What’s all the fuss about the Lord’s prayer? Emma-Louise Fenelon

30 November 2015 by

 

3968d1b29ab5c87f812e12ccb25b4ff3“I find your lack of faith disturbing” (Darth Vader)

Digital Cinema Media (DCM), the media agency that supplies adverts to 80% of UK cinemas caused consternation last week when it announced its refusal to show a 60-second advert by the Church of England encouraging people to pray. The ad would have been guaranteed a sizable audience had it been permitted to air as planned before the upcoming Star Wars: the Force Awakens, advance ticket sales for which have broken all known records.

DCM said the decision was based on concerns that the ad risked upsetting or offending audiences and ran contrary to their policy not to show ads that in “the reasonable opinion of DCM constitute Political or Religious Advertising.”

David Cameron, Richard Dawkins, Carrie Fisher and Stephen Fry were among the chorus of voices to lambast the decision. Jim Shannon, Democratic Unionist MP put down an early day motion for debate in the House of Commons urging for “the ban be reconsidered and overturned”. The motion is currently supported by the signatures of 14 MPs.

In response to the controversy, DCM announced that they believe a “clear neutral stance remains the fairest policy for all, and allows DCM to treat all political and religious beliefs equally.” Steven Slack, the Church’s legal adviser warned the decision gave rise to the possibility of legal proceedings.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission weighed in with a statement indicating their concern about blanket bans on religious advertising. The Commission’s opinion concluded that “there is nothing in law that prevents Christian organisations promoting their faith through adverts.” The statement did little, however, to answer the trickier question about whether there is anything that legally requires DCM to show the ad and whether the Church of England may have a cause of action.

So where does the law stand?

The Equality Act 2010 outlaws discrimination on the basis of nine protected characteristics including religion or belief. It applies to any business that provides goods, facilities or services to members of the public, such as a cinema.

Section 13 provides that a person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others. Section 23 requires the Claimant to be compared to an actual or hypothetical comparator who is in not materially different circumstances from the Claimant. To prove discrimination under the Equality Act, therefore, the Church of England would have to show that compared to other religious organisations, they were being treated less favourably.

Equality expert (the late) Sir Bob Hepple suggested in his book on the law and equality that

It is a defence to show that the comparator would have been treated equally badly. For example, an employer who denies a fair procedure to a Black employee may escape a claim for racial discrimination if it shown that a White employee would have been treated the same way (the so-called ‘bastard to everyone’ defence). (Equality: The Legal Framework, Bob Hepple, 2nd Ed., page 69)

Such reasoning implies that a challenge to DCM’s decision is likely to be unsuccessful. DCM, by refusing to air adverts they reasonably regard as “Political or Religious Advertising” would be treating all religious organisations the same way and therefore not discriminating on the basis of religion or belief.

The case of R (on the application of Core Issues Trust) v Transport for London [2014] EWCA Civ 34 is worth considering, despite not being strictly relevant to discrimination claims under the Equality Act. The subject of that case, well known to Londoners, was an attempt by Core Issues Trust, a Christian organisation whose objectives include “sexual re-orientation” to place an advert on London buses. The ad stated “NOT GAY! EX-GAY, POST-GAY AND PROUD, GET OVER IT” and was in response to one by Stonewall, an LGBT rights organisation, which had stated “SOME PEOPLE ARE GAY, GET OVER IT!”

In that case, it was argued by Core Issues Trust that because advertising space on London buses is sold on a commercial basis, there is a “right to buy” and there should be no restriction on content. It relied on a Canadian Supreme Court judgment concerning a challenge to the transit authority’s advertising policies, which permitted commercial but not political advertising on public transit vehicles. The Canadian Supreme Court found that a blanket ban on political advertising did not constitute a “minimal impairment” of freedom of expression and it was therefore not permitted under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Canadian Courts have adopted a more liberal approach to freedom of expression than the European Court of Human Rights or the UK courts and have applied concepts of “public place” and “minimal impairment” which are not reflected in the Strasbourg or our domestic jurisprudence where the protection afforded to freedom of expression is determined by applying a proportionality test.

In dismissing the argument of Core Issues Trust regarding the “right to buy” commercial advertising space, the Court of Appeal relied on jurisprudence of the ECtHR. Lord Dyson MR regarded this as having clearly established that it is permissible for public bodies to restrict advertising on the basis of content, provided that any restrictions are prescribed by law and necessary in pursuit of a legitimate aim.

