Blasphemy law set to be ditched
"If you criminalise it ... it doesn't help advance anyone's cause. From a Christian point of view, it's much better that people have the freedom to talk." Dr Paul Moon, Professor of History at Auckland University of Technology
New Zealand’s anti-blasphemy law could soon be scrapped, as MPS pledge to choose the best way of doing so.
Prime Minister Bill English and the head of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand both voiced surprise the rarely-used law still existed, and they saw no use for it. Now, the Catholic Church has also labelled the law ‘‘archaic’’.
ACT leader David Seymour sought leave of Parliament yesterday to table a ‘‘very, very simple’’ bill that would repeal the law against blasphemous libel.
English and Labour leader Andrew Little have suggested other ways to expedite the process after a range of people from across the political spectrum said on Monday the vaguely-defined law should go.
The law – which appears not to have been used since 1922 – came to light after British entertainer Stephen Fry faced a police investigation in Ireland for allegedly blasphemous comments made in a TV interview.
Seymour had planned to call for section 123 of the Crimes Act to be scrapped, and he hoped all parties would agree.
But by early afternoon it seemed more likely National and Labour favoured smiting the libel law as part of the Statutes Repeal Bill, which covered multiple laws deemed redundant.
Even taking that path ‘‘blasphemous libel laws could be gone by the end of the month’’, Seymour said.
Yesterday, Catholic Bishop Steve Lowe, of the Hamilton Diocese, said New Zealanders were fortunate to live in a land where freedom of speech and belief was enshrined in law and blasphemy laws seemed archaic.
’’It is when we can grapple with the great questions of spirituality and life with mutual respect for the opinions and beliefs of others that we grow as a healthy community.’’
University of Auckland Dean of Law Professor Andrew Stockley said his general impression of the law was that a case for change was overwhelming.
’’The law does have to be in tune with people’s expectations. We now have a lot more robust society where freedom of expression ... is absolutely critical.’’
Blasphemous libel laws were no reflection of that sort of society, and it was daft having laws that were never used, he said.
Apart from the Fry case, another one of concern involved the Christian governor of Jakarta, Indonesia, who was charged with blasphemy and faced protests after an edited online video made it seem he had criticised the Quran.
Humanist Society president Sara Passmore said many countries were repealing blasphemy laws and it was time New Zealand followed.
’’Now that the investigation [against Fry] has been dropped because the Irish police have failed to find enough outraged people, it is clear that any blasphemy law has no place in modern society.’’
Dr Paul Moon, Professor of History at Auckland University of Technology, also thought the law should go. He disliked blasphemy, but laws against it were anachronistic and signalled insecurity, he said.
’’If you criminalise it ... it doesn’t help advance anyone’s cause. From a Christian point of view, it’s much better that people have the freedom to talk.’’
English said New Zealand probably had ‘‘hundreds’’ of redundant, unnecessary laws. He preferred to deal with multiple anomalous laws simultaneously.
Little said he would support repealing blasphemous libel laws. ‘‘I think free speech is very important and when it comes to debate about religion and faith, we’re all mature enough and adult enough about it to conduct those debates without causing offence.’’