*Update 28 March 2015. Iain Middleton has let me know that I’ve got the origins of New Zealand’s blasphemy law incorrect. Rather than try and change my post, I thought I’d just add what he wrote.

In your January 18th blog you state, “The law that still applies in New Zealand is based on the English Blasphemy Act (1697)”.
I do not believe this is so. The English Blasphemy Act (1697) is not a valid Act in New Zealand and it never applied to anyone other than people trained by the Church of England.

Section 9 of the Crimes Act 1961 reads: “No one shall be convicted of any offence at common law, or of any offence against any Act of the Parliament of England or the Parliament of Great Britain or the Parliament of the United Kingdom”. New Zealand law came from the “Stephen Code” that was an attempt by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen to convert the English Common law to a code. New Zealand adopted this as the Criminal Code Act 1893 that was replaced by the Crimes Act 1908 and that Act by the Crimes Act 1961. The wording of the Blasphemy section is almost identical in all three New Zealand Acts.

Thanks Iain for this information. 🙂

Hi Ed. I think you’re probably right about Canada’s status in the IHEU report. I also agree about the reason politicians don’t sort this. They don’t want to upset any religious people. A lot of people here (not just religious ones because there aren’t that many) would have a gut reaction against getting rid of blasphemy laws because their initial reaction would be along the lines of respecting people’s religious views and they’d see that as a good thing. If you explained why they should be got rid of, most people would agree. Therefore, humanist, atheist, free speech, and legal groups that already know the arguments need to explain it to everybody first so there’s broad understanding of the issue. Then politicians would be happy to take up the cause. That requires getting journalists on board. The Stephen Fry thing might be the cause célèbre that makes this happen.

Thanks for your comment. It ended up in spam, probably because spammers usually target old posts to try and become approved commenters so they can then get their stuff on newer posts more easily. You shouldn’t have any more problems.

Fascinating post – thank you for pointing it out to me!

Apparently, Canada too has a “blasphemous libel” section of the Criminal Code, but the Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly overrides it. I guess the existence of this Charter (only adopted in 1982) is what formally separates Canada from NZ in the eyes of the Intl. Humanist Ethical Union’s report.

I agree with you though that I don’t see a good argument for retaining these antiquated laws. Is it really so difficult to strike them out? I don’t think so. I imagine the main reason governments are hesitant to do so is because they don’t want an opposition party turning it into a political issue. That’s a bit spineless, but also understandable.

If someone sincerely believes in Nazism or white supremacy or a revolting creed like that we don’t have a problem with mocking them, and we don’t think the fact they’re a minority means we have to be careful. Religion has a privileged place in the spectrum of ideas, and that is simply wrong in my opinion. It has to be as open to scrutiny as any other idea.

“Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year who publishes any blasphemous libel.
(2)Whether any particular published matter is or is not a blasphemous libel is a question of fact.
(3)It is not an offence against this section to express in good faith and in decent language, or to attempt to establish by arguments used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, any opinion whatever on any religious subject.”

It certainly seems that the legislation no longer keeps pace with today’s society and the mix of religions now represented in New Zealand. What would be the outcome of someone casting dispirsions on Islam, Christianity or Buddha?

What if my religion was Jedi as many people identified in a previous census? I hope that no-one blasphemes against Yoda as I may move hell and high water to have them put in goal for 12 months.