2004
Volume 51, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 0165-4322
  • E-ISSN: 3050-9947

Abstract

Abstract

Recent controversies surrounding the burning of religious scriptures in the Netherlands and other European countries have reignited debates on the limits of free speech. However, Dutch law does not prohibit such acts. This article analyses whether the Netherlands should criminalise these acts. It does so by outlining the legal and philosophical framework for the right to freedom of speech in relation to blasphemy and group defamation laws. In this analysis, two competing perspectives emerge: a Voltairean perspective that stands for a wide range of expressions to be protected under the freedom of expression, and a multiculturalist perspective, that narrows the range of free speech to protect religious communities from offense and social unrest. After these perspectives are elaborated on, this article outlines the tension between viewing the desecration of religious scriptures as a form of versus a form of . By analysing this tension and assessing its implications, this study seeks to formulate a normative perspective on the criminalisation of the desecration of religious scriptures, and thereby contributes to the ongoing discussion on balancing free speech and religious tolerance in pluralistic societies.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/RADIX.2025.2.007.ESHU
2025-06-01
2025-08-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Cliteur, P.B. & Herrenberg, T. (2016). On the life and times of the Dutch blasphemy law (1932-2014). In Cliteur, P.B. & Herrenberg, T. (Reds.), The fall and rise of blasphemy law (p. 71-109). Leiden: Leiden University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Deigh, J. (2012). Foul language: some ruminations on Cohen v. California. In: Levmore, S. & Nussbaum, M. C. (Reds.), The offensive internet (p. 195-213). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Dommering, E.J. (2023). Koranverbrandingen in Zweden, Denemarken en Nederland. NJB2023/2125, afl. 29, p. 2480-2482.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Janssens, A.L.J. & Nieuwenhuis, A.J. (2019). Uitingsdelicten (Studiepockets Strafrecht nr. 36). Deventer: Wolters Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Kant, I. (2022) [1785]. Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. Ditzingen: Reclam.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Kinneging, A. (2023). Hercules op de tweesprong. Amsterdam: Prometheus.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Lefort, C. (2016). Wat is politiek. Amsterdam: Boom.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Mill, J.S. (2015) [1859]. On liberty, utilitarianism and other essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Milton, J. (1918) [1664]. Areopagitica.With a commentary by Sir Richard C. Jebb and with supplementary material. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. NOS (2023, 7december). Deens parlement akkoord met verbod op koranverbrandingen. Geraadpleegd op 13maart2025, van <https://nos.nl/artikel/2500709-deens-parlement-akkoord-met-verbod-op-koranverbrandingen>
  11. Plato (1987). Gorgias. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij de Driehoek.
  12. Rijpkema, B. (2015). Weerbare democratie. De grenzen van democratische tolerantie. Amsterdam: Nieuw Amsterdam Uitgevers.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Sasse van IJsselt, P. van (2023). Koranverscheuring als ongehoorde meningsuiting. NJB2023/528, afl. 8, p. 597-598.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Scanlon, T. (1972). A theory of freedom of expression. Philosophy & Public Affairs, afl. 1, nr. 2, p. 204-226.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Slootweg, T. (2023). Langs tragische einders. Verkenningen in de esthetica van moraal en recht. Antwerpen: Gompel & Svacina.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Tallentyre, S.G. (1906). The friends of Voltaire. London: Smith, Elder & co.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Webster, R. (1990). A brief history of blasphemy. Liberalism, censorship and the satanic verses. London: The Orwell Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hoge Raad2april1968, ECLI:NL:HR:1968:AB3494 (Ezelproces).
  19. Hof Amsterdam21januari2009, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2009:BH0496 (Vervolgingsbevel Wilders).
  20. Hoge Raad10maart2009, ECLI:NL:HR:2009:BF0655 (Gezwel-arrest).
  21. EHRM12juni2012, 26005/08 en 26160/08, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0612JUD002600508 (Tatár en Fáber/Hongarije).
  22. EHRM25oktober2018, 38450/12, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:1025JUD003845012 (E.S./Oostenrijk).
  23. Rechtbank Gelderland25november2024, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:7367.
/content/journals/10.5117/RADIX.2025.2.007.ESHU
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error