Sign in to disable ALL ads. Handyside v. the United Kingdom , (5493/72) [1976] ECHR 5 (7 December 1976) Facts: The applicant is the publisher of the book "The Little Red Schoolbook" which urged young people at whom it was directed to take a liberal attitude in sexual matters.A prosecution was brought against him based on the Obscene Publications Act 1959, as amended by the Obscene Publications Act 1964. This case concerned a book which breached the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The two cases discussed are Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, and the furore in response to Geert Wilders short film Fitna. Pretty v the United Kingdom (App no 2346/02) ECHR 29 April 2002 (PDF, 340 KB) Open in new tab; Diane Pretty is a United Kingdom national, born in 1958 and living in Luton. Furthermore, in Handyside v United Kingdom Strasbourg accepted that freedom of speech applies to views which shock and offend and which are heartily disapproved of by the recipient [49]. The European Court decision in Handyside v United Kingdom framed the margin of appreciation doctrine in terms of a systemic tension in the European Convention framework. 243. View Spanish version, The European Court of Human Rights held that the confiscation of a book deemed to be obscene did not violate the right to freedom of expression. Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (1948). Held: … Wilders had previously visited the United Kingdom in December 2008 without any issues. However, Ban Ki-moon announced that free speech should respect religious sensibilities. 8 Handyside v. United Kingdom (1976) 1 E.H.R.R. However, the two concepts do not appear fully compatible, and in certain circumstances, states parties must make a choice as to which holds precedent. This essay is divided into two main sections – section one discusses laws governing the rights to freedom of artistic expression, and the protection afforded to the sensibilities of religious believers. The Court attached particular importance to the fact that the publication was aimed above all at children and adolescents aged from twelve to eighteen. However, the scope of Art. HANDYSIDE v UNITED KINGDOM Introduction Conclusion Handyside v United Kingdom was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 1976. Its conclusion contains the famous phrase that "Freedom of expression...is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are Dudgeon v United Kingdom. This means, amongst other things, that every “formality”, “condition”, “restriction” or “penalty” imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.”. 24, pp. Therefore, the above statement adheres to the protection afforded to freedom of expression as laid out in the human rights conventions (discussed above). Closed 10(1) is deemed ‘necessary in a democratic society’. Consequently, the film insinuates that Islam encourages – amongst other things – acts of terrorism, anti-Semitism, violence against women, violence and subjugation of non-believers. Copyright © 2003 - 2021 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Handyside v United Kingdom (1979-80) 1 EHRR 737, European Court of Human Rights. [para. Nevertheless, despite the interpretive material provided by the Explanatory Notes, it is clear that the courts have discretion in determining which groups will be granted protection under the legislation. Although the Court found that the confiscation of the book did not violate the right to freedom of expression, the judgment read as a whole sets a strong general standard for the protection of the right to freedom of expression. Quick Info. Indeed, some legal systems attempt to regulate speech or other actions to achieve the former. Handyside ceased distribution and advised bookshops accordingly. He purchased British rights of “The Little Red Schoolbook”, written by Søren Hansen and Jesper Jensen. Amendments to the Law on Public Information, Articles 1.1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 (2010), Action Challenging the Constitutionality of the Offense of Criminal Defamation in Guatemala, Stiftung Gegen Rassismus und Antisemitismus v. Switzerland, Stern Taulats and Roura Capellera v. Spain, Qwelane v. South African Human Rights Commission, The Case of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. and Others, Delia v. Minister for Justice of Malta Owen Bonnici, Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria, Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd v. Reddell; Mineral Commodities Limited v. Dlamini; Mineral Commodities Limited v. Clarke, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57499. Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision. Blog, Civil Defamation, False News, Internet, Internet Service Providers, Libel, © 2021 Columbia University  |  Statement on Disability, Columbia University 91 Claremont Ave, Suite 523 New York, NY 10027, Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of such a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man … [It]. However, in response to the ban, both Pearson and Cox accused the government of ‘appeasing’ militant Islam. 19(2) of the ICCPR provides that everyone has the “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds… orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice”. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. Therefore, the Court must be satisfied that there is a ‘pressing social need’ for the restriction, that the restriction in question corresponds to that need, and that it is a strictly proportionate response to the legitimate aim pursued. While the book contained purely factual information that was generally correct and useful, it also included passages that young people at a critical stage of their development could have interpreted as an encouragement to indulge in precocious activities harmful for them or even to commit certain criminal offences. One of the chapters contained a 26-page section concerning “Sex”. HANDYSIDE v UNITED KINGDOM Introduction Conclusion Handyside v United Kingdom was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 1976. 3 min read. 11 Klass v. Federal Republic of Germany (1978) 2 E.H.R.R. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? 