And the differentiation continues throughout; Murdering is different to Planning to murder and that's different to actually contemplating murdering which in turn is recognised as different to merely contemplating murder (for literary, philosophical etc. purposes).
My point is that our justice system judges the nature and gravity of the offence against, for the most part, the actually amount of injury caused. This is generally considered just and fair, and is probably the most egalitarian way of conducting inter-human disputes. However, in the case of blasphemy, I feel the normal rules of common sense break down and the law follows.
To illustrate, two similar scenarios.
Scenario 1.
There is a room full of people all chatting and drinking. Two human rights activists, Dawn and Derrick, are talking about a news story of a local rape case. Dawn makes the comment that "It appears the woman started off 'asking for it' but then changed her mind".
Derrick, not really comfortable with talking about the story and thinking it's supposed to be a party, simply agrees, "yes, circumstances of consent in date rape cases make rape very difficult to discern and a man is falsely accused."
Fatima overhears the conversation and calls the police. She complains that Derrick is "Promoting the concept that it's okay to doubt the veracity of a rape victim's claim."
What would the police do?
Most likely they'd explain how no offence had been committed and while they understood her point of view, there's really nothing they can do.
Scenario 2.
There is a room full of people all chatting and drinking. Two human rights activists, Dawn and Derrick, are talking about a news story of a recent stoning in a theocracy. Dawn makes the comment, "It's shocking! It appears the woman was caught talking to a man who was not her husband and her religion says that's the punishment!"
Derrick, not really comfortable with talking about the story and thinking it's supposed to be a party, simply agrees, "Yes, it's dreadful what goes on; religion has a lot to answer for. It's very wrong; how could any real god sanction such vile barbarism?"
Fatima overhears the conversation and calls the police. She complains that Derrick is "Promoting the concept that it's okay to doubt the veracity of the words of her god.
What would the police do?
Sadly, in some countries, where there's a theocratic justice system, the police would be around to capture the blasphemer, 'try' him then put him prison and eventually behead him or, maybe if he's rich, score some kudos with those in power and let him off with a fine?
Actual theft or damage, of goods, life, or liberty has not been perpetrated in either scenario; no actual physical action has taken place and 'offence' has been registered ONLY within the mind of an observer.
Now, whether it is a learned response or not, can that really be considered as anything other than a self-inflicted thought crime?
And so, to the question for this post...
Why is the 'offence' in Scenario 1 not treated as harshly as the 'offence' in scenario 2?
Do we collectively truly believe that the difficulties rape victims face are less worthy of protection than what is, arguably, merely a fictional character from a very old novel?
I don't think we all truly do, so why is the special pleading allowed for blasphemy?
Why is there this injustice in favour of blasphemy?
Which prompts the further muse, Why even have a blasphemy law in a non-theocratic state?
Must it be because a blasphemy law benefits the rulers in some way?
Finally then, just something to ponder on...
Is Blasphemy the only self-inflicted thought crime?
Or can you think of others?
PEACE
Crispy
Crispy
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!
