Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T14:22:14.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Blasphemy and other Expressions of Offensive Opinion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

D. W. Elliott
D. W. Elliott
Affiliation:
Emeritus Professor of Law in the University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The law of blasphemy is presently in a state of transition in this country. After a long period of desuetude, the offence was suddenly revived in 1979 by the case of Whitehouse v Lemon. Six years later, in 1985, the Law Commission recommended its total abolition without any replacement. No legislation to effect that abolition has appeared, and given the controversy which that appearance would undoubtedly cause, it is unlikely that anything will happen in the immediate future. Nevertheless the situation contains an imbalance which suggests that it will not continue indefinitely. The interval before the inevitable next step provides an opportunity to ponder what that next step ought to be.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ecclesiastical Law Journal , Volume 3 , Issue 13 , July 1993 , pp. 70 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 1993

References

1. Whitehouse v Lemon [1979] AC 617, [1979] 1 All ER 898, HL.

2. ‘Offences against Religion and Public Worship’ (Law Com no 145 (1985)).

3. Law Com Working Paper no 79.

4. Routledge, Graham ‘The Report of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Working Paper on Offences against Religion and Public Worship’ (1989) 1 Ecc LJ (4) 27, 31.Google Scholar

5. Law Com no 145, para 2.32.

6. Ibid, para 2. 36.

7. Note also the campaign against Sunday trading laws, which did nothing for the tradition of obedience to laws in being.

8. Law Com No 145, para 2.38

9. Spencer, J. R. ‘Blasphemy: The Law Commission's Working Paper’ [1981] Crim LR 810.Google Scholar

10. See eg R. v Secretary of Stale for the Home Department, ex pane Bhajam Singh [1976] QB 198, [1975] 2 All ER 1081, CA.

11. See eg Ealing London Borough Council v Race Relations Board [1972] AC 342, [1972] 1 All ER 105, HL, and Ahmad v Inner London Education Authority [1978] QB 36, [1978] 1 All ER 574, CA.Google Scholar

12. Whitehouse v Lemon [1979] AC 617, [1979] 1 All ER 898Google Scholar, HL. The decision was by a majority, with Lords Diplock and Edmund Davies dissenting.

13. Spencer, J. R. ‘Blasphemy: The Law Commission's Working Paper’ [1981] Crim LR 810 at 814, 816Google Scholar; Law Com no 145, p. 11.

14. R. v Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Choudhury [1991] 1 QB 429, [1991] 1 All ER 306, DC.Google Scholar

15. Gay News Ltd and Lemon v United Kingdom (Application 8710/79) (1982) 5 EHRR 123, E Ct HR.Google Scholar

16. R. v Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Choudhury [1991] 1 QB 429, [1991]1 All ER 306, DC.Google Scholar

17. Gay News Ltd and Lemon v United Kingdom (Application 8710/79) (1982) 5 EHRR 123 at 131, E Ct HR.Google Scholar

18. Law Com no 145, para 2.18 (iii); and Law Com Working Paper No 79, para 6.9.

19. Whitehouse v Lemon [1979] AC 617 at 658Google Scholar, [1079] 1 All ER 898 at 921, HL.

20. [1979] AC 617 at 658, [1979] 1 All ER 898 at 921, HL.

21. [1979] AC 617 at 665, [1979] 1 All ER 898 at 927, HL.

22. Law Com no 145, paras 5.2, 5.3.

23. Ibid, para 2.47.

24. Ibid, para 2.50.

25. Ibid, para 2.58.

26. The argument of counsel for the publishers of Satanic Verses, apparently accepted by the court: R. v Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Choudhury [1991] 1 QB 429 at 451Google Scholar, [1991] 1 All ER 306 at 321, 322, DC.

27. [1991] 1 QB 429 at 451, [1991] 1 All ER 306 at 322, DC.

28. Spencer, J. R. ‘Blasphemy: The Law Commission's Working Paper’ [1981] Crim LR 810 at 819.Google Scholar

29. See the Sunday Telegraph, 11 July 1991.

30. By Race Relations Act 1967, s 7.

31. ‘Offences relating to Public Order’ (Law Com no 123 (1983)), paras 5.14–5.18.Google Scholar

32. Public Order Act 1986, s 4(2).

33. R. v Horseferry Magistrates' Court, ex parte Siadatan [1991] 1 QB 260Google Scholar, [1991] 1 All ER 324, DC.

34. Public Order Act 1986, s 5(1).

35. Ibid, s 5(2), which corresponds with s 4(2).

36. Law Com no 145, para 2.19.

37. Ibid.

38. Public Order Act 1936, s 5A.

39. Law Com no 145, para 2.29.

40. Public Order Act 1986, s 17, defining ‘racial hatred’.

41. See Ibid, ss 18–22.

42. Ibid, s 23.

43. See the Race Relations Act 1976, Pt II (ss 4–16), and Pt III (ss 17–27).

44. Ibid, ss 1(a), 3.

45. Ibid, ss 1(b), 3.

46. Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] 2 AC 548, [1983] 1 All ER 1062, HL.Google Scholar

47. [1983] 2 AC 548 at 569, [1983] 1 All ER 1062 at 1072, HL.

48. [1983] 2 AC 548 at 562, [1983] 1 All ER 1062 at 1067, HL.

49. See the Daily Telegraph, 27 September 1991.

50. See eg Law Com no 145, para 2.42; and Law Com Working Paper no 79, para 7.16.

51. Law Com no 145, para 2.48.

52. Incitement of Hatred Act 1970, s 1 (Northern Ireland).

53. See letter to The Times, 21 September 1992, from the Chairman of the Council for Racial Equality.