Blasphemy Laws: Human Rights Abuses and Global Contexts, Lecture notes of Law

Download Blasphemy Laws: Human Rights Abuses and Global Contexts and more Lecture notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!

VIOLATING RIGHTS

ENFORCING THE WORLD’S

BLASPHEMY LAWS

UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

USCIRF’S MISSION

To advance international freedom of religion or belief, by

independently assessing and unflinchingly confronting threats

to this fundamental right.

chair Gayle Manchin vice chair Tony Perkins vice chair Anurima Bhargava commissioners Gary Bauer James W. Carr Frederick A. Davie Nadine Maenza Johnnie Moore Nury Turkel executive director Erin D. Singshinsuk

43 Conclusion

45 About the Authors

47 About The Benjamin B. Ferencz Human Rights and Atrocity Prevention Clinic

49 Acknowledgments

51 Annex 1: Changes in Blasphemy Laws Since 2014

55 Annex 2: Criminal Blasphemy Laws as of 2020

93 Annex 3: Research Questions

22 Violating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy LawsViolating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy Laws

ABOUT THE UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON

INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

WHO WE ARE

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) is an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government commission created by the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA). USCIRF uses international standards to monitor violations of religious freedom or belief abroad 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. The Commission’s work is supported by a professional, nonpartisan staff of regional subject matter experts. USCIRF is separate from the State Department, although the Department’s Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom is a non-voting, ex officio Commissioner.

WHAT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS Inherent in religious freedom is the right to believe or not believe as one’s conscience leads, and to live out one’s beliefs openly, peacefully, and without fear. Freedom of religion or belief is an expansive right that includes the freedoms of thought, conscience, expression, association, and assembly. While religious freedom is America’s first freedom, it also is a core human right that international law and treaty recognize; a necessary component of U.S. foreign policy and America’s commitment to defending democracy and freedom globally; and a vital element of national security, critical to ensuring a more peaceful, prosperous, and stable world.

Violating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy LawsViolating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy Laws 33

OVERVIEW

In this report, the authors examine and compare state implementation and enforcement of criminal laws

prohibiting blasphemy (“blasphemy laws”) worldwide over the five-year period between January 2014 and

December 2018. The criminal cases this study analyzes represent states’ enforcement of laws that sanction

the expression of opinions or actions deemed “blasphemous,” or counter to majority views or religious

belief systems. Many such laws impose serious penalties, including prison, forced labor, or death, upon

those convicted.

1 Joelle Fiss & Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Respecting Rights? Measuring the World’s Blasphemy Laws 2 (2017). 2 For example, in Pakistan individuals often take justice into their own hands and murder alleged blasphemers. See Helen Haft & Joelle Fiss, How Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws Trigger Violence, Free Speech Debate (Dec. 10, 2019), https://freespeechdebate.com/2019/12/how-pakistans-blasphemy-laws-trigger-violence/ (last visited Sept. 21, 2020).

Countries throughout the world have and continue to enforce criminal blasphemy laws, often justifying them as necessary to promote intergroup religious harmony.^1 In some states, however, civilians enforce blasphemy prohibitions extrajudicially, committing acts of violence in the name of protecting God, religion, and “the sacred.”^2 Analyzing the ways in which states and private, non-state actors enforce these laws may assist the public policy community in developing clear, tailored recommendations for areas of criminal legal reform, especially in states with vague laws, harsh penalties, and high levels of enforcement. An analysis of criminal blasphemy cases reported in the news and adjudicated in courts identifies the contexts in which blasphemy laws may increase the risk of human rights abuses, through state acts or omissions, indicating the places and ways in which targeted law reform could lower that risk.

Part I is an introduction, defining blasphemy and criminal blasphemy law enforcement for the purposes of this study. It also explores the risks of potential abuse in the implementation and enforcement of these laws.