10 Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (1979) 2 E.H.R.R. 13. This results in a non-uniform application of international human rights, and in some instances protectoral favour toward majority religions. It is therefore easy to distort the concept, in a negative sense, 'to circumvent the express requirements of the Convention'. He alsotheplaced advertisements for the booktheinsubjectvarious publications including The Bookseller, The Times Educational and Literary Supplements and Teachers World. Pretty v. United Kingdom - Volume 96 Issue 4 - M. A. Sanderson. Conversely, as Cumper proffers these two principles, as incorporated into international human rights law, appear contradictory in nature. Therefore, a margin of discretion is afforded to states parties; nevertheless, limitation on grounds of morals must demonstrate that ‘the limitation in question is essential to the maintenance of respect for fundamental values of the community’. The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction. Notably, in accordance to Art. It is guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and by international conventions, such as the European Convention on Human Rights. 25. Company Registration No: 4964706. As a result, more than a thousand copies of the book were provisionally seized under the Obscene Publications Act, together with leaflets, posters, showcards, and correspondence relating to the book’s publication and sale. VAT Registration No: 842417633. The publisher, Handyside, contended that the domestic law (the 1959 Act) … Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! 49]. Two days before the showing, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith banned Wilders from entering the territory of the United Kingdom, labelling him an ‘undesirable person’. 19 allows space for expression which does not conform to a state or a community’s norms – otherwise the right would become redundant. 214. Its most famous conclusion is that Freedom of expression [..] is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population (Para. Notable people with the surname include: Andrew Dods Handyside (1335-1904), South Australian politician; George Handyside (1821–1904), English businessman; Peter Handyside (born 1974), Scottish footballer; William Handyside (1793–1850), Scottish engineer; See also. (n.s.) 10(1) clearly included freedom of artistic expression, notably, the right to take part in the public exchange of cultural and social information and ideas of all kind. The book claimed that it was intended to teach school children about sex, including recommending the use of pornography. The applicant had made it clear that he planned a widespread circulation, and having advertised it widely, he had set a modest sale price and chosen a title suggesting that the work was some kind of handbook for use in schools. Provisions contained in international human rights law, case law rulings, and examples of the UK’s domestic legislation borne from international human rights provisions are discussed. In Handyside v. United Kingdom, it was held that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress. She is dying of motor neurone disease, a degenerative disease affecting the muscles, for which there is no cure. At the same time, the Court stressed that the test of ‘necessity’ was a strict one: “[W]hilst the adjective ‘necessary’ … is not synonymous with ‘indispensable’ … the words ‘absolutely necessary’ and ‘strictly necessary’ …, neither has it the flexibility of such expressions as ‘admissible’, ‘ordinary’, ‘useful’, ‘reasonable’ or ‘desirable’. In this connection, the Court's judgments relating to Article 10 (art. In Handyside v United Kingdom (1979-80) 1 EHRR 737 the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) considered an Article 10 challenge by Mr Handyside following his conviction for obscenity. Geert Wilders is a Dutch parliamentarian and leader of the Freedom Party (PVV). Perkara ini dikenal karena dalam putusannya Mahkamah Eropa merumuskan doktrin margin apresiasinya Latar belakang. Muslims consider secularists as spiritually barren. The Explanatory Notes provides that: “[T]he offences of stirring up religious hatred are not intended to limit or restrict discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult or abuse of particular religions or belief systems or lack of religion…”. Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Handyside v United Kingdom (5493/72) adalah sebuah perkara yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Eropa untuk Hak Asasi Manusia pada tahun 1976. Therefore, it is in the discretion of the state to decide whether to operate blasphemy laws, and to choose which religions to protect. 48], The Court further stated that it was necessary to pay the utmost attention to the principles that characterize a ‘democratic society’. Indeed, in Handyside v. United Kingdom, it was held that the state, as opposed to the international judge, is regarded as better placed to assess the measures required to protect morals. Find your family's origin in the United Kingdom, average life expectancy, most common occupation, and more. However, Wilders enjoys no protection for anti-Islamic comments made in the media. On 22 March 1971, the Daily Mirror published an account of the … The Court said at [49]: “Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of such a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Furthermore, the Court considered that the fact that no proceedings had been instituted against the revised edition, which differed extensively from the original edition on the points at issue, suggested that the authorities had wished to limit themselves to what was strictly necessary. For example, in Otto-Preminger Institut v. Austria the European Court held that members of a religious group “… cannot reasonably expect to be exempt from all criticism. 18 of the Universal Declaration, and Art. Summary Uk Case Handyside V. 2 pages) Ask a question Appleby v United Kingdom (brief summary) United Kingdom; Related Content. 18 of the ICCPR. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”. However, Jones argues that the right to hold and pursue one’s own belief, does not, by design impose any limit upon what others may say about, or do with the beliefs individuals hold. Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time. Richard Handyside purchased the British rights to a book that aimed to educate teenage readers about sex (including subsections on issues such as masturbation, pornography, homosexuality, abortion, etc) and was convicted of possessing obscene publications for gain under the Obscene Publications Act. The book became subject of extensive press comment, with mixed reactions with regards to the content. 10871/84 (1986) Case Significance. The Handyside judgment has been cited by courts around the world as persuasive authority in freedom of expression cases. However, by extending it to all citizens’, complications such as what legally constitutes a religion would come to the fore, therefore, repealing the legislation seems the only viable option. These offences are intended to stamp out extreme speech by Imams/Muslim leaders encouraging or celebrating atrocities such as 9/11 or the London bombings. Handyside v. United Kingdom: | ||Handyside v United Kingdom|| (5493/72) was a case decided by the |European Court of Hum... World Heritage Encyclopedia, the aggregation of the largest online encyclopedias available, and the most definitive collection ever assembled. This was a milestone judgment as it introduced a crucial concept for decision-making in human rights cases, the margin of appreciation. Handyside v United Kingdom (5493/72) adalah sebuah perkara yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Eropa untuk Hak Asasi Manusia pada tahun 1976. Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 595; [2006] Q.B. Furthermore, the interpretation given to ‘religious belief, or lack of religious belief’ within the milieu of the Act is a broad one, and includes not only the widely recognised religions in the UK, but also new and emerging religions. The right to freedom of religion constitutes one of the foundations of a ‘democratic society’ within the paradigm of human rights instruments; moreover, the ICCPR Committee has noted that it is also a protected right for non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief. 10) - starting with Handyside (7 December 1976; Series A no. However, Barendt argues that they infringe freedom of speech with little justification. Art. You should not treat any information in this essay as being authoritative. Perkara ini dikenal karena dalam putusannya Mahkamah Eropa … It is guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and by international conventions, such as the European Convention on Human Rights. Nonetheless, it also stressed that artists who promote their work are not immune from the possibility of restrictions. 10(2) did not grant states parties unlimited power of appreciation; the Court would make the final judgment on whether a restriction was permissible. Handyside v United Kingdom (5493/72) was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 1976. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS (1966). Advertisements were also placed for the book. Finally, in terms of legal protection of the religious sensibilities ‘the strength of their own belief is the best armour against mockers and blasphemers’. Handyside v The United Kingdom: ECHR 7 Dec 1976. The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the Committee of Ministers (resolutions) Looking for a flexible role? The Court considered that there was no European consensus on the protection of public morals, particularly as regards children. Furthermore, the applicant’s claims did not involve a manifestation of religion or belief, ‘in worship, teaching, practice and observance’ – as laid out in Art. Handyside sent out several hundred review copies of the book, together with a press release, to a selection of publications from national and local newspapers to educational and medical journals. Furthermore, in Handyside v. United Kingdom, the European Court held that broadmindness, tolerance and pluralism are traits of a democratic society, and that accordingly Art. When the Dutch right-wing politician Geert Wilders released his provocative film ‘Fitna’, the secretary-general praised the Netherlands government for seeking to ban it, describing the film as ‘offensively anti-Islamic’ and declaring that ‘The right of free expression is not at stake here’. For example, English common law developed an offence of blasphemous libel, which dates back to the seventeenth century. I don’t really post a whole lot of ‘choruses’, so here’s a chorus of Rhythm Changes. See Boyle, K. and Hannum, H., “Ireland in Strasbourg. View Notes - Handyside_v_UK.doc from ART 1533 at Oklahoma Panhandle State University. 23-24, para. 45 ECtHR - Tyrer v UK (Application no. Court: European Court of Human Rights. Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Baroness Cox of Queensbury, members of the House of Lords invited Wilders to a 12 February 2009 showing of Fitna in the Palace of Westminster. Wilders called Prime Minister Gordon Brown “[t]he biggest coward in Europe” and remarked, “[O]f course I will come back”. Date: 7 December 1976. Indeed, Chase deduces that the language of Art. Handyside v. the United Kingdom. Moreover, the organisation Liberty regards the UK’s blasphemy law as largely obsolete due to the last successful prosecution dating back to the late 1970s. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Universal Declaration hereinafter) was the first human rights instrument to recognise the principle of freedom of expression. A group of Muslim leaders in the UK took legal action against Salman Rushdie and the publishers, under Blasphemy laws. 9 of the European Convention does not extend to all deeply held beliefs, as illustrated by Pretty v. United Kingdom where the Court observed that not all convictions or opinions constituted beliefs. Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Handyside is a surname. Additionally, worldwide protests were staged, resulting in five people being killed during a protest in Islamabad.
Public Holidays Sa 2025, Classical Rhetoric For The Modern Student Table Of Contents, Home Reit Prospectus, Just Swap Tron, Oops Something Went Wrong Windows 10, How To Use A Yanagiba, Venus Williams Score Today, National Music Festival 2019 Venue,