WhatFinger


If freedom of speech and freedom of expression are to mean anything in Canada, the law needs to be taken off the books and as soon as possible

Canada needs to repeal law penalizing blasphemous libel



Many Canadians would be surprised to know that blasphemy is a crime in Canada. Section 296 of the Criminal Code of Canada makes the publication of a blasphemous libel a crime.
Anyone found to have published a blasphemous libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a maximum sentence of two years in prison. No one is guilty of the offence if the matter published is done in good faith and decent language or in good faith using decent language is attempting to argue an opinion on a religious subject. Blasphemy is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as the act of insulting or showing irreverence for God, claiming the attributes of a deity and includes irreverence to something considered sacred or inviolable. The offence of blasphemous libel has been the law in Canada since the Criminal Code was first enacted in July 1892. At that time, the legislation was a codification of British common law. Although the original purpose was to penalize people who blasphemed Christianity, there is no doubt that at least since the Charter of Rights became enshrined in Canada’s constitution in 1982, it now applies to all religions. The last successful prosecution under what is now section 296 took place in the 1930s although charges were laid in the 1980s regarding the Monty Python movie, Life of Brian. It was alleged scenes in the movie blasphemed Christ and Christians. The charges were later dropped. Over the years there have been calls, mainly from secular groups for Canada to repeal the law. In the wake of the Charlie Hedbo attack, the calls are again being made to scrap the crime of blasphemous libel. The Centre for Inquiry and Humanist Canada plan to lobby the government to abolish the law. The National Post reports members of the two groups met last month with Andrew Bennett, the head of Canada’s Office of Religious Freedom, arguing the retention of the blasphemous libel law is inconsistent with the purpose of that office which is to support religious freedom around the world.

Support Canada Free Press


By allowing the section to remain, credence is given to radical Muslims that people who blaspheme the prophet are guilty of a crime and should suffer punishment

The law is one of those that is common to all jurisdictions; laws that become outdated but are left on the books because even though they are not being used, it is not worth the time and money to repeal them. It is obvious the law is not taken seriously by the current government. If it was, the Harper Tories would have made the two years’ imprisonment the mandatory minimum instead of the maximum. Unlike other laws that are never used there are reasons this law needs to go. Given the role of the Prophet Muhammad in the Muslim religion, there is no doubt the Charlie Hedbo cartoons that are being published by some Canadian media outlets and have become widespread on the Internet since the deadly attack in Paris, constitute blasphemy. By allowing the section to remain, credence is given to radical Muslims that people who blaspheme the prophet are guilty of a crime and should suffer punishment. Of course they prefer the penalty of death under Sharia law to a maximum penalty of two years. Keeping the section on the books also gives comfort to the so called moderate Muslims who are all in favour of freedom of speech and freedom of expression except of course when it involves making fun of Muhammad. If the government was to introduce legislation to repeal the crime of blasphemous libel, it will be interesting to see how the opposition parties react to it, particularly Justin Trudeau. The Liberal leader is known for visiting Wahhabi mosques in Montreal and elsewhere and has nothing particularly critical to say about members of the religion of peace who commit atrocities in the name of Islam such as the killing of journalists and police officers in and around the Paris offices of Charlie Hedbo. Trudeau offered his condolences to the relatives of the victims, but as he always does when these things happen, refused to define the killings as an act of terrorism. This was not a case of say, workplace violence, but the statements of Trudeau and NDP leader Thomas Mulcair following what happened in Paris would have been appropriate if the mass killings resulted from an act of workplace or domestic violence. Mulcair, the grown-up of the two is not likely to strongly oppose repeal of section 296, but there is a chance Trudeau will oppose it as a favour to his favourite constituents that includes Muslims who attend mosques that preach hate. The United States did quite well, at least before 2008 without having the crime of blasphemous libel on the books. Canada doesn’t need the law either. If the law in not repealed, it is only a matter of time before someone is charged with blasphemous libel for publishing cartoons showing Muhammad. If not, Muslims will have every right to complain Canada is not enforcing its own laws. If freedom of speech and freedom of expression are to mean anything in Canada, the law needs to be taken off the books and as soon as possible.


View Comments

Arthur Weinreb -- Bio and Archives

Arthur Weinreb is an author, columnist and Associate Editor of Canada Free Press. Arthur’s latest book, Ford Nation: Why hundreds of thousands of Torontonians supported their conservative crack-smoking mayor is available at Amazon. Racism and the Death of Trayvon Martin is also available at Smashwords. His work has appeared on Newsmax.com,  Drudge Report, Foxnews.com.

Older articles (2007) by Arthur Weinreb


Sponsored