Her post points out that one cannot accuse a person who does not hold to a particular religious belief of blasphemy against that religion - blasphemy is a concept that can only apply to those who hold the religion that has been so offended. In pluralist societies the notion of blasphemy does not make any sense in positive law or in a discussion of public rights. Ms Gaulmyn ends her post as follows:
Drôle de glissement qui sous prétexte de ne pas reconnaitre un traitement de faveur aux religions, leur inflige un régime particulier, et qui protégerait l’injure au prétexte qu’elle concerne le religieux. Le droit de critiquer et de débattre existe en France pour toute institution, et donc aussi pour les religions. Et c’est heureux ! Mais celui d’insulter n‘est pas plus recevable pour les religions que pour la politique ou la culture, par exemple. Ce n’est d’ailleurs pas seulement une question de droit. Mais simplement de vivre ensemble…
[It is a funny notion which, under the pretext of not recognising a special treatment for religions, imposes on them a specific regime, which will protect insult on the grounds that it is about religion. The right of challenge and of debate exists in France for all institutions, and therefore also for religions. And it is as well! But the right to insult is no more acceptable for religions than it is for politics or culture, for example. It is not only a question of right. But simply of being able to live together ....]It is worth reading some of the comments on the post too.
No comments:
Post a Comment