This page features the following reports:
- Freedom House (2010) – THE IMPACT OF Blasphemy Laws on Human Rights
- Amnesty International (2014) – Blasphemy Law in Indonesia
- United States Commission on International Religous Freedom (USCIRF)
- USCIRF – Policy Brief:
Prisoners of Belief – Individuals Jailed under Blasphemy Laws (2014)
- USCIRF – Statement on flogging of Saudi blogger, Raif Badawi January 2015
- USCIRF – Seven annual reports from 2010-2016
- USCIRF – Policy Brief:
Scroll down to see extracts from the reports with links to the full original reports.
Freedom House (2010)
A FREEDOM HOUSE SPECIAL REPORT October 2010
- The severity and range of abuses that can result from the application of domestic blasphemy laws should raise serious doubts about the prospect of a similar law at the international level.
- Such a law would legitimize its flawed national counterparts while working against the communal harmony they are supposedly designed to protect.
- Worse still, it would insert into the international human rights framework a concept that essentially turns human rights upside down, restricting the speech and actions of men and women for the sake of disembodied ideas as such, and replacing equality and the rule of law with deference to religious orthodoxy and subjective feelings of outrage.
- An internal contradiction of this magnitude would cripple international human rights law as a whole and leave little recourse to victims of persecution around the world.
Read Amnesty Internationals 2014 Report on Blasphemy Law in Indonesia
The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) is an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government commission created by the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) that monitors the universal right to freedom of religion or belief abroad. USCIRF uses international standards to monitor religious freedom violations globally, and makes policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress. USCIRF Commissioners are appointed by the President and Congressional leaders of both political parties. Their work is supported by a professional, nonpartisan staff.
From the Policy Brief:
“Blasphemy laws inappropriately position governments as arbiters of truth or religious rightness, as they empower officials to enforce particular religious views against individuals, minorities, and dissenters. In practice, they have proven to be ripe for abuse and easily manipulated with false accusations.”
The Annual Reports of the USCIRF detail the abuse of blasphemy laws by various countries and consider that all such laws are incompatible with Religious Freedom and should be repealed. The reports provide information on Countries of Particular Concern (CPC countries), Burma, Central African Republic, China, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. In 2015, USCIRF placed the following ten countries on Tier 2 ( countries where the violations engaged in or tolerated by the government are serious and are characterized by at least one of the elements of the “systematic, ongoing, and egregious” standard, but do not fully meet the CPC standard): Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, Russia, and Turkey. Also monitored during 2015 were: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Cyprus, Kyrgyzstan, and Sri Lanka.
For more details on the abuse of blasphemy law and freedom of religion, or abuse in particular countries, search these documents for the word blasphemy or for the particular country.
Annual Reports from 2003 to the present are available from the USCIRF here. Links to annual reports from 2010 and extracts from these reports follow.
From the 2011 Annual Report:
Religious freedom won another victory in March  when the UN Human Rights Council rebuffed a drive for an international blasphemy law, instead adopting a resolution against religious intolerance that excluded the infamous “defamation-of-religions” language of prior years.
Blasphemy laws … encourage vigilante attacks on perceived violators, this problem of impunity has shown no sign of subsiding over the past year, and, in many places, it has worsened considerably. Blasphemy laws, which not only violate religious freedom directly, but indirectly by energizing extremists who threaten the freedoms of all.
From the 212 Annual Report:
Over the past decade, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) sponsored annual resolutions focused on “combating defamation of religions” in the UN General Assembly and UN Human Rights Council. These sought – in violation of the individual rights to freedom of religion and expression – to establish a global blasphemy law. Years of effort by USCIRF, the State Department, members of Congress, and NGOs helped bring about a marked decrease in the support for these flawed resolutions between 2008 and 2010. As a result, in 2011 both UN bodies instead adopted consensus resolutions on “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief”. The new resolutions properly focus on protecting individuals from discrimination or violence, instead of protecting religions from criticism; protect the adherents of all religions or beliefs, instead of privileging one religion; and do not call for legal restrictions on peaceful expression, but rather for positive measures, such as education and outreach. In fact, the new resolutions call for criminalization only in the case of incitement to imminent violence, which is the U.S. First Amendment standard.