Part II describes the study’s methodology, including the systematic collection of cases. It also explains the creation of indicators and questions to measure blasphemy law enforcement, the coding and decision-making process, and the data analysis. Part III examines the study results and highlights select findings within the political, cultural, and legal contexts that shape how criminal blasphemy laws are implemented and enforced globally. Part IV concludes the study, noting some of the study’s limitations, while also providing a template for future studies of blasphemy laws and enforcement. The report also includes three annexes. Annex 1 reviews recent legislative changes to criminal blasphemy provisions, including reforms and repeals in countries globally since

2014. Annex 2 compiles the blasphemy laws with criminal sanctions in force as of 2020. Finally, Annex 3 includes the study tool with the questions/indicators developed to measure enforcement across country contexts.

Violating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy LawsViolating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy Laws 55

This page intentionally left blank.

6 Violating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy Laws

• Mauritania has joined Brunei, Iran, and Pakistan as the countries in the world with the death penalty as punishment for insult to religion.^17

CRIMINAL BLASPHEMY LAW STATE ENFORCEMENT

• In nearly half (41, or 49%) of the 84 countries with criminal blasphemy laws on the books, researchers found cases of state enforcement against alleged blasphemers during the five-year period reviewed (2014–2018). Researchers identified 674 cases of state criminal blasphemy law enforcement across those 41 countries.
• In 43, or 51%, of these 84 countries, researchers did not find a single case of enforcement of criminal blasphemy laws or enforcement against blasphemous conduct, suggesting that enforcement is extremely low—if it exists at all—in these contexts.
• Ten (10) countries account for more than four-fifths (81%) of all reported cases of state criminal blasphemy enforcement. From January 2014 through December 2018, the top 10 countries that have enforced blasphemy (or other) laws against alleged blasphemers most frequently are: Pakistan (184), Iran (96), Russia (58), India (51), Egypt (44), Indonesia (39), Yemen (24), Bangladesh (19), Saudi Arabia (16), and Kuwait (15). Of these states, 70% declare Islam the official state religion.^18
• The three (3) countries without an official state religion that have the highest state enforcement of blasphemy laws are Russia, India, and Indonesia. In these states, the governments favor certain religions (Christianity for Russia, Hinduism for India, and six recognized faiths for Indonesia).^19
• Together, the Asia-Pacific and Middle East regions accounted for 84% of the world’s enforcement of blasphemy (or other) laws from January 2014 through December 2018.
• Although Latin American and Caribbean countries have criminal blasphemy laws on the books, researchers found no reported cases of state enforcement of criminal blasphemy (or other) laws in Latin America and the Caribbean from January 2014 through December 2018.
• In 66% of cases of enforcement, reports identified the law that state officials applied to enforce against blasphemous acts. Where information was available, 81% of those cases identified a blasphemy law. Nineteen percent (19%) of those cases used another criminal law to enforce against blasphemous conduct.
• Where reported, states enforced criminal blasphemy laws against men more frequently than against women. Of the 674 reported cases found, 482 (71%) indicated the

gender of the accused blasphemers. In an overwhelming majority—406 of those 482 cases, or 84%—the state accused men of criminal blasphemy, while in only 76 cases, or 16%, the state accused women.

• In just over half (51%) of cases found, news reports identified the religion or belief of the accused. Of those cases, Muslims accounted for more than half (56%) of the persons arrested, prosecuted, and/or punished for alleged blasphemy crimes. Of accused Muslims, Shia were the largest Muslim group identified (51%), followed by Sunni (8%), Gafatar (6%), Tijaniyya (5%), Ahmadi (5%), and Salafists (2%). Christians accounted for 25% of accused persons. Other groups frequently targeted for criminal blasphemy law enforcement, where identified, included: Atheists (7%), Baha’is (7%), and Hindus (3%).
• Professions accused of blasphemy most frequently reported are lawyers; academics; media professionals; religious figures; artists; political actors, including government officials; and human rights activists or political dissidents.
• Although not enough data exist to show trends, of the 674 cases of criminal blasphemy enforcement around the globe during the study period, 11 accused persons were reported to have had physical or mental disabilities , 10 were illiterate , and 18 were reported to have converted. The 18 conversion cases were charged with blasphemy crimes in Yemen , Egypt , Iran , Saudi Arabia , Algeria, and Sri Lanka. STATE-SPONSORED VIOLENCE
• Researchers noted incidents in which state officials allegedly committed acts of violence, including torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment, against accused blasphemers in Pakistan , Iran , Algeria, and Egypt.
• In addition to torture, state officials reportedly subjected accused individuals to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment while in custody in Iran , Kazakhstan , Kuwait , Oman , Pakistan , Russia , Saudi Arabia, and Sri Lanka. HUMAN RIGHTS DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS
• In addition to state-sponsored violence against alleged blasphemers, researchers found several criminal blasphemy law enforcement cases with reported state due process violations. At least one due process violation was reported in each of the following countries: Bangladesh , Egypt , India , Iran , Mauritania , Oman , Pakistan , Russia , Saudi Arabia , Spain , Sri Lanka , Sudan, and Yemen.

