This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/blasphemy-pakistan-asia-bibi.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Blasphemy Laws: Excuse for Persecution Blasphemy Laws: An Excuse for Persecution
(about 2 hours later)
It is good news that Pakistan’s Supreme Court has acquitted and freed a Pakistani Christian woman who had already spent eight years on death row for blasphemy. In a 56-page ruling, the three justices said Asia Bibi, a farmworker in her early 50s, was the victim of mob justice aroused by unsubstantiated claims of what she said about the Prophet Muhammad in an exchange with women angry that she had sipped water from a cup used by Muslims.It is good news that Pakistan’s Supreme Court has acquitted and freed a Pakistani Christian woman who had already spent eight years on death row for blasphemy. In a 56-page ruling, the three justices said Asia Bibi, a farmworker in her early 50s, was the victim of mob justice aroused by unsubstantiated claims of what she said about the Prophet Muhammad in an exchange with women angry that she had sipped water from a cup used by Muslims.
Though the trial was a farce, overturning it took courage. In 2011, the governor of Punjab Province, Salman Taseer, who had campaigned for Ms. Bibi’s release and for changes in the blasphemy laws, was shot and killed by his bodyguard. Two months later, the minister of minorities, the sole Christian in the Pakistani government, who had also called for the changes, was killed. The announcement of the Supreme Court ruling on Oct. 31 set off protests across Pakistan and a warning from Islamist firebrands that the justices were risking death. Ms. Bibi has been in hiding since her release and may have to flee Pakistan.Though the trial was a farce, overturning it took courage. In 2011, the governor of Punjab Province, Salman Taseer, who had campaigned for Ms. Bibi’s release and for changes in the blasphemy laws, was shot and killed by his bodyguard. Two months later, the minister of minorities, the sole Christian in the Pakistani government, who had also called for the changes, was killed. The announcement of the Supreme Court ruling on Oct. 31 set off protests across Pakistan and a warning from Islamist firebrands that the justices were risking death. Ms. Bibi has been in hiding since her release and may have to flee Pakistan.
But this is not a story about the triumph of tolerance over antiquated law. Ms. Bibi was freed not because the court found that the blasphemy law violated her rights or was in any other way inherently wrong, but because the trial was flawed. Blasphemy, broadly defined as speaking insultingly about God or religion, remains a capital crime in Pakistan and illegal in many other lands, in the East and the West.But this is not a story about the triumph of tolerance over antiquated law. Ms. Bibi was freed not because the court found that the blasphemy law violated her rights or was in any other way inherently wrong, but because the trial was flawed. Blasphemy, broadly defined as speaking insultingly about God or religion, remains a capital crime in Pakistan and illegal in many other lands, in the East and the West.
According to the Pew Research Center, about a quarter of all countries had anti-blasphemy laws or policies as of 2014, and more than a tenth have laws or policies against apostasy, or renouncing a religious belief. That does not mean people in the West risk being imprisoned for taking the Lord’s name in vain. In many countries, like Canada, old laws remain on the books simply because nobody has bothered to get them off — as the Irish did last month when they voted in a referendum to scrap their blasphemy laws. In the United States, six states still have old blasphemy laws, but no case would conceivably survive against the First Amendment.According to the Pew Research Center, about a quarter of all countries had anti-blasphemy laws or policies as of 2014, and more than a tenth have laws or policies against apostasy, or renouncing a religious belief. That does not mean people in the West risk being imprisoned for taking the Lord’s name in vain. In many countries, like Canada, old laws remain on the books simply because nobody has bothered to get them off — as the Irish did last month when they voted in a referendum to scrap their blasphemy laws. In the United States, six states still have old blasphemy laws, but no case would conceivably survive against the First Amendment.
The few instances when blasphemy laws have been enforced in the West have arisen from attempts to police hostilities between religious communities. A Danish man, for example, was charged with blasphemy in February 2017 for posting a video showing him burning a Quran. Danish courts were no doubt mindful of the furor that erupted over the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in 2005. (The Quran case was dropped after the blasphemy law was repealed in June 2017.)The few instances when blasphemy laws have been enforced in the West have arisen from attempts to police hostilities between religious communities. A Danish man, for example, was charged with blasphemy in February 2017 for posting a video showing him burning a Quran. Danish courts were no doubt mindful of the furor that erupted over the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in 2005. (The Quran case was dropped after the blasphemy law was repealed in June 2017.)
Blasphemy laws are most common, and most commonly enforced, in Muslim countries, and the penalties are often brutal. Ms. Bibi was sentenced to be hanged; Iran executed 20 people in 2015 for “enmity against God,” and in Saudi Arabia, adhering to the wrong branch of Islam can mean death.Blasphemy laws are most common, and most commonly enforced, in Muslim countries, and the penalties are often brutal. Ms. Bibi was sentenced to be hanged; Iran executed 20 people in 2015 for “enmity against God,” and in Saudi Arabia, adhering to the wrong branch of Islam can mean death.
Sacrilege is painful to religious believers everywhere. But broad and subjective legal proscriptions not only contradict the fundamental right to freedom of expression; they also open the door to persecution of minority faiths, as in Ms. Bibi’s case, or of political dissidents. In Russia, the Pussy Riot band was imprisoned for “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred,” though their target was not religion but Vladimir Putin.Sacrilege is painful to religious believers everywhere. But broad and subjective legal proscriptions not only contradict the fundamental right to freedom of expression; they also open the door to persecution of minority faiths, as in Ms. Bibi’s case, or of political dissidents. In Russia, the Pussy Riot band was imprisoned for “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred,” though their target was not religion but Vladimir Putin.
History supplies ample evidence that when religions proclaim themselves beyond criticism or challenge, there is hell to pay. Or, as the Anglican archbishop of New Zealand, Philip Richardson, said on learning to his surprise that his country had a “blasphemy libel” law, “My view is, God’s bigger than needing to be defended by the Crimes Act.”History supplies ample evidence that when religions proclaim themselves beyond criticism or challenge, there is hell to pay. Or, as the Anglican archbishop of New Zealand, Philip Richardson, said on learning to his surprise that his country had a “blasphemy libel” law, “My view is, God’s bigger than needing to be defended by the Crimes Act.”
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.