CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 5 mars 1991

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          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)