Mutual understanding and acceptance is perhaps the main challenge of modern society. Diversity is undoubtedly an asset, but cohabiting with people of different backgrounds and ideals calls for a new ethic of responsible intercultural relations, in Europe and in the World. This book tries to answer a series of pertinent and poignant questions arising from these issues, such as whether it is still possible to criticise ideas when this may be considered hurtful to certain religious feelings; whether society is hostage to the excessive sensitivity of certain individuals; or what legal responses there may be to these phenomena, and whether criminal law is the only answer.

This book details the legal ramifications of existing anti-blasphemy laws and debates the legitimacy of such laws in Western liberal democracies.

To allow or restrict hate speech is a hotly debated issue in many societies. While the right to freedom of speech is fundamental to liberal democracies, most countries have accepted that hate speech causes significant harm and ought to be regulated. Richard Moon examines the application of hate speech laws when religion is either the source or target of such speech. Moon describes the various legal restrictions on hate speech, religious insult, and blasphemy in Canada, Europe and elsewhere, and uses cases from different jurisdictions to illustrate the particular challenges raised by religious hate speech. The issues addressed are highly topical: speech that attacks religious communities, specifically anti-Muslim rhetoric, and hateful speech that is based on religious doctrine or scripture, such as anti-gay speech. The book draws on a rich understanding of freedom of expression, the harms of hate speech, and the role of religion in public life.

This report examines and compares the content of laws prohibiting blasphemy ("blasphemy laws") worldwide through the lens of international and human rights law principles. The laws examined in this study prohibit or criminalize the expression of opinions deemed "blasphemous," or counter to majority views or religious belief systems, and many impose serious, often criminal, penalties. Blasphemy laws are actively enforced in many states throughout the world. Many governments deem repeal not feasible or desirable and justify the prohibition and criminalization of blasphemy as necessary to promote religious harmony. This study seeks to evaluate the language and content of blasphemy laws to understand what aspects of these laws adhere to--or deviate from--international and human rights law principles. A better understanding of the laws' compliance with these principles may assist in the public policy community in developing clear, specifically-tailored recommendations for areas for reform. Related products: Explore ourFaith-Based Education resources collection Discover ourHuman Rights collection

In the days of Moses, blasphemy was the mortal offence of failing to respect the divine. In an age of human rights, blasphemy is understood as a failure to respect persons, as insult, defamation, or "advocacy of religious hatred." The criminalisation of this personal blasphemy has been advanced at the United Nations and upheld by the European Court of Human Rights, which has asserted a universal "right to respect for religious feelings." The Future of Blasphemy turns respect on its head. Respect demands that we grant each other equal standing in the moral community, not that we never offend. Politically, respect for citizens requires a public discourse that is open to all viewpoints. Going beyond the question of free speech versus religion, The Future of Blasphemy defends an ethical model of blasphemy. Controversies surrounding sacrilege are contests over what counts as sacred, disagreements about what has central, inviolable, and incommensurable value. In such public contestation of the sacred, each of us-secular and religious alike-has equal right to speak on its behalf.

The right to freedom of expression entails duties and responsibilities and is subject to certain limits, provided for in Article 10.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which are concerned, among other things, with protecting the rights of others. Identifying what constitutes "hate speech" is especially difficult because this type of speech does not necessarily involve the expression of hatred or feelings.On the basis of all the applicable texts on freedom of expression and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and other bodies, the author identifies certain parameters that make it possible to distinguish expressions which, although sometimes insulting, are fully protected by the right to freedom of expression from those which do not enjoy that protection.