Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Blasphemous libel
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===Summary of offence and defence=== Blasphemy and Blasphemous libel were common law offences before the Criminal Code Act of 1892 abolished the common law offence of Blasphemy but included the offence of Blasphemous libel. Before repeal in December 2018, blasphemous libel was an offence under section 296 of the [[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]] of Canada. {{quote|296 (1) Every one who publishes a blasphemous libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years (2) It is a question of fact whether or not any matter that is published is a blasphemous libel. (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject.}} It was an [[indictable offence]] punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.<ref>Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s. 296; formerly s 260 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1970, c C-34.</ref> The offence of blasphemous libel, like all other laws of Canada, was subject to section 2 of the [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]], which protects freedom of expression. Before the law's repeal, no court was asked to consider whether blasphemous libel was consistent with the Charter's guarantee of freedom of expression, which came into force in 1982.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Patrick |first1=Jeremy |title=Not Dead, Just Sleeping: Canada's Prohibition in Blasphemous Libel as a Case Study on Obsolete Legislation |journal=University of British Columbia Law Review |date=2008 |volume=41 |issue=2 |page=237 }}</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)