.' A definition of blasphemy in terms of this concept would not encompass James Kirkup's poem, the object of the Gay News case: it was inferior poetry, but not buffoonery. There are serious objections even to the criminalisation of scurrilous writings on religion; but the effect would be relatively limited.
On the other hand, to criminalise discussions of religion because someone, or even a body of people, finds them to be shocking or outrageous is intolerable. The law at present has little application, because authoritative Christian opinion finds few cases to take to court.
If blasphemy legislation is extended to other religions, some - Islam is a present example - would interpret blasphemy so widely that the law would be grossly restrictive.
Yours faithfully,
HARRY STOPES-ROE
Birmingham Humanist Group
17 September
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments