Status of religious freedom in the United Kingdom
From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.
While the legal structures of the United Kingdom does not satisfy the legal definition of freedom of religion, the United Kingdom is a signatory to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief, and to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society".
However, the crime of blasphemy is retained by the United Kingdom and its government has repeatedly refused to extend that crime to cover any religion other than Christianity. See Blasphemy law in the United Kingdom.
History
The last person to be imprisoned for blasphemy in the UK was John William Gott (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3753408.stm) in 1922, for comparing Jesus Christ to a clown. The next blasphemy case was in 1976, when Mary Whitehouse brought a private prosecution (Whitehouse v. Lemon) against the editor of Gay News for blasphemous libel after he published a poem by James Kirkup called The Love That Dares Speak Its Name. Denis Lemon (http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2C3858%2C5041480-103602%2C00.html) was given a nine month suspended sentence and a £500 fine for publishing the "most scurrilous profanity" which portrayed the sexual love of a Roman centurion for the body of Christ on the cross. The sentence was upheld on appeal.
In this appeal case, Lord Scarman held that the modern law of blasphemy was correctly formulated in Article 214 of Stephen's Digest of the Criminal Law, 9th edition (1950). This states as follows:
- Every publication is said to be blasphemous which contains any contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ or the Bible, or the formularies of the Church of England as by law established. It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the Christian religion, or to deny the existence of God, if the publication is couched in decent and temperate language. The test to be applied is as to the manner in which the doctrines are advocated and not to the substance of the doctrines themselves.
In 1996 the European Court of Human Rights (case #19/1995/525/611) upheld a ban on Visions of Ecstasy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2C3858%2C5041480-103602%2C00.html), an erotic video about a 16th century nun, based on the video infringing on the blasphemy law. The Court estimated that a limited ban on vulgar or obscene publications that would be offensive to believers, while keeping legal the criticism of religion, was compatible with the principles of a democratic society.
See also
