Blasphemy law

The abuse of faiths, religious societies and ideological groups is a criminal offense which is dealt with in § 166 of the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Germany. Because of his history, he is often referred to as Gotteslästerungsparagraph or blasphemy law. In the Penal Code of the paragraph threatened with punishment those who " blaspheme God " among other things, in public statements and thus are a nuisance.

Legislative text

(1) Whoever the content of religious or ideological beliefs of other publicly insulted or through dissemination of writings ( § 11 para 3) in a manner that is likely to disturb the public peace, is punished with imprisonment up to three years or with fine punished.

(2) is also imposed on anyone who publicly insulted or through dissemination of writings ( § 11 para 3) an existing domestic church or other religious community or ideological grouping, their institutions or customs in a way that is likely to disturb the public peace.

Consideration of legal rights

By paragraphs prosecutors and courts are prompted to weigh competing legal interests against each other. Protected legal interest is the public peace, not the confession as such. The insulting remarks need not be directed to the counties in which they can lead to the disturbance of the public peace. It is sufficient if it is feared that they are known there.

Criticism of the provision

According to paragraph 48 of the opinion from the year 2011 of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the panel of eighteen independent experts who were tasked to review complaints concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, " are prohibitions of displays lack of respect for a religion. , or other belief systems, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the contract, except in certain circumstances, as foreseen in Article 20, paragraph 2 of the Treaty "The article 20, paragraph 2 calls States to prohibit the following: " the defense national, racial or religious hatred that incites discrimination, hostility or violence. " This comment requires carefully that no restriction guarantees the Agreement to equality before the law (Article 26) and freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 18) must not violate. Laws that restrict blasphemy, as such, are therefore incompatible with universal human rights standards.

According to critics, the German provision restricting the legal right of freedom of expression. In particular, by a unilateral application of paragraph verleite to protection of the majority opinion, but not necessarily to protect a minority opinion, as the interests of smaller groups are rarely equated with the " public peace ".

They reject the paragraphs from as so-called rubber paragraphs, especially since it was not clear how to define " abuse " is - among them may fall any negative comment. Is even more questionable when such " abuse " is likely to disturb the public peace (the " suitability " is sufficient; known abstract endangerment offense ). Critics claim that such a " disturbing the peace " could - be a posteriori ( subsequently) constructed when complained believers - similar to sedition. In addition, the disturbance of the peace can be brought about deliberately by the affected religious community, so that the paragraph can be used, for example, by use of force against the " blasphemer " or by the blockade of a theater in which a religion critical piece is to be performed. On the other hand, could in political weather conditions, where the persecution of blasphemers was not opportune, almost always be argued therefore, the accused was not aware enough to shock you with his utterances the general public.

The paragraph is strong in criticism of atheist groups and church critics as well as artists who feel curtailed their freedom. Kurt Tucholsky said about this " medieval dictatorship paragraphs " ( in the previous version ): " I do not like me like to deal with the church; it has no sense to discuss with a view which protected it is criminal. "

The parliamentary group Alliance 90/The Greens called for in the 12th legislative period ( 1990-94 ) the deletion of the paragraph from the Criminal Code.

Several Members of the CDU / CSU parliamentary group and the group itself, brought in 2000 a bill to the Bundestag, the content of the deletion of the restriction that the insult must be capable of disturbing the public peace. The bill was rejected on 25 April 2002.

2006 called Markus Söder, the former CSU General Secretary, a drastic tightening of the paragraph.

Legal practice

Examples ( in chronological order ):

• With the help of § 166 1994 displaying crucified pigs and the performance of the musical The Maria Syndrome by Michael Schmidt -Salomon were banned, in which a ( modern ) "Marie" is fertilized by a contaminated toilet seat and then a case of " virgin birth " occurs. The premiere of the play was to take place in Trier on 28 May 1994. A day earlier, was banned at the request of the diocese of Trier, the performance by the local clerk's office. Also a performance in front of a " religion guaranteed uncaring audience " was not admitted. The subsequent trial lasted for several instances: The Federal Administrative Court confirmed the legality of the ban in 1997 and was followed in the Higher Administrative Court of Koblenz.
• The Federal Constitutional Court rejected in 1998 a treatment of the case without giving reasons from.

• In February 2006, an early retirement from Luedinghausen was convicted, insulting any religious belief 'and' disturbing the peace ' to 12 months probation and 300 hours of community service. He had toilet paper printed with a stamp "Koran, the Holy Qur'an " and sent it along with insulting letter to mosques and TV stations. In addition, he offered it for sale.

• 2006 was a sketch of Stunksitzung, which is. Meet Pope Benedict XVI and the Cologne Cardinal Meisner was the subject of prosecutorial investigations. The WDR did not send this sketch, as he showed The Meeting on TV.

Legal history of § 166 StGB

Since the dawn of history right there are penal provisions to religious themes. Since the beginning of the Enlightenment, the justification for these offenses is questioned.

The Prussian Penal Code of 1851 ( PStGB ) governed in its § 135 offense to derision of recognized Christian churches. Other religious communities were not under the protection of this law. The churches were themselves the subject of protection. One disturbing the peace were not required.

The different assessment of the justification of the use of criminal law to enforce religious beliefs reflected in the fact that the blasphemy was found in § 135 is punishable. Corresponding rules no longer be found in today's Criminal Code.

The Penal Code of the German Empire took over these criminal provisions in § 166 In addition to the blasphemy was also imposed on anyone who publicly insulted one of the Christian churches or other with corporation rights within the territory of the Reich existing religious community or its institutions or customs or in a church or in another to religious gatherings certain place insulting mischief perpetrated.

In 1969 was the last major reform of § 166 of the Criminal Code. It was clarified that it is not God can be protected per se by the paragraph. The revised aware chose the public peace worth protecting legal interests and not " [ ... ] the religious sentiment of the individual [ ... ] ." Convictions because of the " blasphemy paragraph" 166 have since become very rare.

Other countries

Austria

In Austria, a similar provision applies under the title denigration of religious teachings ( § 188 Penal Code ), further is also the disturbance of a religious practice, such as a church service, a criminal offense ( § 189 StGB). These offenses are punishable with imprisonment of up to six months or by a fine. Notable cases are a process because § 188 of the Penal Code against the cartoonist Manfred Deix who initially sentenced in 1994, but was acquitted on appeal. Against the cartoonist Gerhard Haderer there were several reports of his book The Life of Jesus (2002); the case was closed by the prosecution Vienna 2003. However, in some less well-known cases, it came to final convictions for § 188 StGB.

Until the introduction of the new Austrian Penal Code in 1975, the insult " the Supreme Being " was punishable by one to five years' imprisonment.

Switzerland

In Switzerland there is a similar scheme under the title disturbance of faith and worship in Article 261 of the Criminal Code.

"Whoever publicly and in common, the conviction of others in matters of faith, especially faith in God, insulted or ridiculed or objects of religious veneration dishonored, who prevented a constitutionally guaranteed cult act maliciously interfere with or publicly ridiculed, who a place or an object, for a constitutionally guaranteed cult or intended for such an act of worship, are dishonored malicious, be punished up to 180 daily rates with a fine. "

GDR

The Criminal Code of the GDR had no comparable regulation. The only " religious acts " were protected under § 133.

Netherlands

On 29 November 2012, the Dutch parliament voted to abolish the local Clause 147, which had not been used since 1968.