Summary of Findings

8 Violating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy Laws

MOB VIOLENCE OR THREATS OF MOB VIOLENCE

• Of the 674 cases of state enforcement, researchers found 78 cases in which mob activity, threats, and/or violence around blasphemy allegations coincided with state enforcement of blasphemy laws. Such cases occurred in Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Jordan, Russia, Algeria, Malaysia, Kuwait, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan.
• Researchers also identified 58 incidents when mob activity, mob violence, and/or threats of violence occurred around rumors or allegations of blasphemy, without state enforcement of the criminal blasphemy law. These incidences were reported in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Egypt, Russia, Afghanistan, India, Lebanon, and Maldives.
• Four (4) countries—Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Egypt—account for nearly 8 0% of all reported incidents of mob activity, mob violence, and/or threats of violence, with or without state blasphemy or other law enforcement.

SOCIAL MEDIA

• More than one-quarter (27%) of reported cases implicated alleged blasphemous speech posted on social media platforms.
• The ten (10) countries with the highest number of reported cases implicating social media during the study period were: Russia , Iran , Egypt , India , Pakistan , Indonesia , Bangladesh , Saudi Arabia , Turkey, and Bahrain.
• Of social media-related cases, the platforms most implicated are Facebook (47%), followed by Twitter , Vkontakte , YouTube , Instagram , WhatsApp, and Telegram.

Summary of Findings

Violating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy Laws 9

INTRODUCTION

Blasphemy is the “act of expressing contempt or a lack of reverence for God or sacred things.”^1 For the

purposes of this study, laws prohibiting blasphemy (“blasphemy laws”) include provisions of country laws

that criminally sanction defamation of religion and seek to punish individuals for allegedly offending,

insulting, or denigrating religious doctrines, deities, symbols, or “the sacred,” and for wounding or

insulting religious feelings.^2 Blasphemy laws are located throughout states’ legal texts, including inter alia

constitutions, criminal codes, and media laws.^3

Blasphemy laws generally are deemed to be inconsistent with international human rights standards, violating international standards of the rights to freedom of expression (FoE) and freedom of religion or belief (FoRB). The authors’ previous study for the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), the 2017 report Respecting Rights? Measuring the World’s Blasphemy Laws, found that blasphemy laws existed in at least 71 countries globally^4 and analyzed these laws’ texts against international human rights principles.^5 That report’s coding and evaluation tool confirmed that all blasphemy laws analyzed deviated from one or more internationally recognized human rights principles.^6 Most laws, even those with criminal sanctions, were vaguely worded, did not specify intent, and carried unduly harsh penalties for violators.^7 That innovative project contributed to advocacy efforts to confront the risks of abuse of such laws. Indeed, it has served as an important tool for human rights defenders, governments, civil society, academics, social media providers, and legal experts.^8

The severity of a blasphemy law on paper, however, tells only half of the story. Whether and how states implement and enforce such laws are of equal importance to assessing the impact of blasphemy laws on FoE and FoRB rights. This question was not answered in the 2017 report.

