I don’t, religions inherently blaspheme each other, for example it was blasphemy in Judaism that Jesus considered himself the Son of God. Which brings us to the point - who gets to judge what is and is not blasphemy?
The law as written. Whether or not the claims of one religion is offensive to another is not the issue at hand. Rather, it seems to me to be more of a crackdown on offensive language. Particularly the use of sacred to curse.
If it is the majority that gets to decide, the minoritys are at risk of having their rights trampled.
I'm not convinced that cursing and blaspheming in public is a right. And it isn't just bad language in the cross hairs here.
The blasphemy ban is part of a far-reaching local law aimed at tackling uncivil behaviour. It includes 75 articles with hefty sanctions for those who mow the lawn outside designated hours, walk their dog without a leash or dump their rubbish in public places.
I don't know what these articles are so I can't give an informed opinion on the law, but the desire to improve the general level of conduct and consideration for others in the public sphere is something I agree with. I often lament how low public standards can be these days.
Besides legitimate criticism has been stifled as blasphemy in societies around the world.
I read the article and I see no suggestion of banning religious criticism. I'm sure if you were in Italy and you wrote a book entitled
"101 reasons why [insert religion] is wrong" you would be just fine. But I'm not Italian so I could be wrong there.