Blasphemous Libel

R v Ramsay & Foote (1883) 15 Cox CC 231, Coleridge CJ

DD were the proprietor and editor of a newspaper in which appeared an article denying the truth of Christian teaching, and were charged with publishing a blasphemous libel. Lord Coleridge CJ directed the jury that although at one time anything that questioned the teaching of the Church of England would have been regarded as a crime, the offence was now required a wilful intention to pervert, insult and mislead others by means of licentious and contumelious abuse applied to sacred subjects.

Bowman v Secular Society [1917] AC 406, HL

A testator's next-of-kin challenged a substantial bequest to DD, a registered company formed "to promote the principle that human conduct should be based upon natural knowledge and not upon supernatural belief, and that human welfare in this world is the proper end of all thought and action". Dismissing the challenge, the House of Lords said that even if this aim amounted to a denial of Christianity it would not be unlawful: the propagation of ant-Christian doctrines without scurrility or profanity does not amount to blasphemy.

R v Gott (1922) 16 Cr App R 87, CCA

A man D was prosecuted for blasphemy after selling pamphlets in the street which (inter alia) described Jesus entering Jerusalem "like a circus clown on the back of two donkeys". The judge said the question was whether the pamphlets were indecent and offensive attacks on Christianity, which might lead to a breach of the peace; the jury convicted and D's appeal failed.

R v Lemon (or, Whitehouse v Lemon) [1979] 1 All ER 898, HL

D published in Gay News an illustrated poem describing various homosexual acts involving Jesus Christ. He was convicted of publishing a blasphemous libel, and the conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. In the instant case there was no intention to offend, and the usual readers of the magazine in question (including some Christians) would not have been offended, but that was irrelevant.

Gay News v United Kingdom (1982) 5 EHRR 123, EComHR

This application arose from the case above. DD claimed their freedom of expression and freedom of religious belief had been violated, but the Commission said their application was manifestly ill-founded: the prosecution was a proportionate measure to protect the religious sensibilities of others.

R v Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ex p Choudhury [1991] 1 All ER 306, DC

A Muslim A sought judicial review of the magistrate's refusal to issue a summons for blasphemy and seditious libel against Salman Rushdie for the insults to Islam in his book The Satanic Verses. Refusing his application, Watkins LJ said the common law offence of blasphemy is limited to attacks on Christianity. (A's subsequent application to the European Commission of Human Rights was declared inadmissible: the Commission said there is no violation of Art.9 in the lack of any criminal sanction against those who publish material offending the religious sensibilities of non-Christians.)

Wingrove v United Kingdom (1996) 24 EHRR 1, ECHR

The video film "Visions of Ecstasy", which depicts the supposed erotic fantasies of St Teresa, was refused a BBFC certificate on the grounds of blasphemy and hence (since it is unlawful to deal in uncertificated videos) cannot be distributed. The producer's claim that this violated his freedom of expression was declared admissible by the Commission but was rejected by the Court. The aim of the interference - the protection of Christians against serious offence in their beliefs - was fully consonant with the aims of Art.9. Blasphemy legislation was still in force in various European countries, although rarely applied, and national authorities were best placed (subject to final supervision by the Court) to decide what restrictions were necessary.

The Law Commission recommended in 1985 that the offence of blasphemy be abolished, and the General Synod of the Church of England have suggested that it be replaced by a prohibition on religious discrimination, but the Government have declined to make any changes.