In order to capture the full extent of the human rights abuses related to blasphemy laws and identify patterns connected with their implementation, this study builds upon the previous report by mapping publicly reported criminal blasphemy cases over the five-year period from January 2014 through December 2018. Of the 84 countries we identified in the world with criminal blasphemy laws, researchers found 674 cases of state criminal blasphemy law enforcement and 58 additional incidents of mob violence or threats of mob violence for a total of 732 cases in 41 countries. We also developed key indicators to understand the context surrounding their implementation and enforcement. This

report identifies factors and trends in enforcement of criminal blasphemy laws to support future advocacy and policy analysis related to blasphemy law reform. The authors chose a conservative approach to define, identify, and examine cases of blasphemy enforcement, focusing on publicly reported legal cases. The authors also included, but analyzed separately, incidents of mob violence and threats of mob violence to understand the way in which enforcement happens through private action or state omission. Aside from these issues, blasphemy is also implicated in political protests, individual complaints, public condemnations of allegedly blasphemous speech, censoring publications of personalities (e.g., authors, artists, journalists) accused of blasphemy, and the least traceable element of self-censorship, but these were not the focus of this study. DEFINITION OF STATE ENFORCEMENT For the purposes of this study, state enforcement of criminal blasphemy laws is defined as any affirmative action initiated by government officials, including, but not limited to, law enforcement officers (e.g., police, security agents, prison officials) or judicial authorities (e.g., prosecutors, judges) seeking to compel compliance with laws and regulations targeting blasphemous speech or conduct. The study defines “affirmative action” as any reported action by officials that could have resulted in criminal sanctions regardless of whether it led to an investigation, arrest, prosecution, and/or punishment of the alleged blasphemer. Preliminary investigations and/or dropped charges also are considered affirmative state actions. Thus, a “case” of blasphemy law enforcement corresponds to government officials’ efforts directed against an individual alleged to have engaged in blasphemous speech or conduct and may or may not include a state-led legal criminal action against a defendant in a court of law.

Violating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy LawsViolating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy Laws 1111

For the data collection phase of this study, the researchers identified three categories that constituted a “case” of state criminal blasphemy law enforcement. Incidents that fell into one of these three categories were recorded as “cases of criminal blasphemy law enforcement.” The following box describes these three categories:

Categories of State Enforcement Cases Explained Category 1: Government officials act to enforce one or more of the criminal blasphemy laws identified (and included in Annex 2). Government officials include, but are not limited to, law enforcement officers (e.g., police, security agents, prison officials) or judicial authorities (e.g., prosecutors, judges). Category 2: Government officials act to enforce what is deemed blasphemous speech or conduct using other penal code provisions not identified as traditional blasphemy laws by the researchers (and therefore not included in Annex 2). Examples of laws that can be used to target allegedly blasphemous conduct include, but are not limited to: telecommunications^9 and press laws,^10 anti-extremism laws,^11 incitement to hatred laws,^12 anti-conversion laws,^13 and apostasy laws.^14 In order to document these incidents as Category 2 “cases of enforcement,” researchers examined the nature of the underlying act(s) to determine whether the act was blasphemous according to the study’s definition of blasphemy.^15 Category 3: Government officials or other state employees retaliate against an individual accused of engaging in blasphemous conduct through perpetrating illegal, extrajudicial punitive measures (e.g., extrajudicial killings,^16 enforced disappearances,^17 acts of torture) against the alleged blasphemer. This category of state enforcement is usually accompanied by physical violence that results in the death or serious injury of the accused. These cases are less frequent but are common enough to justify their inclusion as a separate category.

NOTES 1 U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Policy Brief, Prisoners of Belief: Individuals Jailed Under Blasphemy Laws 1 (2014). 2 This definition is the same definition the authors used in the first study looking at the content of the laws. U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Respecting Rights? Measuring the World’s Blasphemy Laws 5 (2017). 3 U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Respecting Rights? Measuring the World’s Blasphemy Laws 5 (2017). 4 U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Respecting Rights? Measuring the World’s Blasphemy Laws 3 (2017). 5 U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Respecting Rights? Measuring the World’s Blasphemy Laws 8 (2017). 6 U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Respecting Rights? Measuring the World’s Blasphemy Laws 1 (2017). The indicators developed included the following: freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of religion or belief, vagueness of the law, severity of the penalty, discrimination against groups, state religion protections, speech and forum limitations, and hierarchy of the law. 7 U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Respecting Rights? Measuring the World’s Blasphemy Laws 1 (2017). 8 Unique in scope, size, and ambition, the compilation and evaluation of anti- blasphemy laws worldwide was made possible through the authors’ partnership with USCIRF and built on their previous research in partnership with Human Rights First. 9 See, e.g., UAE Federal Law, Law No 2 of 2015 on Preventing Discrimination and Hatred (the “Law”).

