British Court Upholds Conviction For Holocaust Denial On YouTube

In Chabloz v. Regina, (Crown Ct., Feb. 13, 2019), s British Crown Court upheld the conviction of a Holocaust denier on three counts of sending a grossly offensive message by means of an electronic communication.  The decision upholds a Magistrates' Court conviction of Alsion Chabloz for three songs posted on Your Tube.The court held that Holocaust denial per se is not outlawed.  Rather, each instance of Holocaust denial must be examined to determine if it is grossly offensive.  The court describes each song as

a collection of anti-Semitic tropes or motifs, with a particular emphasis on Holocaust denial.  Furthermore, two of the songs are in whole or part set to the tunes of well-known Hebrew songs, which the prosecution says is no accident, bu rather a deliberate attempt to increase the insulting effect of each.

The Campaign Against Antisemitism reports that this is the first conviction in the UK for Holocaust denial on social media.

House of Lords Debates Religious Intolerance In UK

On Wednesday in Britain the House of Lords engaged in an extensive debate on religious intolerance and prejudice in the United Kingdom. (Full text of the Parliamentary debate.) Lord Hain described the seriousness of the problem in Britain:

We have grown used to pogroms against minorities at various stages in our history as a country: against Jews intermittently and sometimes continuously over the millennia; against the Irish in the nineteenth century; against Jews again in the 1930s; against black and Asian Britons from the late 1950s until today; and against Muslims in the first two decades of this century. But what is entirely novel today is a toxic convergence of attacks on Jewish, black and Muslim British citizens all at the same time. I am not aware of any period in our history when this has occurred before. It is deadly serious, with many of our citizens living in fear or terror simply because of their religion, race or skin colour. This is not just scandalous, it is criminal.

Lord Bourne said in part:

We have asked the Law Commission to review the coverage and approach of current hate crime legislative provision. We must be clear: when someone has perpetrated a hate crime, they will be held accountable for it. Later this year, we will launch a wide-ranging national hate crime public awareness campaign publicly to address hate crime. The refresh commits us to updating the True Vision website to make it easier to use and to ensure it remains the key central platform for all hate crime reporting. We are working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to provide hate crime training for all call handlers in order to ensure an appropriate response from the first contact, and we are creating the challenging hate crime support group—a network of organisations who share resources, skills and best practice.

Law & Religion UK also reports on the debate.

Reported Hate Crimes In England and Wales Show Increase

Britain's Home Office yesterday issued a report (full text) Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2017/18.  It reports that there were 94,098 hate crime offenses recorded by police. This is an increase of 17% over the previous year, but this is seen as largely caused by improvements in police reporting. The largest increase (40%) was hate crimes directed at a person because of religion.  Overall, 9% of the hate crimes were religion based, while 76% were racial.  52% of the hate crimes that targeted religion were aimed at Muslims. 12% were aimed at Jews; 5% at Christians. 21% were listed as religion based hate crimes with the targeted religion unknown. JTA reports on the data.

UK Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Baker Who Refused To Supply Cake Supporting Gay Marriage

In a widely followed case, the United Kingdom Supreme Court today ruled in favor of Christian bakers in a case that became particularly high profile after the U.S. Supreme Court's Masterpiece Cakeshop decision.  In Lee v. Ashers Baking Company Ltd, (UKSC, Oct. 10, 2018), the court framed the question-- which arose under anti-discrimination provisions in the law of Northern Ireland-- as follows:

The substantive question in this case is whether it is unlawful discrimination, either on grounds of sexual orientation, or on grounds of religious belief or political opinion, for a bakery to refuse to supply a cake iced with the message “support gay marriage” because of the sincere religious belief of its owners that gay marriage is inconsistent with Biblical teaching and therefore unacceptable to God.

Rejecting the claim that the bakery engaged in direct discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the court said in part:

The reason for treating Mr Lee less favourably than other would-be customers was not his sexual orientation but the message he wanted to be iced on the cake. Anyone who wanted that message would have been treated in the same way.... By definition, direct discrimination is treating people differently....

In a nutshell, the objection was to the message and not to any particular person or persons....

