Pastor Terry Jones ban: Koran burning and free speech

13 December 2010 by

Terry Jones, an American pastor who threatened to burn Korans on the 9th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, may be banned from visiting the UK by the home secretary.

Jones, an otherwise unknown local pastor in Gainsville, Florida, cause worldwide controversy earlier this year when he proposed an “International Burn a Koran Day”. He has not as yet carried out his threat.

It is well known that free speech protections mean that we have to protect the rights of those we disagree with. A recent High Court case involving an Indian preacher shows that the protection probably does not extend to non-UK residents such as Jones, but it may to his supporters.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights permits a public authority to breach freedom of expression rights, amongst other things, if “necessary in a democratic society”. The Home Secretary has no obligation to protect the free speech rights of Pastor Jones. However, in deciding whether to ban the pastor, she is must ensure under human rights law that a ban would not unduly restrict the freedom of expression rights of those who could hear him speak in the UK.

The High Court recently addressed similar issues in the case of Dr Zakir Naik, when it authorised the exclusion from the UK of a popular Indian television Islamic preacher, on the grounds that his presence would not be conducive to the public good (see our post / the judgment).

The High Court considered whether Dr Naik’s personal freedom of expression rights were at issue. Although he is based in India, there have been a number of recent cases which have extended the protections guaranteed under human rights law beyond the borders of tue UK. For example, in R(Smith) the Supreme Court ruled that soldiers in UK bases (but not battlefields) abroad were protected.

However, the High Court was unwilling to extend free speech protections to Dr Naik, and if Pastor Jones’ case reached court, it is unlikely he would be treated any differently. In any event, even if Jones was protected under the Human Rights Act, it would still be open to the home secretary to breach his rights if a proportionate means of pursuing a legitimate end (human rights speak for “fair enough”).

If he lived in the UK to begin with and decided to burn Korans, that would be a different position altogether, although in fact our freedom of expression protections are less robust than those in the US, and he may well have been caught under incitement of racism laws (see this post on Inforrm’s blog for more).

But it is not just Jones himself who is entitled to article 10 protection. Another aspect of the protection is that it ensures the right to “receive information“, and this could apply to the people who might have come to hear Pastor Jones speak, even those who do not agree with his views.

In Dr Naik’s case, his supporters based in the UK were entitled to the right to receive the information that Dr Naik would have given them during his public lectures. Article 10 was accordingly engaged. However, the High Court held that the interference with Article 10 could be justified under Article 10(2) as it was proportionate and in accordance with the law governed by the Immigration Rules and the Home Office’s policy

The relevant Home Office Policy in such cases is their Unacceptable Behaviours Policy. Jones would likely be caught by the policy of excluding those who “foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.”

Given the unattractive and inflammatory views of Pastor Jones, it seems unlikely that his case, if Jones was indeed excluded and the matter considered by a court, would lead to a different result from that of Dr Naik’s, in the High Court at least (the higher appeal courts may have a different view). But human rights law does show that the home secretary has some thinking to do before excluding preachers and speakers who many do not agree with.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more


Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: