Editorial: Let God look after himself

Paul Brooks

WHEN Stephen Fry had his on-camera rant about God in reply to an interviewer's question, I wonder if he realised how far the repercussions would reach.

First the Irish contemplated dredging up an anti-blasphemy law to make an example of this outspoken atheist and then changed their minds.

The Defamation Act was introduced in Ireland in 2009 and to date there have been no prosecutions. Fry would have been the first.

But his "blasphemy" and the resulting publicity has resulted in other countries checking their law books and -- surprise! -- New Zealand has an anti-blasphemy law.

True, it hasn't been fired in anger since 1922, but it exists and carries a penalty of up to 12 months in prison. Written as Section 123 of the Crimes Act 1961, it covers blasphemous libel but it is vague and prosecution can go ahead only with the leave of the Attorney-General. Still, it is on the books and can be used.

At the same time the right to free speech in this country is protected under New Zealand's Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Effectively, then, we have two contradictory, clashing laws, so the sensible thing would be to remove or modify one. But which?

Free speech is not completely free, as we know, and there are limits to what we can say or write in public.

People are protected by anti-libel and anti-slander laws and they are frequently tested in court, but freedom of speech is enshrined in our culture.

While God might have the same anti-libel protection under the Crimes Act, it begs the question -- why?

According to scripture, God is no slug when it comes to dishing out punishment on his own behalf, so why would he need puny humans to protect his good name? Dump the law, as we have done with all archaic and outmoded laws and leave heresy prosecutions to the less enlightened.