Experience has shown that the providers of employment, education, accommodation, goods, facilities and services do not always treat people with equal dignity and respect, especially if they have certain personal characteristics which are now protected by the law. It is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person’s race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or any of the other protected personal characteristics. But that is not what happened in this case and it does the project of equal treatment no favours to seek to extend it beyond its proper scope.

The court also rejected the contention that the bakery had discriminated against Mr. Lee on the basis of his political opinion:

The objection was not to Mr Lee because he, or anyone with whom he associated, held a political opinion supporting gay marriage. The objection was to being required to promote the message on the cake. The less favourable treatment was afforded to the message not to the man.... The situation is not comparable to people being refused jobs, accommodation or business simply because of their religious faith. It is more akin to a Christian printing business being required to print leaflets promoting an atheist message.

The court went on to hold that were the bakery required to furnish the cake, it would violate the owners' freedom of conscience and free expression rights protected by Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court gave a broad interpretation to the rights:

[T]here is no requirement that the person who is compelled to speak can only complain if he is thought by others to support the message. Mrs McArthur may have been worried that others would see the Ashers logo on the cake box and think that they supported the campaign. But that is by the way: what matters is that by being required to produce the cake they were being required to express a message with which they deeply disagreed.

In a Postscript, the court discussed the U.S. Supreme Court's Masterpiece Cakeshop opinion.  The court also issued a Press Summary of the opinion. Irish Times reports on the decision.
[Thanks to Marty Lederman and Seth Tillman via Religionlaw for the lead.] [This post has been updated to eliminate the statement that this case was "analogous" to Masterpiece Cakeshop.]

England's Chief Coroner Gives Guidance On Rapid Release of Bodies For Religious Reasons

As previously reported, in England last month a court held unlawful the policy of a London Coroner to categorically refuse to give priority to releasing a body for burial when requested to do so for religious reasons. Such requests are often made by Jewish and Muslim families whose beliefs call for burial quickly after death.  (See prior posting.)  Yesterday, the Chief Coroner of England and Wales issued Guidance No. 28 (full text), designed to give practical guidance to local coroners when expedited release is requested for religious or other reasons.  The Guidance reads in part:

14. The judgment in the AYBS Case reflects two important legal considerations: (i) that a coroner should be open to representations that a particular case should be treated as a matter of urgency (whether for religious or other reasons); and (ii) that proper respect should be given to representations based on religious belief.

15. However, the decision of the Court does not require a coroner to give automatic priority to deaths from particular religious communities, nor does it require coroners to drop other important work to deal with such deaths. The Court also recognised that other deaths may require urgent handling for non-religious reasons.

16. There is no obligation for coroners to adopt formal written policies for dealing with requests for expedition or for dealing with deaths from faith communities.... However, any policy or practices adopted by coroners must be sufficiently flexible to allow them to give due consideration to expediting decisions where there is good reason to do so. They should seek to strike a fair balance between the interests of those with a well-founded request for expedition (including on religious grounds) and other families who may be affected.

Jewish Chronicle reports on the new Guidance document.

British Court Sentences Former Army Officer Over Anti-Semitic Speech

From England, The Independent reported yesterday that right-wing activist  Jeremy Bedford-Turner was sentenced by the Southwark Crown Court to one year in jail after a jury convicted him of stirring up racial hatred in violation of the Public Order Act1986.  The charges stem from a 15-minute long virulently anti-Semitic speech that Bedford-Turner gave in July 2015 in central London.  The speech, opposing the Shomrim Jewish civilian patrol group, called for Britains to "free England from Jewish control."  Bedford-Turner, who previously served 12 years in the British army, was given a standing ovation by 35 of his supporters in the court room after he was sentenced. Britain's Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA) has criticized the Crown Prosecution Service for its initial decision not to prosecute Bedford-Turner, a decision reversed only after CAA challenged the decision in court.

British Musician On Trial For Holocaust Revsionist YouTube Postings

Press Association reported yesterday on the trial in Britain of musician Alison Chabloz who is charged with sending grossly offensive Holocaust Revisionist material on a public communications network.  Chabloz, who is being tried in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court, is charged with 5 counts growing out of her posting on YouTube of videos of three songs she wrote.  Chaboz's attorney is raising a free speech defense. The judge's verdict will be handed down on May 25.  Meanwhile Chaboz is out on bail.

