This law is intended to punish blasphemy in general, but what do you think is the likelihood that it will be applied to those who are considered to have blasphemed against Islam far more than it will be applied against those who supposedly blaspheme against any other religion?
“Italian town introduces blasphemy law with £360 fines handed out to anyone who ‘offends any faith or religion,'” by Joe Middleton, Mailonline, July 28, 2019:
An Italian town is introducing a new law making it illegal to ‘blaspheme against any faith or religion.’
Officials from Saonara, in northern Italy, will issue fines of up to €400 (£360) to individuals who break the new law, as part of a raft of new rules to tackle uncivil behaviour.
Mayor Walter Stefan, told The Telegraph: ‘Blasphemy is offensive, it offends me.
‘With this law you will not be able to cause offence to any religion, we have to respect the faithful.’
Mr Stefan, a practicing Catholic, emphasised it was not only designed to protect Christianity from offence, but all faiths.
He added: ‘It is valid for Allah, Buddha or Mohammad.’…
Westman says
Another weapon law for Islam. One can hear the cries of victimhood already rising as Muslims do a “Bibi” on some hapless creature standing in their way. It will be like the “burn the witch” scene from “In Pusuit Of The Holly Grail”. https://youtu.be/zrzMhU_4m-g
The Italians are about to learn that false witness is only prohibited when directed against Muslims.
J D S says
Blasphemy……so called blasphemy got Jesus in trouble and it eventually led, along with other things, to his death and of course muhammad took, rather stole, this from the New Testament as he’d did many laws etc from The cOld testament along with pagan rituals.
I don’t doubt that muhammad was a prophet, a prophet of Islam, but NOT a PROPHET OF GOD….
Muhammad’s religions, if one can call it that, was and is built upon the Mosaic Covenant that he stole from the Old Testament…but there is a New Covenant…THE JESUS COVENANT…a covenant not filled with LAWS but filled with LOVE.
Steve says
I wonder if the spaghetti monster will be under this umbrella law.
Angemon says
Gee, I wonder if he might have some sort of personal bias… Blasphemy laws have no place in a civilized society. Your cow is not sacred, I’ll work on Saturdays or Sundays if I damn well choose to, and pork is delicious.
Emilie Green says
Blasphemy is the weapon of the thug. There is no idea that’s beyond criticism or rejection.
If I criticize or reject what you hold holy or sacred, that doesn’t effect your belief.
So leave me alone. But leaving us alone is the last thing thugs – whether wearing religious garb (like Roman Catholic prelates of centuries past), or thawbs/thobes like Muslims, or brownshirts like the SA, or masks like Antifa – would ever consider.
But read the dissent* of Brandeis in Olmstead (1928), “The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.”
*Which in the years between 1928 and now has become the prevailing view of the 4th
Amendment.
Kat says
Simply ridiculous if it were not so concerning.
Jesus already taught how to deal with those who won’t accept him or his message: shake the dust off your feet.
No fines. No imprisonment. No punishments. No brutality.
Nathan Dunning says
I agree
Kay says
Oh, now I see why my comment didn’t show up the first time. I can’t even spell my own name!
Kay says
Ridiculous if it were not so concerning.
Jesus already taught how to deal with those who won’t accept him or his message: shake the dust off your feet.
No fines. No imprisonment. No punishment. No brutality.
Henry Mansfield says
Was it Jihad Watch that aired a video from Scotland? A man painted a sign in his yard that read ” I find Islam questionable” or something to that effect then took video of police coming to his door in force to arrest him.
The cited charge was ‘Breach of the peace.’
It wasn’t the first time I’ve seen Euro-cops cite ‘breaching the peace’ to shut up public criticisms of Islam.
Americans need to show restraint concerning 1st Amendment speech they despise.
Lawyers could blame unpopular speech instead of the violent reaction to chip away at our rights, and as a wise man once said anyway ‘Never stop a fool from making a fool of himself’.
jarmanray says
Henry,
A while back on another website, I used my favorite description of Islam as the pernicious cult of the pedophilic mass murdering monster and I received a lot of foul comments about how I was being Islamophobic and racist. I never stated either Islam or Muslim so I asked them whose Islamophobic and that seemed to end the rants. One can receive the same accusations by asking another simple question which is to name the only true democracy in the Middle East. It seems that the truth hurts the far left and Muslims.
Diane Harvey says
That Indiana billboard didn’t mention Islam or Big Mo. It stated only accepted facts, facts that even Muslims agree upon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XavK1usHl28
Nevertheless Muslims played their typical antics. So here’s the thing that puzzles. If I state these facts as flattering to Big Mo, I’m okay. But I state these as criticisms of Big Mo, I’m an Islamophobe. But in both cases the fact is the fact.
Henry Mansfield says
Appears to be an older story, but the facts about the historical Mohammed jibe with every source I’m familiar with.
Muslims claim only a native in Arabic can properly interpret the original Muslim texts and histories, which is tantamount to saying that non-Muslims can’t bring up Google Translate and transcribe Quran verses verbatim to check their story.