USCIRF welcomes this new approach, and commends the efforts that led to these new formulations. Nonetheless, USCIRF remains concerned that the OIC has not abandoned its global anti-blasphemy efforts. OIC member states continue to have and enforce repressive domestic blasphemy laws that result in gross human rights abuses, and the OIC continues to refer publicly to the defamation concept, including in statements regarding the ―Istanbul Process, a series of international meetings launched in 2011 to discuss the implementation of the new resolutions. As part of this effort, in mid-December, the State Department convened in Washington, DC, the first Istanbul Process meeting, bringing together law enforcement experts and practitioners from approximately 30 countries and international organizations, to focus on implementation of two areas of the resolution: 1) promoting effective government strategies to engage members of religious minorities and training government officials on religious and cultural awareness; and 2) enforcing laws that prevent discrimination on the basis of religion or belief.
From the 2013 Annual Report:
Many countries around the world have laws that punish expression deemed blasphemous, defamatory, or insulting to religion or religious symbols, figures, or feelings. These laws are incompatible with international human rights standards, as they protect beliefs over individuals. In addition, they often result in violations of the freedoms of speech and religion, or at least a chilling of these rights, as they empower governments, majorities, and extremists to enforce particular religious views against individuals, minorities, and dissenters. Though often justified as needed to promote religious harmony, these laws in fact have the opposite effect, exacerbating religious intolerance, discrimination, and violence.
The existence and enforcement of these [blasphemy] laws contradict consensus UN resolutions recognizing that religious intolerance is best fought through positive measures, such as education, outreach, and counter speech, and that criminalization is only appropriate for incitement to imminent violence.25 They also contradict the views of the UN Human Rights Committee, which has stated that “[p]rohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the [International] Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights],” 26 as well as the conclusions of an international group of experts convened by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Those experts recently recommended that “[s]tates that have blasphemy laws should repeal the[m] as such laws have a stifling impact on the enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief and healthy dialogue and debate about religion.”27
Several of the countries USCIRF reported on in the 2013 Annual Report have these types of laws and are enforcing them. The most egregious example is Pakistan, where, as discussed in this report’s Pakistan chapter, USCIRF knows of 17 individuals currently on death row on blasphemy convictions and 20 serving life sentences, and where individuals have been murdered in vigilante violence associated with blasphemy allegations. Specific cases of religious blasphemy, defamation, or insult also are reported in the chapters on Egypt, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia. In some of these countries, such as Egypt, the number of blasphemy-type cases in this reporting period increased from previous years. In addition, as discussed in the relevant chapters, during this reporting period both Russia and the Kurdistan region of Iraq considered enacting new laws of this type.
From the 2014 Annual Report:
Socially, wherever religious freedom is abused, peace and security may become ever more elusive. And this has a direct bearing not only on the well-being of those societies, but on the security of the United States and the overall stability of the world. In his 2009 Cairo speech, President Obama put it this way: “Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together.”
Promoting the kind of tolerance that gives rise to religious freedom is critical in these societies.
In addition, for at least three reasons, there appears to be an association between a lack of religious freedom and the presence of violent religious extremism.
First, when governments enforce laws, such as blasphemy-like codes, that stifle religious freedom, they embolden extremists to commit violence against perceived transgressors. In Pakistan, such codes fuel extremist violence threatening all Pakistanis, but particularly Christians and Ahmadi Muslims.
Second, when governments repress religious freedom or fail to protect it, they risk driving some into the arms of radical religious groups and movements. Russia’s repression of Muslims in the name of fighting the extremist views of some has produced violent extremism in others.
