Religious Boundaries to the Freedom of Speech in the Age of New ...

2) A prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of race, sex and religion
3) Freedom of speech
The European bill has a secular character, which means that there is a clear separation of church and
state. At a state level within Europe there are many differences among member states regarding this
character, which can be explained on historical grounds. Even though every country is free to
interpret the relationship between church and state in their own right, the way in which Europe has
shaped this relationship is more dominant, for a sentence by the European Court of Justice is
binding.(5)
In fact, the freedom of conscience and religion are of fundamental importance in this respect
because they are seen as the basis of democracy, and this goes for both religious and a-religious
citizens. The European Court of Human Rights does not force member states to follow a set model,
but places boundaries when tension arises between religious space and other norms and values.
Moreover, a delicate issue is the relationship between freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Or to be more precise, the protection of religious feelings at the expense of the freedom of speech.
In the case of the Danish cartoon controversy (which will be discussed in detail later) the European
Court stated that the right to shock and disturb plays an indispensible role in a democracy, and is
thus (within limits) allowed.
In practice, this above mentioned right is not as clear cut as it was made out to be in the case of the
cartoons. There are examples in which the Court speaks out in favour of the freedom of religion and
against the freedom of speech. The case of Theresa in 1996 is an example of this. What is essential is
that the Court differs between limiting the public (political) debate on the one hand and personal
opinions in the atmosphere of morals or religion on the other when insults are being made. In the
case of the latter, Europe is more likely to be a bit more restrictive towards the offender.
It should be clear that freedom of speech, like any other form of freedom, is not absolute, even
though politicians and the media sometimes would like us to believe this. The European Court for
Human Rights has also made this very clear in their convention when they state that;
the exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be
subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial
integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health
or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others... (6).
Taking article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights into account one could argue that in
the current social climate in Europe where there are tensions regarding the position of Muslims and
3