British Court Gives Coroners Guide On Prioritizing Release of Bodies For Religious Reasons

In Adath Yisroel Burial Society v. HM Senior Coroner For Inner North London,  (EWHC, April 27, 2018), a 2-judge panel in England's High Court held unlawful the policy of a London Coroner to categorically refuse to give priority to releasing a body for burial when requested to do so for religious reasons. Jewish and Muslim religious law calls for burial to take place quickly after death. The court summarized its holding in part as follows:

(1) A Coroner cannot lawfully exclude religious reasons for seeking expedition of decisions by that Coroner, including the Coroner’s decision whether to release a body for burial.

(2) A Coroner is entitled to prioritise cases, for religious or other reasons, even where the consequence of prioritising one or some cases may be that other cases will have to wait longer for a decision.... 

(3) Whether to accord one case priority over another or others is for the Coroner to determine. The following further points apply:

a) It is in principle acceptable for the Coroner to implement a policy to address the circumstances when priority will or may be given, so long as that policy is flexible and enables all relevant considerations to be taken into account.

b) The availability of resources may be a relevant consideration in drawing up that policy or in making the decision in any individual case but limitations on resources do not justify discrimination.

(4) It would be wrong for a Coroner to impose a rule of automatic priority for cases where there are religious reasons for seeking expedition.

JTA reports on the decision. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Britain's Court of Appeals Rules Against Gay Priest's Employment Discrimination Claim

In Pemberton v Inwood, (EWCA , March 22, 2018), the England and Wales Court of Appeal ruled against Jeremy Pemberton, a gay Church of England priest who was prevented from taking a position as a hospital chaplain when he married his same-sex partner.  Pemberton sued claiming employment discrimination and harassment. Lady Justice Asplin's opinion held that the action taken against Pemberton falls within a statutory exception from the Equality Act's discrimination provisions for religious organizations that impose various requirements regarding marriage and sexual orientation.  Rejecting Pemberton's harassment claim, Justice Asplin said in part:

If you belong to an institution with known, and lawful, rules, it implies no violation of dignity, and is not cause for reasonable offence, that those rules should be applied to you, however wrong you may believe them to be. Not all opposition of interests is hostile or offensive.

 The Guardian reports on the court's decision. (See prior related posting.)

British Court Issues FGM Protection Order To Protect 1-Year Old

According to the Manchester Evening News this week, a Family Court judge in Manchester, England has entered an "FGM protection order" at the request of social workers.  The order prohibits a 1-year old girl's family from flying the child back to India, their country of origin, for purposes of female genital mutilation.  The child's three older sisters had previously been flown to India for the procedure.  FGM protection orders have been available from British judges for about three years. (Background on obtaining an FGM Order).

England's Court of Appeal Rejects Religious Objections To Transgender Parent's Contact With Children

Britain's Court of Appeal yesterday reversed the decision of a Family Court judge who had ordered that the Orthodox Jewish father of five children who left the family to live as a transgender woman could have no direct contact in the future with the children.  The Family Court judge based his decision on the ostracism that the children and their mother would face from the North Manchester Charedi Jewish community in which they continued to live. (See prior posting.)  In In the matter of M (Children),  (EWCA, Dec. 20, 2017), the appeals court remanded the case to the Family Court, suggesting that some compromise might be found. The appeals court, however, made clear what result should follow if a compromise could not be found:

If the matter has in due course to be determined by the court, we would take the view that in the light of developments in Strasbourg jurisprudence there would be force in Ms Ball's submissions that the community’s beliefs, which resulted in the ready exclusion of young children from the rest of the community, did not meet the criteria set by the Strasbourg court for a religious belief that was entitled to protection under Article 9 [Freedom of thought, conscience and religion].... In that situation, we would expect the leaders of the community to help the community to adopt a more flexible attitude to their beliefs as they might affect the children....

