Kirk Session of Sandown Free Presbyterian Church, Re Judicial Review: QBNI 22 Mar 2011

Ban on Gay Condemnation was Infringement

The church claimant was prohibited by the ASA from publishing a one page advert in a national newspaper condemning homosexuality. As well as stating that ‘the act of sodomy is a grave offence’ and ‘an abomination’, the banned advert had encouraged people to peacefully protest at a forthcoming ‘Gay Pride’ parade.
Held: The ban was disproportionate under Article 10(2) because of the importance of freedom of expression: ‘The applicant’s religious views and the biblical scripture which underpins those views no doubt cause offence, even serious offence, to those of a certain sexual orientation. Likewise, the practice of homosexuality may have a similar effect on those of a particular religious faith. But Art 10 protects expressive rights which offend shock or disturb… the respondent has failed to convincingly establish the necessity for such restriction which, in my view, disproportionately interferes with the applicant’s freedom of expression. In making this assessment I have taken into account the very particular context in which the advertisement was placed, the fact that the advertisement did not condone and was not likely to provoke violence, contained no exhortation to other improper or illegal activity, constituted a genuine attempt to stand up for their religious beliefs and to encourage others to similarly bear witness and did so by citing well known portions of scripture which underpinned their religious faith and their call to bear witness…’

Treacy J
[2011] NIQB 26, [2011] NI 242
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 10
Northern Ireland
Citing:
CitedHandyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Media

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.440639