Abstract
This paper will expand Rawls's philosophy to help contribute to ongoing attempts to develop a theory of international justice. In particular, the paper will try to adjudicate the following question. We will use Rawls's philosophy to critically question the validity of the reasons, assumptions and justifications outlined in the European Union's Venice Commission Report No. 47 -- "Blasphemy, insult and hatred: finding answers in a democratic society".1 How do we transcend the classic distinction of freedom of expression vs. restraints on hate speech to guarantee a free and just international order? The paper concludes with a series of reflections on whether religious blasphemy and insults can rise to the level of international human rights laws violations, which then requires international courts to intervene to adjudicate matters of intent to harm and incite violence