And finally, governments that crack down on everyone’s liberty in the name of fighting extremists risk strengthening the hand of extremists by weakening their more democratic, but often less hardy or resilient competition in the process. Under President Mubarak’s rule, Egypt ended up strengthening the Salafists and their allies while enfeebling their more liberal opposition.
An important tool to help defeat terrorism is the ability to persuade people to reject the extremist ideologies that support it. In the struggle for global safety and security, religious freedom might well be a powerful and effective means of countering violent religious extremism.
In summary, the defense of religious freedom is both a humanitarian imperative and a practical necessity. To betray it is to betray human nature and well-being; to affirm it is to affirm our very humanity and its thriving. It is an indispensable freedom that merits our firm and dedicated support abroad, wherever it is threatened.
Some governments also enforce religious conformity. In countries where governmental and religious authority overlap, there may be a requirement that national laws conform with religious law or that the law of one religion applies to all regardless of individual choice, and/or the government may coerce compliance with an official religion. Iran’s theocratic regime is a good example. And when legal systems promote intolerance, USCIRF has documented that non-state actors often act unilaterally to enforce these biased notions. For instance, blasphemy-type laws empower the forces of intolerance to use state institutions to protect their religious hegemony. International law experts have repeatedly deemed blasphemy-type laws incompatible with human rights commitments.19 Pakistan’s laws and practice are particularly egregious in this regard, with its constantly-abused law penalizing blasphemous acts with the death penalty or life in prison. In addition to state enforcement, mobs feel enabled, under the cover of this law, to mete out vigilante justice against individuals deemed to have committed blasphemy. The result is that extremist groups are empowered and the state’s rule-of-law system corrupted in the service of the narrow agendas of extremist groups and unscrupulous religious leaders.
From the 2015 Annual Report:
In January 2015, the … forces of violent religious extremism … struck the Hyper Cacher kosher supermarket and the Charlie Hebdo newspaper in Paris. The victims of the supermarket attack were murdered simply because they were Jews and the victims of the assault on the newspaper were killed because their attackers considered them blasphemers deserving punishment.
For a number of years, the UN Human Rights Council and General Assembly were the centers of a problematic effort by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and some of its members to seek an international legal norm restricting speech that defamed religions, particularly Islam. In a welcome change, the OIC no longer is sponsoring the flawed and divisive defamation-of-religions resolutions. They were replaced in 2011 by a new, consensus approach (often referred to as the Resolution 16/18 approach, after the first such resolution) that focuses on positive measures to counter religious intolerance and protect individuals from discrimination or violence, rather than on criminalizing expression.
USCIRF remains concerned that some OIC members continue to support a global anti-blasphemy law. Many OIC member states continue to have and enforce repressive domestic blasphemy and religious defamation laws. These laws result in gross human rights abuses and exacerbate religious intolerance, discrimination, and violence, the very problems that the OIC claims it is trying to address. In addition, some OIC countries continue to refer publicly to the defamation-of-religions concept and call for international laws against it, including in the context of the “Istanbul Process,” a series of international meetings launched in 2011 to discuss the implementation of the Resolution 16/18 approach.
The Arab League also has been considering a regional model law against the defamation of religions. With respect to these issues, USCIRF recommends that the State Department:
- Continue to use the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review process, as well as country-specific resolutions in both the Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly, to shine a light on religious freedom violations in specific countries, especially those designated as CPCs under IRFA;
- Continue its vigorous support of the mandate and work of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, including by working to secure sufficient assistance to support the Rapporteur in carrying out this volunteer position;
- Work for the creation of additional country-specific Special Rapporteur positions, especially for CPC countries;
- Remain vigilant against any renewed efforts at the UN to seek legal limitations on offensive or controversial speech about religion that does not constitute incitement to violence, and continue to press countries to adhere to the Resolution 16/18 approach, including by repealing blasphemy laws.