Inevitably protects entrenched interest groups (Church in Crucible, Muslims in Pakistan)  In the event of two different perceptions of what constitutes harm, there is a tendency for that of the larger group to be seen as normative and, therefore, correct. This is shown to be the case in the example given here but also in other instances from the Salem witch trials to the fatwa on Salman Rushdie [i] ; the fact that there was an authorising body – in the shape of an orthodox religious body – the allegation itself acquires the force of that orthodoxy.  It is rare for minority beliefs to have much success and almost unknown for secularists to do so. Several cases in North America brought in an effort to protect the religious rights of Wiccans, for example, yielded little as they lacked the force of religious orthodoxy [ii] .  In states where there is either great homogeneity of belief or there is a theological element in the courts or political system, this has tended to be even more the case. This is particularly true of states that identify themselves officially with one religion, and especially so in the case of Islamic states [iii] .  [i] The Guardian. Looking back at Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses. 14 September 2012.  [ii] Religioustolerance.org. Wiccan education and anti-defamation groups.  [iii] Viewpoint. The Blasphemy syndrome. 12 October 2012.