Based on allegation rather than proof (cf. Sorcery, witchcraft, etc.)  Blasphemy, by its nature, is ‘all in the eye of the beholder’. It is impossible, in most cases, to determine whether there was intent on the part of the accused and as a result it is difficult to codify in legislation. Equally, unless the law takes a particular theological position, one person’s blasphemous slur is another’s sacred profession.  It relies on the predicate that the person alleging blasphemy was offended or felt their faith was under attack.  Of course these offences are very real and may at times be possible to codify but they cannot be applied universally because the perceptions they necessitate are not universal.  As a result, as in the case given above, allegation and proof must be deemed to be the same thing - to be accused is to be found guilty [i] . Acts of blasphemy cannot rest on intuited human norms – I do not wish to be harmed in this way therefore you do not wish it either – because those involved have a different understanding of the harm.  In the light of this there may be many remedies for blasphemy but legislation in general and criminal sanctions in particular cannot be appropriate.  [i] The Economic Times. Rajiv Jayaram. Blasphemy law represents coercive nature of Pakistan towards minorities. 27 August 2012.