10 See, e.g., Article 45 Law on Mass Media, 2009 (Afghanistan), https://www.refworld. org/docid/5ddce5604.html (last visited Sept. 1, 2020); Iran Press Law, http://www. parstimes.com/law/press_law.html (last visited Oct. 29, 2020); Douglas Griffin, Introduction to News Media Law and Policy in Jordan at 35, http://global.asc.upenn. edu/fileLibrary/PDFs/JMSPprimer_english.pdf (last visited April 22, 2013). 11 See Annex 2, Russia, Article 282 of Criminal Code. 12 See Annex 2, Uzbekistan, Article 156 of Criminal Code. 13 See Annex 2, Section 158 of Nepal’s Criminal Code, http://www.moljpa.gov.np/en/ wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Penal-Code-English-Revised-1.pdf. 14 See Annex 2, Mauritania, Article 306 of Criminal Code. 15 See Introduction, supra. In some situations, it proved difficult to determine the law being used because secondary sources did not include that information. In such cases, the researcher assessed the nature of the underlying act and made an independent determination as to whether it was blasphemous conduct or not. If the researcher determined the nature of the act to be blasphemous, the incident was recorded as a case of state enforcement of a blasphemy prohibition. See Part V. Limitations, infra. 16 For example, Pakistani Policeman Kills Blasphemy Suspect with Axe, Bangkok Post (Nov. 6, 2014), https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/441830/pakistani-policeman-kills- blasphemy-suspect-with-axe. 17 For example, Iran: Arrest Followed by an Enforced Disappearance of Poet, PEN America (Mar. 29, 2018), https://pen.org/rapid-action/iran-arrest-followed-enforced- disappearance-poet/.

Introduction

12 Violating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy Laws

Cases of State Enforcement

Researchers recorded incidents as cases of state enforcement when incidents fell into one of three categories, explained supra, in Part I: (1) actions by government officials^10 to enforce a state’s criminal blasphemy laws; (2) actions by government officials to enforce other laws against allegedly blasphemous conduct; and (3) retaliation by government officials against alleged blasphemers by perpetrating extrajudicial, punitive measures against them.

Mob Violence or Threats of Violence

Blasphemy allegations and enforcement often are coupled with extrajudicial violence, imminent threats to violence or even intimidation tactics, including mob presence. In addition to recording state criminal blasphemy law enforcement, researchers recorded incidents in which perpetrators committed acts of violence and/or threatened violence: (1) against the alleged blasphemer;^11 (2) against individuals associated with the alleged blasphemer (i.e., lawyers, family members, or members of the same religious or belief community);^12 or (3) in a generalized manner in contexts arising from rumors or threats linked to the blasphemy allegations. Researchers excluded blasphemy- related political protests.^13

Imminent threats, mob activity, and violence at the hands of private, non-state actors was a recurring phenomenon, even when states did not enforce their criminal blasphemy laws. Like state enforcement, extrajudicial violence aimed at upholding blasphemy laws legitimizes the laws. Consequently, private, non-state actor violence, and state acquiescence to such violence, is integral to understanding the consequences of criminal blasphemy laws in country-specific contexts.

Researchers struggled to be consistent in tracking mob intimidation and violence. For the sake of clarity and reliability, the following decisions were made. To capture the sense of insecurity caused by mobs and threats of mob violence, researchers recorded “mob presence” in the mapping database’s category of mob violence. Researchers also recorded the types of mob violence linked to blasphemy allegations when possible. If there was mob violence or the threat of mob violence, the researchers sought to determine whether people were injured and/or killed or if any property (e.g., private homes, places of worship) was destroyed. If the type of mob activity was not coded in the database, that could signify that either the type of mob activity was not recorded in reliable sources or there was no mob activity but merely mob presence.

