From Voltaire to Modern Pakistani Law: The Continuity of Tensions between Blasphemy Laws and Human Rights

In 1762, the Protestant Jean Calas was tortured and executed for the alleged murder of his son [1]. Despite facing torture and a gruesome execution, Jean Calas and the rest of his entire family remained firm that their son had committed suicide and had not been murdered [2]. Voltaire’s involvement in the years after this controversial case brought Calas to fame, and to this day, the Calas family stands as an example of religious intolerance by the largely Catholic French society [3]. In the modern era, we tend to assume that issues of religious intolerance while not socially, are, at least legally, out of fashion. Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)  protects inhabitants of the parties to the treaty from religious based discrimination. Furthermore, the passage of these sorts of documents alongside non-binding resolutions such as the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights and other regional international treaties have firmly ripened into customary law against religious discrimination or religious restrictions. Despite the right to religious freedoms guaranteed through International Law, legislation against blasphemy are fairly commonplace across the globe, and present complex challenges to human rights activists, theologians, and legal scholars alike. Thus, the phenomenon of criminalizing religious beliefs is not something restricted to a bygone era, but instead a widespread global situation with nuanced legal underpinnings. 

As of 2016, seventy-one states around the world maintain blasphemy laws in some form [4]. These laws prohibiting blasphemy all generally “include provisions that sanction insulting or defaming religion and seek to punish individuals for allegedly offending, insulting, or denigrating religious doctrines, deities, symbols or ‘the sacred,’ or for wounding or insulting religious feelings”[5]. Critiques on this type of domestic legislation often hinge on blasphemy law, the apparent limitations on the freedoms of expression and the freedom of belief. Additionally, many point to issues of scope when addressing the application of blasphemy laws. Many scholars point out that, unlike many defamation laws, which necessitate that speech must be both harmful and untrue to be punished, blasphemy cannot be defined so clearly, given the subjective nature of religious belief [6].

A further critique of blasphemy laws is that they prioritize the protection of religions over the protection of individuals and their human rights. For instance, one young Christian girl with Down Syndrome was falsely accused of burning pages of the Noorani Qaida, a basic book to help children learn the Quran [7]. The young girl and her mother were reportedly beaten and harassed by protestors, while the young girl was eventually arrested by the police [8]. This incredible tragedy illustrates the ways in which blasphemy laws fundamentally contradict human rights and violate international law. 

The U.N. Human Rights Committee expressed this view explicitly in General Comment no. 34 on Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), where the Committee states:

“Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant...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” [9].

Armed with this knowledge, it is no surprise that the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedoms argues broadly that all countries with blasphemy laws are in violation of international law [10]. However, narrower and specific windows into illegal blasphemy laws are more useful knowledge in evaluating their effects on domestic populations. Under 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, defamation of the Prophet Muhammad carries a mandatory death sentence [11].Many argue this legislation violates Pakistan’s obligations under the ICCPR, specifically Article 6, which discusses the right to life and makes specific qualifications about death penalties.

Additionally, many legal scholars point to unfair trial proceedings and procedural issues that violate international law: 

“All institutions of the Pakistani State...have effectively abdicated their responsibilities under human rights law when people are accused of committing blasphemy, knowingly leaving them either at the mercy of mobs and organized religious groups or facing trials that are fundamentally unfair” [12]. 

Upon seeing widespread blasphemy laws and their devastating effects in states, one can clearly see that religion, law, and criminal punishment are still tenuously connected, as much as they were in Jean Calas’ day. A vast majority of international legal scholars and international lawyers hold that blasphemy laws and human rights are in fundamental conflict. While that conclusion may seem natural to many, there are numerous other scholars who diverge from this opinion, further complicating how we consider blasphemy and human rights.

For instance, Article 20 of the ICCPR allows for restrictions to freedom of speech, which many would argue amount to something like a blasphemy law that protects individuals’ human rights. Article 20 states that “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law”  [13]. Furthermore, Article 19 outlines specific derogations and qualifications which limit the freedom of speech similarly to blasphemy laws, except that they do so to protect the human rights of other people as opposed to protecting a specific religion.

Similarly, other scholars illustrate how blasphemy laws may not be absolutely or inherently threatening to human rights. One scholar, Neville Cox, acknowledges that certain blasphemy laws, like those in Pakistan, are draconian and immoral [14]. However, he argues that in certain cases, blasphemy laws reflect a response to public morals which are internationally a legitimate reason for restricting the freedom of expression [15]. Additionally, he goes on to say that blasphemy laws do not have to inherently take on the extreme form that they do in Pakistan but can instead address a legitimate societal need [16]. Particularly in non-secular states, they may feel the need to protect the sacred by imposing certain restrictions on free-speech in the interest of upholding public moral values [17]. Thus, legal scholars do not seem to be in uniform agreement on blasphemy laws and their moral legitimacy within domestic law.

In the United States, when many think of the law and religious freedom, their minds often turn towards current domestic conversations about religious exceptions to vaccines, religious justifications for homophobic discrimination, or religion and reproductive rights. While these conversations certainly reflect tensions between religion and law of which Americans are acutely aware, many likely believe that laws which downright restrict religious beliefs to be irrelevant today. However, the widespread blasphemy laws across all regions of the world indicate that assumption to be a fallacy. Furthermore, legal debate surrounding blasphemy laws illustrates an even more complex image, with many legal scholars highlighting the devastating effects that blasphemy laws can have on a society and individuals’ freedom, with others pointing out the value in restricting certain contexts of speech to prevent hate, discrimination, or violence along religious lines. 

The subject of blasphemy laws could easily be overlooked as an historical anachronism, but the immense presence of this sort of legislation and the nuanced debate surrounding blasphemy laws illustrates that religion and freedom will continue to come into legal conflict throughout the modern era.

Logan Danker is a Sophomore concentrating in International and Public Affairs and History. He serves as the Director of Media & Events for the BULR and can be reached at logan_danker@brown.edu