Robert Spencer frequently points out that the latter bloodthirsty verses of the Quran abrogate the earlier exhortations to peaceful conversion, which Muslims cite to stress that Islam is a peaceful religion.
The case you’ve highlighted is one of self-incrimination. Muslims passing that billboard on the highway instantly knew who it was referring to.
Henry Mansfield says
I have absolutely zero problem using the words Islam or Muslim when describing the acts of Muslims.
It’s usually face to face or on the Internet after coming across a person who genuinely seems clueless.
There are still people who are loathe to acknowledge the UK ‘grooming gangs’, and I’ll link to a running tally of convictions and then remind them that ‘grooming gangs’ is a prettied-up euphemism for a nationwide network of Muslim pedophiles using false friendship, drugs and physical force to keep ethnic British girls as young as 11 in line.
Likewise the instant crime wave everywhere in Europe that’s accepted large numbers of Muslim refugees.
I’ll stress defending oneself and loved ones against known threats, and given 1,400 years of documented history it’s safe to say that practicing Muslims are one of them, every bit as much as working on power lines during a lightning storm.
gravenimage says
Italy: Town introduces $445 fine for blasphemy against Christianity, “Allah, Buddha or Mohammad”
……………….
Disgusting crushing of freedom of speech.
And what are the chances that Christians–or Buddhists–were demanding this? Slim to none–this is about supremacist Muslims and their enablers.
The Political Oracle says
I am not religious. Would that be considered blasphemy? I take no part in religion because religion is not a need, it’s a want. Too much personal emphasis on religion and this is what get, stooge thinking that affects evwryone!
The Political Oracle says
Correction: Too much emphasis on religion and this is what you get, stooge thinking that affects everyone.
Giacomo Latta says
Not being a follower of any given religion is an affront to some followers of that religion but perfectly fine to others. The latter are able to live their lives feeling superior to the rest of us. However, the insulted-to-superior ratio is not the same among all religions.
The Political Oracle says
Interesting reply. If we know that religion is our conscience and beliefs which are subject to change from day to day, we should know that we are responsible for what we think and act upon. We control our reality(ies) by what we force ourselves to see as those realities. However, with some religions, that reality has only one chosen path. There is a war on for your mind! Religion is the most powerful weapon in the universe! Societies succumb without a nuke fired and without a huge loss of life. Societies, on a grand scale, (religion seems to be scalable) buy into ideological theocratic control (Elephant Tether Syndrome) or Brainwashing take your pick. Too much emphasis on the carrier of knowledge as opposed to a lot emphasis on the message is what leads to wars. Jesus never said to warship him. That was societies choice and then a culture was born. In fact, Jesus told us that God is what God is and we are what we are. Therefore, we should accept that we are not directly related to God because we are what we are. As far as that mayor of Italy is concerned, he is violating Italy’s ICCPR ratification. This could be the argument that gets this oppressive law taken down. BTW, God was never a He/Him since that insinuates that God had parents. Never could understand that line of reasoning. Are you offended by this realistic view of God? It’s new to you, most likely and I also struggled with this view but realized that the truth was found!
mortimer says
FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS THE RIGHT TO OFFEND—EVEN TO BLASPHEME — This Italian by-law will not stand up to a court challenge.
U.S. law values and permits the right to blaspheme because THERE IS NO ESTABLISHED ‘American religion’. What is ‘sacred’ to one person may be highly ‘blasphemous’ to another. Without an officially defined state religion, it is not the responsibility of the judges to intervene.
– Justice Clark in 1952 wrote: “…it is enough to point out that the state has no
legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful
to them. … It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real
or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine.”
-Justice Frankfurter noted that beliefs that are “…dear to one may seem the rankest ‘sacrilege’ to another,” and added concerning “sacrilegious” speech: “…history does not encourage reliance on the wisdom and moderation of the censor.”
– “The price of freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press, is that we must put up with a good deal of rubbish.” – Justice Robert H. Jackson, prosecutor at the Nuremburg Trials
INDIA’S SUPREME COURT – 2014 Landmark – Overturns India’s Hate Speech Laws
The Supreme Court of India on Monday 3 March 2014, dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) by Advocate M L Sharma seeking intervention by the court in directing the Election Commission to curb hate speeches. Dismissing the plea, the Apex court said that it could not curb the fundamental right of the people to express themselves.
“We cannot curtail fundamental rights of people. It is a precious right guaranteed by Constitution,” a bench headed by Justice RM Lodha said, adding “we are a mature democracy and it is for the public to decide. We are 1280 million people and there would be 1280 million views. One is free not to accept the view of others”. Also the court said that it is a matter of perception, and a statement objectionable to a person might be normal to another person.
– Wikipedia
– The Irish Law Reform Commission’s 1991 Report opined that “there is no place for the offence of blasphemous libel in a society which respects freedom of speech.”