Provisionally ... it seems to us that, if a court were to make an order granting the father some form of direct contact to the children, it would have to have concluded, after the most careful consideration with the parties, that that course was in the best interests of the children. If this involves any interference with any rights of the community to manifest their religious beliefs, we doubt that there would be any violation of the community’s rights under Article 9. This is because the court, as an organ of the State, will on this basis have decided that a restriction that may be involved of their right to express their religious beliefs serves the legitimate aim of protecting the children’s rights to have contact with their father and thus to enjoy family life with him, which rights are vital to their well-being.

The appeals court also issued a Press Summary of the decision. LGBTQ Nation reports on the decision.

Trump's Retweets of Islamophobic Videos Distress British Leaders

The Independent this morning reports that Donald Trump's retweeting of Islamophobic videos first posted by Jayda Fransen, deputy leader of the far-right Britain First movement, has caused consternation among British leaders. 

British Court Upholds Removal of Christian Social Work Student Over Facebook Comments

As reported by The Guardian and by a press release from Christian Concern, a British trial court judge yesterday upheld a decision by Sheffield University to remove graduate student Felix Ngole from his 2-year MA program in Social Work because of comments he posted on Facebook.  In 2015, commenting on the widely publicized case of Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, Ngole, a devout Christian, said: "same sex marriage is a sin whether we like it or not. It is God’s words and man’s sentiments would not change His words." Ngole argued that the University's action infringed his free expression rights.  High Court Judge Rowena Collins Rice ruled, however:

Public religious speech has to be looked at in a regulated context from the perspective of a public readership. Social workers have considerable power over the lives of vulnerable service users and trust is a precious professional commodity.

Britain's Court of Appeal Invalidates Sex-Segregated Classes In Co-Ed Faith Schools

In HM Chief Inspector of Education v. Interim Executive Board of Al-Hijrah School, (EWCA, Oct. 13, 2017), the England and Wales Court of Appeal held that a Muslim school which admits both boys and girls, but for religious reasons separates them into sex-segregated classes, violates the Equality Act 2010.  The opinion of Etherton, MR (joined by Beatson, LJ) concluded that the separation operates to discriminate against both boys and girls, saying in part:

An individual girl pupil cannot socialise and intermix with a boy pupil because, and only because, of her sex; and an individual boy pupil cannot socialise and intermix with a girl pupil because, and only because, of his sex. Each is, therefore, treated less favourably than would be the case if their sex was different.

They also point out:

It is common ground that the School is not the only Islamic school which operates such a policy and that a number of Jewish schools with a particular Orthodox ethos and some Christian faith schools have similar practices. 

In a separate opinion, Lady Justice Gloster argued that on the facts of this case, it should be found that the school's practice also has a more detrimental effect on girls than on boys.  She said in part:

One does not need to be an educationalist, a sociologist or a psychiatrist to conclude that a mixed sex school: (i.) which, whether intentionally or otherwise, tolerates an environment where extreme and intolerant contemporary views about the role and physical subservience of women, and the entitlement of men physically to dominate and chastise them, are on display, or available to read, in the school library; (ii.) whose teachers approve the expression by the pupils of gender stereotyped views about the roles of women as homemakers and child minders and the role of men as the breadwinners; (iii.) where girls are always required to wait for an hour during the school day so that the boys can take a break first; and (iv.) where no, or no sufficient, consideration is given to promoting equal  opportunity, is a school where a strict sex segregation policy subjects girls to a greater risk of extreme and intolerant views and is likely to reinforce or create misogynist attitudes amongst the boy pupils towards them.

She also points out that the Equality Act contains an exception for single-sex schools, i.e. schools that only admit students of one sex.

The Court also issued a press summary of its decision.  Schools Week reports on the decision.

British Survey of Anti-Semitic Crime Finds Overall Increase For 2016, But Fewer Violent Crimes

As reported by JTA, Britain's non-profit organization Campaign Against Antisemitism yesterday released its National Antisemitic Crime Audit-- 2016 in Review.  The report found 1,078 Anti-Semitic crimes in 2015, an increase of 14.9% from the prior year.  105 of these were violent crimes. Violent anti-Semitic crime though fell by 44.7% from 2015.  According to the report:

Ever since crime targeting British Jews began to surge in 2014, each successive year has set a new record for antisemitic crime, and each year fewer crimes have been charged. 2016 was the worst year on record for antisemitic crime, yet instead of protecting British Jews, the authorities prosecuted merely fifteen cases of antisemitic hate crime, including one solitary violent crime.

