In late March, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) refused to refer the case of Mrs Sabaditsch-Wolff v Austria to the Grand Chamber to contest her conviction for stating that 56-year-old Mohammed consummating his marriage to his nine-year-old wife could be viewed as ‘paedophilia’.
When convicted in 2011 she was fined 480 euros and threatened with a custodial sentence for non-payment. After losing her appeal in Austria and then with the ECHR in late 2018, the case was referred to the Grand Chamber for review. The original conviction was on the basis of a criminal provision prohibiting blasphemy in substance.
Could this happen here?
The UK blasphemy law, which only applied to Christianity, was abolished in 2008. Currently, under hate speech laws which are found in several statutes, it is acceptable to criticise and ridicule religious beliefs, but not always to do the same to religious people. In contrast, the blasphemy law protected the religion, but not the person.
If someone in the UK said something similar to Sabaditsch-Wolff, it is possible it would be investigated if a complaint was made, as happened in Austria. The law is reasonably clear that there would be a need to prove that someone was trying to ‘stir up hatred’. As this is unlikely to reach the threshold the law requires, then a successful prosecution is also unlikely. But where the law is clear, the interpretation by the police is becoming more liberal with regard to arresting people on suspicion of religious hatred (and around issues of sexual orientation and gender reassignment).
The move towards the creation of a law concerning ‘Islamophobia’ would perhaps open a door where this kind of case is concerned. This would prevent what is currently legal – criticism of Mohammed – at it would offend Muslims. Government has been lobbied by Muslim groups on this point.
‘Liberticidal’
The Court did not give any reason for refusing to refer the case to the Grand Chamber. Commentating on the outcome, Grégor Puppinck said: ‘Time will tell whether the ECHR persists on this liberticidal path.’
