When Blasphemy Laws Undermine Freedom

Freedom of religion stands as one of the cornerstones of human dignity. It protects the inner realm of conscience, conviction, and identity. Yet across multiple regions of the world, the question is no longer whether religion deserves protection, but how to safeguard freedom of religion while preventing religion from being instrumentalized to erode the very freedoms it is meant to uphold.

This is the dilemma of my speech at the United Nations in Geneva. The seat has been provided by Global Human Rights Defence, founded by Sradhanand Sital. The dilemma has tangible consequences for minority communities, dissenters, and individuals all around the globe whose beliefs fall outside dominant religious narratives.

Blasphemy laws are often justified as necessary instruments to preserve public order, protect religious sentiment, or maintain social harmony. In numerous jurisdictions, however, such laws function less as shields for faith and more as tools of coercion.

International human rights law draws a clear distinction between belief and coercion. Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including the right to adopt a religion, change it, or have none. This internal freedom is absolute.

Freedom of expression, including expression concerning religion, may be subject only to strict limitations grounded in legality, necessity, and proportionality. Yet in many contexts, blasphemy provisions fail these tests. Laws are drafted in vague terms and applied selectively. Accusations are used to settle personal disputes. Mere allegations can result in detention, social exclusion, forced displacement, or mob violence. The chilling effect extends far beyond individual cases, suppressing open debate and reinforcing fear.

The criminalization of identity is not a legitimate form of protecting faith. A second and more complex dimension of the dilemma concerns the invocation of religious freedom, by actors seeking to legitimize discrimination. Around the world, literalist interpretations of religious texts are mobilized to justify unequal treatment of women, minorities, and dissenters. Here, too, precision is essential. Human rights law protects the right to hold beliefs. It doesn’t protect the right to impose those beliefs through coercion, violence, or discriminatory legislation. The freedom to believe doesn’t entail a freedom to dominate.

When states codify a single religious interpretation into law, particularly when that interpretation targets minority communities, they move from protecting belief to enforcing orthodoxy. The consequences fall on those whose theology differs, whose interpretation diverges, or whose existence challenges narrow constructions of national identity.

When blasphemy laws are embedded in legal systems without effective safeguards, they erode judicial independence and weaken the rule of law. When accusations alone are sufficient to trigger detention or violence, due process collapses. Legal systems become vulnerable to pressure from majoritarian sentiment or extremist mobilization.

The international community, and particularly the United Nations, carries a distinct responsibility in this context. Protecting freedom of religion doesn’t mean shielding religious doctrines from scrutiny. They must strengthen mandates that document patterns of abuse and amplify the voices of affected communities. Cultural sensitivity cannot become a pretext for silence when fundamental rights are at stake.

Ultimately, the individuals affected by these legal frameworks aren’t abstract subjects of international debate. They are people navigating daily life under threat, sometimes because of what they believe, and sometimes because they refuse to conform.

When blasphemy laws are used to silence minorities, they become instruments of power. The challenge before policymakers isn’t to weaken religion or dismiss cultural context. It is to ensure that no belief system, religious or ideological, becomes a vehicle for persecution. Freedom must be protected. But so must those made vulnerable in its name.