In contrast to the methodology employed in tracking incidents of state enforcement, which recorded each individual accused of blasphemy as a separate case,

researchers did not code individual victims of mob violence as separate cases, given the difficulty of determining the precise number killed or injured by violent crowds. Depending on press reports covering an event, numbers could vary significantly. Similarly, researchers did not record the number of individuals killed or injured in protests,^14 including those organized by Islamist groups or political parties, against blasphemy, even if they attracted mobilized crowds.^15 While such crowds and protests frequently triggered threats of violence or actual mob violence against an alleged blasphemer or associated individuals or groups, it was often difficult to discern the number of casualties or deaths during these events. Therefore, researchers recorded deaths and casualties where they were reported to the best of their abilities. Nevertheless, in instances of mob violence, their tracking of casualties may not always fully capture the destruction that occurred.

Mapping Database Researchers developed a set of indicators and methodology for systematic data collection and analysis. For each country identified as having a criminal blasphemy law in force during the study period, researchers gathered information on the country’s legal system using databases such as Globalex^16 and World LII.^17 Next, in order to understand general contexts, trends, and high-profile cases of criminal blasphemy law enforcement in each country, researchers examined academic scholarship and civil society reports related to blasphemy in that state. To identify specific cases of criminal blasphemy law enforcement, researchers engaged in several steps. First, researchers conducted an initial “Google sweep,” searching multiple key terms through phrase searching,^18 Boolean searching,^19 and, where available, truncation searching^20 on Google. Researchers examined the names of statutes and penal code provisions criminalizing blasphemy, as well as specific phrases within the blasphemy laws themselves that indicate language states use to define blasphemy.^21 After the initial search, researchers conducted a more targeted search, examining reports from reputable organizations and databases of national and local news sources to identify incidents of blasphemy and criminal blasphemy law enforcement. The goal was to locate primary law sources (court cases). Where primary documents were found or provided, they were analyzed and downloaded. However, access to primary sources was difficult in nearly every country context.^22 Thus, collecting and analyzing secondary sources (i.e., newspaper, journal, and other media reports) became a critical source of information.^23 Secondary sources were downloaded and Permalinked^24 to ensure continued access to the data.

Study Design & Methodology

14 Violating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy Laws

Researchers identified and examined indicators that cover a range of information relevant to state criminal blasphemy law enforcement across several categories: (1) general information; (2) identity information of the person accused of blasphemy; (3) religious or belief identity information of the person accused of blasphemy; (4) the state and religions; (5) inciting incident facts; (6) mob presence, mob activity, mob violence, and/or threats of violence; (7) use of social media; (8) executive enforcement actions; (9) judicial enforcement actions; (10) penalties; and (11) identity information of the person who accused an individual of blasphemous speech. In addition, notes were included on specifics of each case to ensure that all relevant information was captured for the sake of data analysis and interpretation. For details on the questions examined, see Annex 3.

Notes and Fact-Checking

Finally, researchers included extensive notes for any and all information about a case of state enforcement that did not fit into a precise question. These notes were used to fact- check the data entered multiple times, in order to ensure data consistency.

Multiple Individuals Affected by a Single Inciting Incident of Enforcement

Researchers entered each case of state enforcement as a separate row in an excel file database (“mapping database”). If one case implied legal consequences for several individuals, each person was recorded in a separate row as a separate case of enforcement. The researchers made every attempt to verify the accuracy of the information related to a case via at least two independent secondary sources (or primary source, if available). Countries with governments that repealed their blasphemy laws either before or during the relevant period

of study were not included in the mapping database or in Annex 2, even if they had active cases of state enforcement during the study period.

Data Analysis The researchers developed and populated a database using Google Sheets. To permit constant updating and evolving data, researchers worked with a data analyst who chose the Microsoft Power BI software tool for data analysis. Microsoft Power BI allows automatic data processing, groups of values, and recalculated columns. The columns containing descriptive information were transformed into calculable values. An example of this work was the treatment of dates which can be presented in different national formats, in full form, or simply one month and one year, or one year only. Some uncertain dates were presented as a range of dates. A reference date had to be redefined with the participation of the researchers. All dates were translated into a reference year. The number of different dates attributed to a case sometimes made it difficult to define a clear reference year. Columns intended to receive binary data (e.g., yes/no) were completed with remarks intended for research purposes. Here again, in collaboration with the researchers it was necessary to decide on binary values: yes/no/unknown. In the binary values, researchers chose to treat the “no,” “no answer,” or empty rows differently from each other. The gaps are treated as “unknown” and separated so that the error rate on positive responses and the overall validity of the expressed data can be calculated. Many categories were manually defined so that sub-categories (e.g., regions, professions) could be included for the sake of identifying trends.

