- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Whitehouse v Lemon (1979)
This case concerns the common law offence of blasphemous libel and its application in a pluralistic society. Understanding this case requires grasping the facts, the decision, and the implications for freedom of religion.
I. Facts of the Case:
The Publication: Gay News magazine published a poem, "The Love that Dares to Speak its Name," depicting explicit homosexual acts involving Jesus Christ.
The Prosecution: Mary Whitehouse, a prominent moral campaigner, brought a private prosecution against the magazine and its editor.
The Conviction: The defendants were initially convicted of blasphemous libel, despite the offence being considered largely obsolete.
The Appeal: The appeal to the House of Lords challenged the requirement of proving specific intent to offend Christians.
II. The Decision of the House of Lords:
Strict Liability: The House of Lords upheld the conviction, affirming that blasphemous libel is a crime of strict liability. This means that proving an intent to publish the material is sufficient for conviction; the publisher's motive is irrelevant.
Limited to Christianity: The court explicitly stated that the common law offence of blasphemous libel currently applies only to Christianity. The judiciary declined to extend it to other religions.
Lord Scarman's Dissenting View: While the majority upheld the conviction, Lord Scarman argued that the common law offence could serve a purpose in protecting the religious feelings of all citizens in a diverse society. He advocated for legislative reform to broaden the scope of protection beyond Christianity.
III. Key Concepts and Issues:
Blasphemous Libel: A common law offence involving the publication of material insulting or showing contempt for the Christian religion. Note the strict liability element – intent to publish is sufficient, regardless of intent to offend.
Freedom of Speech vs. Protection of Religious Sentiments: The case highlights the tension between freedom of expression and the protection of religious beliefs and feelings. The court's decision prioritizes the latter, at least in relation to the established religion.
Secular vs. Religious Law: The case shows the interaction between secular legal principles (like freedom of speech) and the remnants of religiously-based common law.
Pluralism and the Law: Lord Scarman’s dissenting opinion underscores the challenges of applying laws rooted in a historically dominant religion to a increasingly diverse society. He suggests the need for legislative action to reflect this changing reality.
IV. Study Questions:
What is the difference between a crime of strict liability and a crime requiring mens rea (guilty mind)? How does this distinction impact the outcome of Whitehouse v Lemon?
Why did the House of Lords refuse to extend the protection of blasphemous libel to other religions? What are the arguments for and against such an extension?
Critically analyze Lord Scarman's dissenting judgment. What are the strengths and weaknesses of his argument for legislative reform?
How does this case reflect the ongoing tension between freedom of speech and the protection of religious sensibilities in a pluralistic society?
What are the potential implications for freedom of expression if the common law offence of blasphemous libel were to be extended to protect other religions?
V. Further Research:
Research the current legal status of blasphemy laws in the UK and other countries. Consider the implications of protecting religious feelings versus safeguarding freedom of expression. Explore the arguments for and against the existence of blasphemy laws in the modern era.
This case concerns the common law offence of blasphemous libel and its application in a pluralistic society. Understanding this case requires grasping the facts, the decision, and the implications for freedom of religion.
I. Facts of the Case:
The Publication: Gay News magazine published a poem, "The Love that Dares to Speak its Name," depicting explicit homosexual acts involving Jesus Christ.
The Prosecution: Mary Whitehouse, a prominent moral campaigner, brought a private prosecution against the magazine and its editor.
The Conviction: The defendants were initially convicted of blasphemous libel, despite the offence being considered largely obsolete.
The Appeal: The appeal to the House of Lords challenged the requirement of proving specific intent to offend Christians.
II. The Decision of the House of Lords:
Strict Liability: The House of Lords upheld the conviction, affirming that blasphemous libel is a crime of strict liability. This means that proving an intent to publish the material is sufficient for conviction; the publisher's motive is irrelevant.
Limited to Christianity: The court explicitly stated that the common law offence of blasphemous libel currently applies only to Christianity. The judiciary declined to extend it to other religions.
Lord Scarman's Dissenting View: While the majority upheld the conviction, Lord Scarman argued that the common law offence could serve a purpose in protecting the religious feelings of all citizens in a diverse society. He advocated for legislative reform to broaden the scope of protection beyond Christianity.
III. Key Concepts and Issues:
Blasphemous Libel: A common law offence involving the publication of material insulting or showing contempt for the Christian religion. Note the strict liability element – intent to publish is sufficient, regardless of intent to offend.
Freedom of Speech vs. Protection of Religious Sentiments: The case highlights the tension between freedom of expression and the protection of religious beliefs and feelings. The court's decision prioritizes the latter, at least in relation to the established religion.
Secular vs. Religious Law: The case shows the interaction between secular legal principles (like freedom of speech) and the remnants of religiously-based common law.
Pluralism and the Law: Lord Scarman’s dissenting opinion underscores the challenges of applying laws rooted in a historically dominant religion to a increasingly diverse society. He suggests the need for legislative action to reflect this changing reality.
IV. Study Questions:
What is the difference between a crime of strict liability and a crime requiring mens rea (guilty mind)? How does this distinction impact the outcome of Whitehouse v Lemon?
Why did the House of Lords refuse to extend the protection of blasphemous libel to other religions? What are the arguments for and against such an extension?
Critically analyze Lord Scarman's dissenting judgment. What are the strengths and weaknesses of his argument for legislative reform?
How does this case reflect the ongoing tension between freedom of speech and the protection of religious sensibilities in a pluralistic society?
What are the potential implications for freedom of expression if the common law offence of blasphemous libel were to be extended to protect other religions?
V. Further Research:
Research the current legal status of blasphemy laws in the UK and other countries. Consider the implications of protecting religious feelings versus safeguarding freedom of expression. Explore the arguments for and against the existence of blasphemy laws in the modern era.
0 Comments