POMED Notes: Silenced: How Apostasy & Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide

On Tuesday, the Berkley Center for Religious Peace & World Affairs at Georgetown University hosted a discussion on the book Silenced: How Apostasy & Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide. The speakers were the authors Paul Marshall, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute Center for Religious Freedom, and Nina Shea, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and director of the Center for Religious Freedom. The discussion was moderated by Thomas Farr, director of the Religious Freedom Project at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs. The respondent was John Voll, the associate director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Georgetown University.

For full event notes, continue reading below. Or, click here for the PDF

Farr opened by stating that the increasing widespread laws against people who commit blasphemy and apostasy are troubling. The overall implications of these laws not only affect the security of the country in which they are enacted, but security of the overall region.

Marshall explained that the terms blasphemy or apostasy in the many countries that enforce these types of standards is not precisely defined; charges could range from insulting Islam to imitating Christians. The governments in these countries have two means in which to deal with transgressors. They either use state repression or allow social violence to take place.  With the government’s inability to stop the violence, or on the other hand, not having the desire to do so, the government can use informal means to enforce any undesired expression against Islam. Marshall brought to attention the four different types of victims that are most often affected by apostasy and blasphemy laws. The “post-Islamic” religions, such as the Ba’hai, are by some considered heretics; those who leave Islam for another belief system; the “wrong type of Muslims,” such as a Shi’a in Sunni land; and any individual that is considered a dissident – be it a fellow Muslim or not. Marshall felt that persecuting anyone that questioned Islam was especially troubling. Since Islam is a complex, well established belief system, forbidding different interpretations that counter orthodoxy will create narrow bounds for the religion; a ratcheting effect will ensue as criticizing any type of blasphemy law will lead to punishment, and further, place confines on what can be discussed.

Shea focused on how the West is addressing new blasphemy laws even when there has been an absence of such laws in the past. Europehas progressed with restrictions aiming to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws. The Council of Europe’s Venice Commission is vague with respect to religion when it says “there is no right to offend,” and “gratuitously offensive” speech is not protected. Shea asserted the West is creating its own set of blasphemy laws seeking social peace out of fear and this, in turn, will thwart peace and “empower radicals.” While the U.S. has yet to enforce any formal trends limiting the freedom of speech or expression, Shea concluded there have been trends developing such as self-censorship, exhibited by Comedy Central and Walden House, to name a few.

Voll added that there is a wide range of communities framing the narrative in politics, and the parties have been ignoring the importance of religion. The modernization theory that predicted society would become more secular as modernization increased was wrong, and religion has maintained its influence in many societies. Voll said a fundamental problem was there should be a “freedom to believe what you want, and tell society what you believe.” Blasphemy laws do not allow for that inclusion.

In the question and answer section, Shea stated that the blasphemy laws in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have been misunderstood by the media. Instead of focusing on the restrictions of “alcohol, bikinis and movies,” the media should investigate how these laws restrict “speech repression, ideas, and that they are a different way to imprison people.” Marshall responded with the idea that any form of orthodoxy can develop repression, and the West enforcing laws that limit any freedom of expression adds to “existing problems.” Voll felt that blasphemy laws fail to achieve the goals of social peace, and increase anxiety and religious violence. In a conversation after the discussion, Marshall stated that to successfully encourage freedom of expression in the new MENA democracies, U.S. foreign diplomats need to take religion seriously – while understanding the different schisms within Islam – and instead of avoiding the topic of religion, Islam needs to be consistently addressed in the public arena.