In Murphy v Ireland [2004] 38 EHRR 13, the court upheld a ban on a radio advertisement inviting listeners to a series of meetings about evidence of the resurrection. In that case the ECtHR said that the exercise of the right of freedom of expression carried with it duties and responsibilities “including a duty to avoid as far as possible an expression that is, in regard to objects of veneration, gratuitously offensive to others and profane”. In Animal Defenders International v UK [2013] 57 EHRR 21, the Court controversially upheld the UK’s ban on political advertising for television and radio, departing from its own case law. Finally, in Mouvement Raelien Suisse v Switzerland [2013] 56 EHRR 14, the Grand Chamber stated, “individuals do not have an unconditional or unlimited right to the extended use of public space, especially in relation to facilities intended for advertising or information campaigns”.

Conclusion

Admittedly, the Convention is concerned with the actions of public authorities, and therefore not those of privately owned cinemas. However, any suggestion by the Church of England that there is a “right to buy” commercial advertising space in cinemas is likely to be met with similar reasoning to that employed by the Court of Appeal. And any claim brought under the Equality Act will have to confront the obstacles outlined above.

At last count, the advert had been seen over half a million times, demonstrating that refusal to air it in cinemas did not prevent the Church of England advancing its views in other ways. Should the Church of England pursue litigation nonetheless, any resulting judgment will be required reading for those interested in equality and free speech.

Emma Fenelon is a Pupil Barrister at 1 Crown Office Row

10 comments


  1. Tiberius says:

    We must all fall into a category, the idea of neutrality or a faithless person is a way of escapism. If it can be shown that a non-religious stance is being pushed then that is a form of discrimination on ideology. Schools are being told to adapt to such notions for those which fail to recognize a deity.

  2. […] The Church of England is mad about the ban of its cinema ads click here and click here […]

  3. daveyone1 says:

    Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..

  4. simpon says:

    Because the C of Es money is better in litigators back pockets rather than in shoring up their crumbling, empty churches or feeding the poor.

  5. Commercial advertising using Christmas themes is allowed in cinemas and on television. Virtually every commercial at this time of year is about Christmas, and it is quite right for the Church to remind people of the true meaning of Christmas. It is not the case that any mention of religion is prohibited in commercial advertising, so I cannot understand why this advert was deemed to be ‘offensive’. The consumerism around Christmas is nauseating, and nothing to do with the real meaning of Christmas. People who go to the cinema do not really want to have to sit through commercials advertising expensive products that they cannot afford. At least prayer does not cost anything, and they even may find it is worth more than the latest perfume.

  6. Michael Hall says:

    I can understand the bemusement of the Church that so much cinema advertising before Christmas uses religious themes, such as that it is good to be generous at Christmastime, spend lots of money and buy your presents from our lovely shop, but any suggestion in an advert that Christmas might mean more than this, is attacked as “offensive”.
    There is way too much censorship in cinema advertising, if the Lord’s Prayer is regarded as offensive. The religion of materialism does not seem to be affected by the ruling. Cinema advertising can be offensive when it makes people feel bad because they cannot afford expensive presents, and it teaches the value of material things over things like love, kindness and friendship. As such the ruling is discriminatory and wrong.

  7. Tony Percy says:

    Rather than the CofE undertaking legal action, as it touches on an protected characteristic of the Equality Act, the Commission can be asked, to use their enforcement powers under the Equality Act 2006.

    http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/legal-and-policy/commission/enforcement-powers

    Which has been done.

    Seeing it concerns a commercial service, it maybe a question of whether some ‘protected characteristics’ are more protected than others. And so a question of equality before the law, and equal protection by it. Thus an matter of Article 20 (rather than 10) so to speak.

  8. John says:

    This “case” is complete and deliberate unashamed exploitation of idiot media in this country.
    Yet again, they rise to the bait of the self-styled religious “victims”.
    Here in the UK they use bogus adverts which they will have already been advised by their ad agency would never be accepted by DCM. Still they persist. Why? Go figure……….
    The stupid careerist hacks at EHRC also happily rise to the bait in an effort to ingratiate themselves with religious quacks.
    In the US, they have been manufacturing a similar campaign around a brand of coffee cups.
    Don’t you know this is the peak time of the year for religious sales in the West?
    How else can these poorly supported outfits get cheap if not almost free advertising?
    In their line of business every last bit of pseudo-controversy counts, especially in the cash box!

  9. Patricia Daymond says:

    The Lord’s prayer does not contain anything offensive to other faiths – Why should those who have faith be limited by people who have no faith?

    1. John says:

      People go to cinemas to watch films, not to listen to prayers being said.
      If they wanted to hear prayers, they would go to churches, synagogues, temples or mosques.
      The fact that most people do not go to places of prayer says it all, does it not?
      I am amazed that so many people have fallen for this nonsense so literally.
      It is just another cheap stunt from the religion industry trying to peddle their shop-soiled wares to all and sundry yet again – and, yet again, without success.
      What a failure of a business model they truly are!

Comments are closed.

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 coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid 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 Facial Recognition 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 nuisance 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 prosecutions 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 Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum 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 sweatshops 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: