Matthew Scott: European Court’s blasphemy law judgment is dreadful

Matthew Scott: European Court's blasphemy law judgment is dreadful

Matthew Scott

The BarristerBlogger, Matthew Scott, takes a comprehensive look at the European Court of Human Rights’ recent blasphemy judgment and finds it severely wanting.

The decision of the Fifth Section of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of E.S. v. Austria has been welcomed by Islamists in Pakistan and condemned by secularists in Europe. It has also been misunderstood. Some of those who have condemned the refusal of the court to denounce Austria’s domestic criminal law are those who on other occasions would denounce it for interfering in the sovereignty of an independent country.

In strict legal terms all that the court has done is to rule that an Austrian law making it a crime – in some circumstances – to “disparage” religion, is not incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

It has not established a Europe-wide blasphemy law. It has not ruled that criticising or insulting Muhammad is a crime. It has not ruled that it is criminal to be rude about the Muslim faith. It has not ruled that Islam is entitled to legal protection denied to other religions.

Nor is it necessarily the last word in the case. There is still some prospect that it will be heard by the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR which could reverse the decision.

But for all that, it is a dreadful judgment, not least because it has immediately and predictably been hailed by Muslim religious fanatics as support for their demand to hang the 47-year-old Pakistani Christian Asia Bibi for supposedly insulting Muhammad.

By endorsing what is in all but name an Austrian blasphemy law, at a time when such laws have been repealed in most European countries, the court has given encouragement to religious intolerance, undermined moderates and handed a useful argument to Islamists. “You complain about our blasphemy laws,” say the bloodthirsty bigots in Pakistan, “but even your own top human rights court says blasphemy laws are necessary in a democratic society. Clearly we’re right and you’re wrong.”

Read the full analysis of the case on the SLN website here

Share icon
Share this article: