Blasphemy is a Human Right

On September 12, 2011, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of the United Nations released General Comment No. 34, protecting blasphemy as a basic human right that should be respected and upheld by the state.

The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, Article 133 "Offending Religious Feelings" criminalizes blasphemy and therefore, should be repealed. This archaic and medieval provision of the Penal Code is a handover from the time when the Philippines served as the largest monastery of the Catholic Church.

GC No. 34, par. 3 states: "Freedom of expression is a necessary condition for the realization of the principles of transparency and accountability that are, in turn, essential for the promotion and protection of human rights." In a modern, republican state, there is no place for religious bigotry, indeed, the history of religion, whatever religion, shows that there is a clear preponderance towards wanton violation of human rights in the name of religion. Paragraph 3 clearly states that human rights can only be protected when the right to express one's opinions is truly respected. In fact, religion is itself an opinion, therefore, it cannot be used to superside nor used to persecute those who express other opinions, either because of a different religious faith or because there is none. Par. 9 states: "All forms of opinion are protected, including opinions of a political, scientific, historic, moral or RELIGIOUS NATURE."

Par. 9 further affirms the inalienable right to free expression by stating that "no person may be subject to the impairment of any rights under the Covenant on the basis of his or her actual, perceived or supposed opinions."

Sometime in late September 2011, the Filipino Artist Mideo Cruz exhibited his artwork titled "Poleteismo" at the Cultural Center of the Philippines, after several weeks, the exhibit was closed citing threats to persons and property. This is an unfortunate event indeed for the right to free expression and speaks of the need to educate society about the essence of democracy in general and free expression in particular. Par. 11 extends freedom of expression to "political discourse, commentary on one's own and public affairs, canvassing, discussion of human rights, journalism, CULTURAL AND ARTISTIC EXPRESSION, teaching, and religious discourse."

However, the right to expression and by extension, to blaspheme is regulated, par. 28 states: "The first of the legitimate grounds for restriction.... is that of respect for the rights or reputation of others." These rights include "human rights." Under par. 29, "The second legitimate ground is that of protection of national security or of public order or of public health or morals." Under par. 33, "restictions must be 'necessary' for a legitimate purpose" and it must not be overboard (par. 34). What this means is that "restrictive measures must conform to the principle of proportionality; they must be appropriate to achieve their protective functions; they must be least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve their protective function; they must be proportionate to the interest to be protected...."

In circumstances which might require the need to regulate and restrict the freedom of expression, the state "must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat" (par. 35).

Under par. 48, blasphemy laws of any form are incompatible with the concept of human rights, except in consideration of justifiable circumstances taking into consideration the rights of others and for the maintenance of national security, public health and morals and restrictions and punishments must always be proportionate to the act committed and specific to particular circumstances only.