Study Design & Methodology

Violating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy Laws 15

FINDINGS

BLASPHEMY CRIMES ENFORCEMENT: GLOBAL TRENDS

Figure 1. Total Number of Incidents of Mob Activity, Mob Violence, and/or Threats of Mob Violence and State Enforced Criminal Blasphemy Cases, by Country, 2014–

SICILY

ANDORRA USA

USA CANADA

MEXICO

GREENLAND

CHINA

MONGOLIA

ARGENTINA

SOUTHAFRICA

JAPAN CUBA

VENEZUELA

PERU

NIGER

COLOMBIA

BOLIVIA

MALI

CONGO

CHILE

CHAD

ECUADOR

NAMIBIA

ANGOLA

NICARAGUA

MADAGASCAR

VIETNAM

FRANCE

IRELAND ROMANIA

KINGDOMUNITED

GREECE

NORWAY ALEUTIAN ISLANDS

QUEEN ELISABETH ISLANDS

HAITIDOMINICANREPUBLICPUERTO RICO COSTA RICAPANAMA

BELIZEHONDURAS GUATEMALAEL SALVADOR FRENCHGUIANA

PARAGUAY URUGUAY

MALVINAS

GALAPAGOSISLANDS

ICELAND

MALTA

PORTUGAL SARDINIA

DENMARK BELGIUMNETH.

SWEDEN CZECH REP. BELARUS AUSTRIACROATIAHUNGARYSLOVAKIA SERBIAMACEDONIABULGARIA

LITHUANIAESTONIALATVIA

GEORGIAAZERBAIJAN

BHUTAN

NORTHKOREA SOUTHKOREA

LAOS CAMBODIA

ZEALANDNEW

FUJI

WESTERSAHARA SENEGAL GUINEA-BISSAUSIERRAGUINEA LEONELIBERIAD’IVOIRECOTE

BURKINAFASO GHANATOGOBENIN AFRICAN REP.CENTRAL GABONREP. OF THECONGO

MOZAMBIQUE

BURUNDI

UGANDA

DJIBUTI

ALBANIA ARMENIA

11

RUSSIA

INDIA

AUSTRALIA

OMAN

NEPAL EGYPT

LIBYA

TUNISIA

SUDAN

ALGERIA MAURITANIA NIGERIA

BAHRAINKUWAITIRAN UNITED ARABEMIRATESPAKISTAN

AFGHANISTAN

KAZAKHSTAN

GERMANYPOLAND

SPAIN

INDONESIA

YEMEN

ARABIASAUDI

JORDAN

TURKEY

ITALY

BANGLADESH

SRI LANKA MALAYSIASINGAPORE

LEBANON

BURMA

IRAQ

MALDIVES

THAILAND

KYRGYZSTAN

ZAMBIAMALAWI

PHILIPPINES

ZIMBABWE

605860586061

(^21228) 2852

(^282 )

1828

286

283

11

4 24

8

5860

9696 77 5151

4444 182183

(^9911)

24

1616

1313

1515

33

22

22

11

11 11

11 11

12

11

11

22

55

(^44) 44 44

4

55

(^778) 88

22 77

(^2222)

1919

3939

77

11

4 24

8

5860

9696 77 5151

4544 182183

(^9911)

24

1616

1313

1515

33

22

22

11

11 11

11 11

12

11

11

22

55

(^44) 44 45

4

55

(^778) 88

22 77

(^2222)

