Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

The Freethinker

Home
Nonreligious
Switzerland retains law that shields the religious from ‘insults’

Switzerland retains law that shields the religious from ‘insults’

Last updated on: November 10, 2020 at 4:05 pm by Barry Duke

Switzerland retains law that shields the religious from ‘insults’ 2020-11-10T16:05:18+02:00 Barry Duke

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Image via YouTube

FOR 83 years Switzerland has had a form of blasphemy law that makes ‘insulting’ people’s religious beliefs a criminal offence. It’s an anachronistic piece of legislation that Beat Flach, above, a member of the Liberal Greens Party, has been rigorously campaigning to have abolished or amended.

But Swiss lawmakers believe that Article 261 of the Penal Code of 1937 needs to be retained, and on November 6 Switzerland’s Federal Assembly rejected a motion put forward by Flach by 115 votes to 48.

In arguing against the retention of the Article, which outlaws “attacks on the freedom of faith and the freedom to worship”, Flach said:

You shouldn’t punish people for making fun of a faith. We must give a clear and strong signal in favor of freedom of expression.

The Article states:

Any person who publicly and maliciously insults or mocks the religious convictions of others, and in particularly [sic] 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, is liable to a monetary penalty not exceeding 180 daily penalty units.

According to press reports, there were 161 court cases related to Article 261 between 1960 and 2010. There were on average three people charged with “blasphemy” each year. From 2011 to 2017, an estimated 30 people were convicted under the “blasphemy” clause.

But Martino Mona, Professor of Criminal Law and the Philosophy of Law at the University of Bern, disagrees with Flach, saying:

This helps to maintain religious peace.

Mona pointed out that Switzerland has a long tradition of religious wars and conflicts, which is why the law was needed.

And Justice and Police Minister Karin Keller-Sutter insisted that freedom of expression “does not apply without limit.”

Screenshot

A while back Andreas Kyriacou, President of the Swiss Freethinkers, which supports the abolition of blasphemy laws worldwide, argued that repealing such laws was the only way to assure people that they have a right to free expression of opinion. Abolition would also send “a clear and necessary message” to those countries that use blasphemy laws to persecute religious minorities and secular activists.

The Swiss Freethinkers called on the National Council and the Council of States to follow countries such as Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland, Malta, France and Denmark and scrap or amend Article 261.

Switzerland would thus be demonstrating a clear commitment to the right to freedom of expression – and would also be helping to stop countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia from providing justifications for their laws that are hostile to freedom.

‘Bad law’

The End Blasphemy Laws campaign says:

Shielding religion from criticism cannot be regarded as a social good. Criticism which is false can be tested and met with legitimate counter-arguments, while criticism which is true should be heard for the sake of correcting errors. In some cases, criticism helps religious thinkers improve theology. In more substantive cases, criticism is essential to shedding light on immoral or unlawful practices carried out in the name of religion.

The violation of the right to freedom of expression is a matter of incompatibility with international human rights legislation, as well as most domestic human rights laws. But in addition, ‘blasphemy’ and ‘insult to religion’ laws also suffer from internal inconsistency and subjective applicability.

The confused and subjective nature of ‘blasphemy’ and ‘insult to religion’ laws makes them bad law. They are therefore hugely prone to abuse, being used to target a variety of supposed ‘blasphemy,’ from actual criticism or satire of religion, to merely stating alternative religious views, stating atheism, or in some cases, the accusation is entirely malicious, based on rumours or planted evidence.

As far back as 1882, a year after launching The Freethinker, G W Foote, who was jailed for blasphemy for 12 months with hard labour, addressed the issue in an article entitled “Who are the Blasphemers?” It’s as relevant today as it was back in the day.

The real blasphemers are those who believe in God and blacken his character; who credit him with less knowledge than a child, and less intelligence than an idiot; who make him quibble, deceive, and lie; who represent him as indecent, cruel, and revengeful; who give him the heart of a savage and the brain of a fool. These are the blasphemers.

When the priest steps between husband and wife, with the name of God on his lips, he blasphemes. When, in the name of God, he resists education and science, he blasphemes. When, in the name of God, he opposes freedom of thought and liberty of conscience, he blasphemes. When, in the name of God, he robs, tortures, and kills those who differ from him, he blasphemes. When, in the name of God, he opposes the equal rights of all, he blasphemes.

When, in the name of God, he preaches content to the poor and oppressed, flatters the rich and powerful, and makes religious tyranny the handmaiden of political privilege, he blasphemes. And when he takes the Bible in his hand, and says it was written by the inspiration of God, he blasphemes almost beyond forgiveness.

Who are the blasphemers? Not we who preach freedom and progress for all men; but those who try to bind the world with chains of dogma, and to burden it, in God’s name, with all the foul superstitions of its ignorant past.

• Please report any typos/errors to [email protected]

If you’d like to buy me a cup of coffee – and boy, do I get through a LOT of coffee keeping this site active – please click the link below.

I’d love a cup of coffee

Previous Post

November 9, 2020

Borat's Allah ring and mankini spark Muslim anger in Paris

Next Post

November 10, 2020 Clerical abuse: RCC again shows that it can't handle the problem

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Archive My Atheism News Opinion Reviews Uncategorized

Select a Month December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 March 2007 April 2006 February 2006

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: Boaz was Ruth's brother-in-law who married her.

Select your answer to see how you score.

TRUE FALSE

Books by This Author Books by The Freethinker

See All Titles »