It refused to allow the prosecution, stating “in the absence of any legislative definition of the constitutional offence of blasphemy, it is impossible to say of what the offence of blasphemy consists … In the absence of legislation and in the present uncertain state of the law the Court could not see its way to authorising the institution of a criminal prosecution”.
PRCS says
1. Let’s wait to learn what happens after the 1st Muslim in Italy is slapped with a ‘blasphemy’ ticket. Muslims have been bending the rules and ‘getting away with it’ for too long. If this tactic woks, I’m for it.
2. Carson aside (as he’s a Muslim) note the reporter, Emily Longnecker’s idiocy in the previously linked video @ 2:48:
“…during Ramadan. That’s a Holy month for members of the Muslim faith, celebrating the month in which the Prophet Muhammad received the first of the revelations that made up the Qur’an.”
So, per the reporter: the Prophet Muhammad (what did he prophesize) and the revelations (as though that’s a fact).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XavK1usHl28
CRUSADER says
Holy Spirit convicts and later condemns, while we are only sinners – undeserving yet receiving Grace if we accept It.
Giacomo Latta says
”Most people have never met a Muslim”? Most people hope to never meet a Muslim. As far as generation of hate, if I were to quote the koran on a billboard, saying something as benign as, oh, men are in charge of women, would I be charged with hate speech or would that depend on the religion of the person doing so.
Ramana (@drnramana) says
Why don’t Politicians decide whether ” preaching of hatred and killing of nonbelievers of islam” in the anme of freedom of religion is Human or dangerous to world peace . Will the World leaders be able to tackle this before Islam takes over gradually every country in this world.
tgusa says
Eating pork, owning a dog, a woman in a dress, all of these things can offend muslims. Is the boss willing to ban pork, dogs and scantily clad women? Inquiring minds would like to know.
tgusa says
Personally, I happen to enjoy and respect pork, dogs and scantily clad women. What civilized man wouldn’t? They are my only vices and nobody is going to take those away without a fight.
sidney penny says
Mr Stefan, a practicing Catholic, emphasised it was not only designed to protect Christianity from offence, but all faiths.
“He added: ‘It is valid for Allah, Buddha or Mohammad.’…”
Looks like millions of Hindus,Sikhs and Jews missed out.I suppose they are not part of “all faiths”
Bob Jones says
You maybe surprise to read this, but Denmark has quietly prosecuted blasphemy usually against the Catholic clergy.
Kerry Wade says
The law should not be used as a weapon against free speech. What about mocking ridiculous laws, will there be a fine for that as well? This is a step too far and, as usual, has not been well thought out.
Giacomo Latta says
You can only poke a non-muslim bear so often with groundless claims of racism, islamophobia, insults as a result of your precious endless claims of being insulted before the bear starts to react. Expect things to get a whole lot worse before they get a whole lot better, Islamophiles.
owensgate says
No need, really, for a “fine” for Christian blasphemy, THAT penalty is already established.
David Hayden says
Blasphemy laws, such as those passed in Italy will only come back and bite them. The only religion that has a problem with blasphemy is Islam. They are afraid of honest criticism.
Lee Sargent says
That means that every one who owns a koran, any of the sunnah books, or sharia laws – or says their daily salat anywhere and in the mosques should be sued. It is about time that non-moslems show the blasphemy of islam against Christians, Jews, etc.
Jedothek says
Does Italy have a legally guaranteed right to free speech and a free press? Does this law violate the Italian Constitution ?
The Political Oracle says
It violates Italy’s ICCPR ratification. The United States should either start condemning violators of the ICCPR or completely remove the United States from a dud ratification and not be an accommodation party to pretended protections. Please read the UN’s ICCPR thoroughly and see for yourself that it’s garbage. You must read it all to see it all like I did! You can’t make this stuff up!
Don Ameche says
This is Sharia pure and simple…..it is the beginning of the 21st Century form of THEOCRACY ( with a majority Bias towards islam).
Europe has brought back the Middle Ages ( Feudal Ages ) …. which is what Socialism/Communism really is anyway.
Progressive-ism = Regressive-ism.
FYI says
The only way you could prove blasphemy was offensive to God/YHWH,al lah,buddha..would be to get their view on the matter and of course you can’t do that.
You would have to invite them to trial .
“The court invites God/allah/buddha to the witness stand..
prosecutor;so G/a/b have you been offended by this blasphemy?
Gab……..
prosecutor :no comment eh?playing the right to silence card huh?
Gab……..”
It is “holy” men who get to decide what it is THEY find offensive:but ask them to PROVE the deity was personally offended by it.
UNCLE VLADDI says
All “blasphemy laws” are against free speech, logic, rationality, facts and truth.
All religions are – at best – merely speculations presented as facts (FRAUDS).
Making “laws” punishing people for debating and challenging fraud is insane.
OLD GUY says
Islam at work, only they are overly offended when someone questions their Muhammad’s words. But this fits in well with their plan to control and rule the world. Freedom fo speech and thought are the enemy of all dictators, as their ideology can’t stand up to scrutiny.