Search
document

Document text Analytics

CHOUDHURY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 17439/90 • ECHR ID: 001-854

Document date: March 5, 1991

Inbound citations: 2
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

CHOUDHURY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 17439/90 • ECHR ID: 001-854

Document date: March 5, 1991

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 17439/90

by Abdal CHOUDHURY

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 5 March 1991, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ RUIZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

Mr. J. RAYMOND, Deputy Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 3 September

1990 by Abdal CHOUDHURY against the United Kingdom and registered on

19 November 1990 under file No. 17439/90;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen born in 1954 and resident

in London. He is represented by Rahman and Co., solicitors practising

in London. The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised

as follows.

On 13 March 1989, the applicant, who is a Moslem, applied to

the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of London at Bow Street Magistrates

Court for a summons for criminal prosecution of blasphemy against

Salman Rushdie (author of the book "Satanic Verses") and the Viking

Penguin Publishing Co. (the publisher of the book) on the grounds that

the author and publishers unlawfully and wickedly published in the book

blasphemous libels against Almighty God (Allah), the Prophet Abraham and

his son Ishmad, Mohammed the Holy Prophet of Islam, his wives and

companions and the religion of Islam.

The application was dismissed on the basis that the offence of

blasphemy relates only to Christianity.

On 19 June 1989, the applicant was granted leave to apply for

judicial review of the decision in the Divisional Court of the High

Court.

The application for judicial review was heard before the

Divisional Court from 26 February to 1 March 1990. On 9 April 1990,

the Court refused the application. The Court found as follows:

"We have no doubt that as the law now stands it does not

extend to religions other than Christianity.

Can it in the light of the present conditions of society be

extended by the courts to cover other religions? Mr. Azhar

submits that it can and should be on the grounds that it is

anomalous and unjust to discriminate in favour of one

religion. In our judgment where the law is clear it is not

the proper function of this court to extend it; particularly

is this so in criminal cases where offences cannot be

retrospectively created. It is in that circumstance the

function of Parliament alone to change the law."

During the hearing counsel for the publisher said that there

might be a breach of Article 9 of the Convention if criticism or

agitation against a church or religious group reached such a level

that the church or its members were prevented from manifesting their

beliefs in the way set out in Article 9. The Court found that

"nothing remotely like that had been demonstrated by the applicant".

The applicant's application for leave to appeal to the House of

Lords against this decision was refused on 11 July 1990.

The offence of blasphemy was prior to 1660 dealt with in the

Ecclesiastical Courts. The offence of blasphemy at common law traces

its orgin to Taylor's case (l vent. 293) in 1676. In the 20th

century there has only been two prosecutions for blasphemy (R. v. Gott

1922, 16 Cr. App. R. 87, and R. v. Lemon 1979 A.C. 67). In 1985, the

Law Commission issued a report (No. 145) recommending that the offence

be abolished.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 9 of the Convention that

the United Kingdom has not given the Moslem religion protection

against abuse or scurrilous attacks, and that without that protection

there will inevitably be a limited enjoyment of the right to freedom

of religion provided for by that Article. The applicant also complains

of the fact that that protection is extended to the Christian

religion and not to other religions, contrary to Article 14.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that the law fails to protect his

religion against abuse, since it is not covered by the offence of

blasphemy. He invokes Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention which

provides:

"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,

conscience and religion; this right includes freedom

to change his religion or belief and freedom, either

alone or in community with others and in public or

private, to manifest his religion or belief, in

worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall

be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed

by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the

interests of public safety, for the protection of

public order, health or morals, or for the protection of

the rights and freedoms of others."

The Commission notes that the applicant sought to have

criminal proceedings brought against the author and the publisher of

the book "Satanic Verses" in order to vindicate his claim that the

book amounted to a scurrilous attack on, inter alia, his religion.

He does not claim, and it is clearly not the case, that any

State authority, or any body for which the United Kingdom Government

may be responsible under the Convention, directly interfered in the

applicant's freedom to manifest his religion or belief.

The question in the present case is therefore whether the

freedom of Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention may extend to

guarantee a right to bring any specific form of proceedings against

those who, by authorship or publication, offend the sensitivities of

an individual or of a group of individuals. The Commission finds no

indication in the present case of a link between freedom from

interference with the freedoms of Article 9 para. 1 (Art. 9-1) of the

Convention and the applicant's complaints.

Accordingly, this part of the application must be declared

incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the

Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).

2. The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 14

(Art. 14) of the Convention in connection with his complaints under

Article 9 (Art. 9). However, as the complaint under Article 9 (Art. 9)

has been rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the

provisions of the Convention, the complaints under Article 14

(Art. 14) of the Convention also fall to be regarded as incompatible

ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the

meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).

For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Deputy Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(J. RAYMOND) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant