Tuesday, 3 December 2013 - 04:34
blasphemy to be removed from penal code
The House voted for, Tuesday it will be up to the Senate, but many senators are reluctant to remove blasphemy from the penal code.The offense did not make it into our Penal Code in 1882, but the increase in anti - Christian publications from atheistic and communist corner changed that in 1932, when blasphemy became a criminal offense after all.
Tweede_kamer
Sisyfus
Wikimedia commons After 1968, when Gerard Reve was acquitted of blasphemy in the famous 'Donkey' process, the article was never used again. The Supreme Court set the standard so high that the act became in fact unprovable . Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses," Madonna's 'crucifixion act' during her concert in Amsterdam, neither lead to prosecution. All this time Article 147 remained in the penal code. The debate started up again when Minister Donner (Justice), after the murder of Theo van Gogh, suggested the offense might come in handy in times of tension between communities. However, the opposition parties argued the article should be removed. Now that the time for decision-making is coming ever closer, senators, and not just the Christian parties, are getting cold feet. It almost seems the deletion of a criminal provision is more trouble than the inclusion of a new criminal prohibition. One of the basic ideas behind our constitutional state is that we should not resort to the criminal law too quickly. It is after all a severe measure, especially when used to limit freedom of expression. The very Senate adopted a motion in 2012 to remind the government of these principles. Now the opposite is happening: MPs who wonder whether there are sufficient reasons to cut the blasphemy ban. The question we should ask ourselves is whether there are good reasons to maintain these restrictions on freedom. Not too long ago, the acquittal of Geert Wilders caused a lot of relief for politicians in The Hague. The VVD even proposed to no longer make discriminatory statements punishable. Internationally, there is growing criticism of criminal laws on blasphemy. According to the UN Human Rights Committee prohibiting blasphemy is in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, especially if such a ban also discriminates between different religions and beliefs. That is exactly what the Dutch law does, because it only refers to religions with one supreme being. Incidentally, EU countries have been fighting together against the initiatives of Muslim countries to ban the 'insulting of religions' within the UN. In short, sticking to the blasphemy ban will ultimately be at the expense of the country's credibility .
Sisyfus
Wikimedia commons After 1968, when Gerard Reve was acquitted of blasphemy in the famous 'Donkey' process, the article was never used again. The Supreme Court set the standard so high that the act became in fact unprovable . Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses," Madonna's 'crucifixion act' during her concert in Amsterdam, neither lead to prosecution. All this time Article 147 remained in the penal code. The debate started up again when Minister Donner (Justice), after the murder of Theo van Gogh, suggested the offense might come in handy in times of tension between communities. However, the opposition parties argued the article should be removed. Now that the time for decision-making is coming ever closer, senators, and not just the Christian parties, are getting cold feet. It almost seems the deletion of a criminal provision is more trouble than the inclusion of a new criminal prohibition. One of the basic ideas behind our constitutional state is that we should not resort to the criminal law too quickly. It is after all a severe measure, especially when used to limit freedom of expression. The very Senate adopted a motion in 2012 to remind the government of these principles. Now the opposite is happening: MPs who wonder whether there are sufficient reasons to cut the blasphemy ban. The question we should ask ourselves is whether there are good reasons to maintain these restrictions on freedom. Not too long ago, the acquittal of Geert Wilders caused a lot of relief for politicians in The Hague. The VVD even proposed to no longer make discriminatory statements punishable. Internationally, there is growing criticism of criminal laws on blasphemy. According to the UN Human Rights Committee prohibiting blasphemy is in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, especially if such a ban also discriminates between different religions and beliefs. That is exactly what the Dutch law does, because it only refers to religions with one supreme being. Incidentally, EU countries have been fighting together against the initiatives of Muslim countries to ban the 'insulting of religions' within the UN. In short, sticking to the blasphemy ban will ultimately be at the expense of the country's credibility .