1919

3939

77

ANTIGUA & BARBUDA

BOTSWANA

BRAZIL

CAMEROON BRUNEI

CAPE VERDE

COMOROSMAURITIUS

CYPRUS

ERITREA ETHIOPIA

FINLAND

TRINIDAD & TOBAGOGRENADA GAMBIA GUYANA (^) SURINAME

ISRAEL JAMAICA

KENYA

LIECHTENSTEINSAN MARINOMONTENEGRO MOLDOVA

NORTHERN IRELAND

MOROCCO

NEW GUINEAPAPUA

QATAR

RWANDA

SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINESSAINT LUCIA

SCOTLAND

SEYCHELLES

SOMALIA

SOUTHSUDAN

SWITZ SYRIA TAJIKISTAN

TANZANIA

TURKMENISTAN

UKRAINE UZBEKISTAN

VANUATU

Orange circles represent the total number of incidents, including cases of state enforcement and incidents of mob activity, mob violence, and/or threats of mob violence.

From January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2018, researchers found 732 reported blasphemy-related incidents across 41 countries with criminal blasphemy laws on the books.^1 Of those 732 incidents, 674 were reported cases of state criminal blasphemy law enforcement and 58 were incidents of mob violence or threats of mob violence.

Figure 2. Reported Incidents of Mob Activity, Mob Violence, and/or Threats of Mob Violence Related to State Law Enforcement of Criminal Blasphemy Cases, 2014–

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

Pakistan

Iran RussiaIndiaEgypt Indonesia

Yemen BangladeshSaudi Arabia

KuwaitNigeriaTurkey

Italy Bahrain

UAE AlgeriaJordanMalaysiaSri Lanka AfghanistanKazakhstan

LebanonPoland

SpainSudanBurmaIraqLibya Maldives

NepalOman ThailandTunisiaAustriaGermany Kyrgyzstan

Malawi MauritaniaPhilippinesSingaporeZimbabwe

• Reported cases of state criminal blasphemy (or other) law enforcement.
• Reported incidents of mob activity, mob violence, and/or threats of mob violence without state enforcement.

Violating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy LawsViolating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy Laws 1717

Reported cases likely are an underestimate of the true number of cases of state criminal blasphemy law enforcement given that many blasphemy cases go unreported in the media or are publicly reported in local news sources in languages other than those of the research team, which included English, French, Persian/Dari, Russian, and Spanish.

The number of cases across each country with criminal blasphemy laws on the books varied greatly, ranging from zero reported cases to 184 cases, during the study period. In 43, or 51%, of these 84 countries, researchers did not find a single case of enforcement of criminal blasphemy laws or enforcement against blasphemous conduct, suggesting that it is extremely low—if it exists at all—in these contexts.^2 During the study period, no reported cases of state enforcement were found in Latin America and the Caribbean. In the 41 countries across Asia-Pacific, the Middle East, Europe, and Africa, researchers found that enforcement exists to varying degrees, from 1 reported case in 8 different countries^3 to 184 reported cases in Pakistan during the study period.

Figure 3. Criminal Blasphemy Enforcement Cases by State, 2014–

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

Pakistan

Iran RussiaIndiaEgypt Indonesia

Yemen BangladeshSaudi Arabia

KuwaitNigeriaTurkey

Italy Bahrain

UAE AlgeriaJordanMalaysia Sri Lanka AfghanistanKazakhstan

LebanonPoland

SpainSudanBurmaIraqLibya Maldives

NepalOman ThailandTunisiaAustriaGermany Kyrgyzstan

Malawi MauritaniaPhilippinesSingaporeZimbabwe

• The highest number of cases of state enforcement occurred in Asia Pacific (49%), the Middle East (35%), Europe (11%), and Africa (5%).

Table 1. Reported Criminal Blasphemy Law Enforcement Cases by State and Region, 2014– Regions States with Reported Criminal Blasphemy Law Enforcement Cases Asia-Pacific Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Kazakhstan, Burma, Maldives, Nepal, Thailand, Philippines, Singapore, Kyrgyzstan Middle East Iran, Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Algeria, Jordan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, Oman Europe Russia, Turkey, Italy, Poland, Spain, Austria, Germany Africa Nigeria, Sudan, Tunisia, Malawi, Mauritania, Zimbabwe Latin America & the Caribbean None

Findings

18 Violating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy Laws