Legal Feeds
Canadian Lawyer

Social Justice: Time for Canada to get rid of its blasphemy laws

Can someone please tell me how we can justify the inclusion of blasphemy as a criminal offence in Canada?
Social Justice: Time for Canada to get rid of its blasphemy lawsSection 296 of the Criminal Code makes it an indictable offence for anyone to publish a blasphemous libel. The maximum sentence is a term of imprisonment not to exceed two years. Yes, there have been no prosecutions for about 80 years and I suspect any future prosecution would face a successful Charter challenge. But the law remains in the Criminal Code and to that extent it reflects Canadian public policy.

The Criminal Code doesn’t define the term blasphemous libel, instead leaving it up to the courts to define it. Historically in Canada, the offence applied only to exposing Christianity to ridicule, but there’s no reason to believe the offence couldn’t encompass insults to any religion.

The United Kingdom abolished its blasphemy laws in 2008. The United States has never had such laws. But many other countries have laws making it an offence to publish blasphemous statements. There are some international movements both to abolish blasphemy laws and also to make it an offence to insult any religion. Indeed, there’s a United Nations declaration recommending the institution of such an offence.

Blasphemy laws are particularly odious. According to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, the “application of these laws has resulted in the jailing of individuals for merely expressing a different religious belief or under false accusations.” The most recent policy brief on the topic issued by the U.S. commission lists 40 people who are serving prison terms following convictions for blasphemy.

As the commission pointed out, blasphemy laws “have been proven to be ripe for abuse and easily manipulated with false accusations.” These laws “encourage extremists to enforce their notion of truth on others” and “blasphemy accusations are frequently used to silence critics or democratic rivals under the guise of enforcing religious piety.”

If we’re to show any solidarity for those who have suffered and continue to be victims of these situations, we must repeal our blasphemy law.

Blasphemy is a victimless crime. That is, of course, unless people believe their deity is capable of having hurt feelings. Nick Cohen, a British writer and author of the informative book on censorship, You Can’t Read This Book: Censorship in an Age of Freedom, asks the question: “Are the delicate deities in question so thin-skinned that their ‘self-esteem’ can only recover if their followers perform human sacrifices and present them with corpses of their critics?” Cohen also ridicules those who support blasphemy laws by referring to the “tender feelings and brittle minds of believers” who suffer “psychic harm . . . from hearing a strongly held view challenged” and feel the need to “mount the barricades against new thoughts that might torment and enrage the faithful.”

Aside from being a victimless crime, blasphemy laws punish people for insulting a concept or an idea.  Since when is it a goal of the criminal law to protect concepts or ideologies as opposed to people?

Worse, blasphemy laws have served to punish minorities and thereby violate free-speech rights and freedom of religion. Blasphemy laws therefore serve as a tool to violate human rights, not to enforce them.

So why hasn’t Canada repealed its blasphemy laws? Parliament recently repealed s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. That hate speech section was in part a de facto blasphemy law, so why not show our support for free expression and religion as well as minority rights by repealing s. 296 of the Criminal Code?

Yes, such an action would be largely symbolic but it would send a message to Canadians about our core values, in particular that we value free speech over archaic principles protecting ideologies. And how can we justify criticism of blasphemy laws in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries while our own provisions remain part of our criminal law?

It’s puzzling why any nation that believes in human rights would include blasphemy among its laws in 2014.    

Alan Shanoff was counsel to Sun Media Corp. for 16 years. He currently is a freelance writer for Sun Media and teaches media law at Humber College. His e-mail address is


0 # Robin Edgar 2015-01-10 09:16
Can someone please tell me how Atheist "Humanist" Unitarian Universalist "religious leaders", indeed self-described "moral leaders", can justify their immoral, unethical, and borderline criminal attempted misuse of Canada's blasphemy law in Bill Cosby style legal bullying that is quite obviously intended to cover-up and hide the fact that "certain Unitarian Universalist ministers" have not only engaged in the criminal offences known as pedophilia and rape, but have even been convicted of committing "such despicable crimes as pedophilia and rape"?

Just Google - UUA Blasphemous Libel accusations

to learn more about this shameful and hubristic misuse and abuse of Canada's blasphemy law by American Unitarian Universalist "moral leaders" like UUA President Rev. Dr. Peter Morales.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+7 # D Owen 2014-11-24 11:21
The Republic of Ireland has blasphemy laws and many of the World's worst governments justify their own human rights breaches and blasphemy arrests/convictions by using Ireland as a beacon of justice. Canada and Ireland - repeal the blasphemy laws - they make you look very silly.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

Add comment

  • Access to Justice
    Access to Justice The Action Group on Access to Justice (TAG) strives to inform the public on the importance of the people having access to legal resources and…
  • Legal Aid lawyers rally for collective bargaining rights
    Legal Aid lawyers rally for collective bargaining rights Legal Aid Ontario lawyers held three protests in July to push the provincial government to support their attempts to unionize. The lawyers have been in…
  • Jane-Finch community gets employment law help
    Jane-Finch community gets employment law help Osgoode Hall Law School's Community Legal Aid Services Programme recently opened an employment law division for Toronto's Jane-Finch community.Phanath Im, review counsel for the division,…
More Law Times TV...

Law Times poll

A Law Times columnist says criminal law is out of step and argues there should be an immediate moratorium on HIV non-disclosure prosecutions, unless there is alleged intentional transmission. Do you agree?
Yes, the unjust criminalization of people living with HIV needs to change. The law has become more draconian even as HIV has become more manageable and as transmission risks decrease.
No, the law should remain as it is, and the Ministry of the Attorney General should not change its approach.