British Regulator Issues Guidance On Religious Beliefs In Pharmacy Practice

Britain's General Pharmaceutical Council, the regulator for pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and registered pharmacies in England, Scotland and Wales, this month issued a Guidance Document for pharmacy professionals titled In Practice: Guidance on Religion, Personal Values and Beliefs. Here is an excerpt from the document:

In some cases, a pharmacy professional’s religion, personal values or beliefs may influence their day-to-day practice, particularly whether they feel able to provide certain services.... 

Pharmacy professionals have the right to practise in line with their religion, personal values or beliefs as long as they act in accordance with equalities and human rights law and make sure that person-centred care is not compromised....

If a pharmacy professional is unwilling to provide a certain service, they should take steps to make sure the person asking for care is at the centre of their decision-making, so they can access the service they need in a timely manner and without hindrance.

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

British Court Says Disabled Care Home Resident Should Not Observe Muslim Customs

In Re: IH (Observance of Muslim Practice) (England & Wales Ct. Protection, June 12, 2017), a judge in Britain's Court of Protection (which has jurisdiction to make decisions in the best interest of those who lack capacity to do so for themselves) made his own findings about principles of Muslim religious law in denying a father's wishes for his 39-year old son who has a profound learning disability and resides in a care home. Relying on testimony of an expert witness in Islamic law, the court held that the son does not have an obligation to observe the practice of shaving or trimming pubic and underarm hair. The court had previously held that the son does not have an obligation to fast during Ramadan, and the father did not contest this ruling.  The Huddersfield Daily Examiner reports on the decision.

British Controversy Over Name of Easter Egg Hunt

Washington Post last week reported that in England, Prime Minister Theresa May and the Church of England harshly criticized a move by the National Trust (a charity that promotes conservation) to rebrand its annual Easter Egg Hunt as merely the "Great British Egg Hunt" in order to attract non-Christian children as well. The event is co-sponsored with the candy maker Cadbury whose chocolate eggs are used in the event. Prime Minister May, during her trip to Jordan, said: "I think what the National Trust is doing is frankly just ridiculous. Easter’s very important. It’s important to me, it’s a very important festival for the Christian faith for millions across the world." After the criticism, the National Trust added the word Easter to the description of the event on its website. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

British Appeals Court Refuses To Extend Civil Partnerships To Heterosexual Couples

In Steinfeld & Keidan v Secretary of State for Education, (EWCA, Feb. 21, 2017), Britain's Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, rejected a challenge to British law that allows same-sex couples, but not opposite-sex couples, to enter civil partnerships as an alternative to marriage.  The differential treatment was challenged as a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibition on discrimination (Article 14) and right to respect for private and family life (Article 8). As explained in the Court's Summary of the decision, all of the judges agreed that the ban on civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples creates a potential violation of Articles 14 and 8.  However two of the three judges concluded that the limitation is permissible because it is in pursuit of a legitimate aim and is proportionate.  The Secretary of State is taking further time to assess whether, since the introduction of same-sex marriage, civil partnership should be phased out or should instead be extended to opposite-sex couples. CNN reports on the decision.

British Lottery Approves Grants To Deal with Bats In Churches

With the U.S. Supreme Court still scheduled this term to hear the Trinity Lutheran case on government grants to religious institutions, this story from Britain presents an interesting comparative law example.  Britain's Heritage Lottery Fund distributes a share of the income from the National Lottery to projects for preserving and making accessible Britain's heritage. Yesterday the Fund announced a large 5-year grant for a "Bats In Churches" project, explaining in part:

The UK has internationally important populations of bats which are at risk due to decreases in precious woodland habitats. Churches offer alternative sanctuaries for maternity roosts and hibernation. However, bats in churches can cause serious problems as bat droppings can restrict activities, damage historic artifacts and put a strain on the volunteers who look after the buildings.

Thanks to input from skilled professionals who will work with volunteers, solutions to these problems will be shared with hundreds of churches.

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]