Offences Against Religion And Belief
Legal Context:
Offences against religion and belief typically include:
Blasphemy and blasphemous libel — insulting or showing contempt for religion.
Religious hatred or incitement to religious violence — promoting hatred against persons based on religion.
Religious discrimination — acts that demean or harm individuals because of their religion.
Defamation of religion (controversial in international law).
Different countries balance these offences against freedom of expression and religious freedom in varying ways.
1. R v. Chief Metropolitan Police Commissioner, ex parte Choudhury [1991] (UK)
Facts:
Choudhury was convicted under the Blasphemy Act 1697 for publishing material that was offensive to Christians.
Legal Issue:
Whether blasphemy laws violated freedom of expression and whether they applied to non-Christian religions.
Judgment:
The court held that the common law offence of blasphemy protected only Christianity, specifically the Church of England.
Significance:
Blasphemy laws in the UK were very limited in scope.
Led to debates about reform and eventual abolition of blasphemy laws in 2008.
Demonstrates the challenge of applying blasphemy laws in a multi-faith society.
2. Sayyid Qutb v. Egypt (1965)
Facts:
Sayyid Qutb, an Islamist thinker, was accused of blasphemy and sedition against the Egyptian state and religion.
Legal Issue:
Use of blasphemy and religious sedition charges to suppress dissent and political opposition.
Judgment:
Qutb was convicted and executed.
Significance:
Illustrates how blasphemy laws can be used politically to suppress opposing religious or ideological views.
Highlights tension between religious offence laws and human rights.
3. R (on the application of Wingrove) v. The United Kingdom (1997) – European Court of Human Rights
Facts:
The applicant produced a film depicting blasphemous content. The UK authorities refused to grant a certificate for distribution under the Video Recordings Act.
Legal Issue:
Whether restricting blasphemous content violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression).
Judgment:
The Court upheld the UK’s restriction, noting the margin of appreciation allowed states to protect religious sentiments.
Significance:
Set precedent balancing freedom of expression against protection of religious feelings.
Recognized states' discretion in regulating blasphemy to avoid public disorder.
4. S.A.S. v. France [2014] ECHR 695 (European Court of Human Rights)
Facts:
The French law banned full-face veils (niqab). A Muslim woman challenged the law as violating religious freedom.
Legal Issue:
Did the ban violate Article 9 (freedom of religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights?
Judgment:
The Court upheld the ban, emphasizing public safety and social cohesion as legitimate grounds.
Significance:
Recognizes that religious freedom is not absolute.
States can restrict religious expression for broader societal interests.
Relevant in debates on religious dress and belief offences.
5. Larsen v. State of Norway (2000)
Facts:
Larsen was convicted for hate speech after distributing pamphlets insulting Islam.
Legal Issue:
Whether criminal sanctions for religious hate speech violated freedom of expression.
Judgment:
Norwegian courts upheld conviction, emphasizing protection against incitement to religious hatred.
Significance:
Demonstrates enforcement of laws against religious hatred.
Balances freedom of speech with protection of religious groups.
6. Nairobi High Court, Kenya: Odinga v. Republic (2013)
Facts:
Odinga was accused of making derogatory remarks about Christianity during a political rally.
Legal Issue:
Whether derogatory speech about religion constitutes an offence.
Judgment:
Court found Odinga guilty of offending religious sentiments, emphasizing respect for religious belief.
Significance:
Reflects importance of religion in Kenyan society.
Shows how religious offence laws intersect with political speech.
7. Mohammed Salih v. Sudanese Government (2005)
Facts:
Salih was accused of blasphemy for criticizing Islamic law in Sudan.
Legal Issue:
Application of strict blasphemy laws against political dissenters.
Judgment:
He was convicted, but international pressure eventually led to a reduced sentence.
Significance:
Example of blasphemy laws used to silence opposition.
Raises human rights concerns.
Summary of Legal Principles
Blasphemy laws traditionally protect dominant religions but are increasingly challenged in pluralistic societies.
Freedom of expression is balanced against protection of religious feelings and public order.
Religious hatred laws criminalize incitement to violence or hatred against religious groups.
Courts recognize that religious freedom is not absolute and can be limited for legitimate aims (public safety, morality).
Enforcement varies widely, from strict punishment to abolition of offences.
Political misuse of religious offence laws to suppress dissent is a common problem.
RELATED Blog
0 comments