Status of religious freedom in the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
Please help recruit one or improve this article yourself. See the talk page for details.
Please consider using {{Expert-subject}} to associate this request with a WikiProject

This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!) This article has been tagged since July 2006.

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.

While the three legal systems of the United Kingdom (see English law, Scots law and Northern Ireland law) do not satisfy the legal definition of freedom of religion^{[citation needed]}, 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 England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and their respective governments have repeatedly refused to extend that crime to cover any religion other than Christianity. See Blasphemy law in the United Kingdom.

[edit] History

The last person to be imprisoned for blasphemy in the UK was John William Gott 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 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, 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.

[edit] See also

Status of religious freedom around the world
Afghanistan \| Algeria \| Canada \| People’s Republic of China \| Colombia \| France \| Georgia \| Germany \| India \| Iran \| Italy \| Malaysia \| Mauritania \| Pakistan \| Philippines \| Saudi Arabia \| Sri Lanka \| Sudan \| United Kingdom \| United States