Blasphemy and Europe
From Dominique-Georges Many Sir: In his article 'Now it's blasphemy to mock Europe' (18 November), Mr Ambrose Evans-Pritchard makes refer- ence to the 'European Court's emerging blasphemy doctrine'. In claiming, 'This deems that political criticism of the Euro- pean Union and its leading figures can be akin to the most extreme forms of reli- gious blasphemy. . . ', it would appear that Mr Evans-Pritchard makes reference to the Opinion of the advocate-general in case C-274/99P.
In fact, the advocate-general in no way makes this assertion. Mr Evans-Pritchard has drawn this conclusion from the Wingrove case of the European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg), which was merely cited by the advocate-general in his Opinion. The advocate-general refers to this case to clarify points of law and to illus- trate the fact that, if an offence is impre- cisely defined, it does not necessarily ren- der unlawful any limitations on freedom of speech imposed in its name. The fact that the subject-matter of the Wingrove case concerns the English law of blasphemy is, in fact, totally immaterial to the Opinion of the advocate-general itself.
Dominique-Georges Marro
Head of Press and Information Division, European Court of Justice, Luxembourg
From Mr Duncan Macdonald Sir: Well done, Spectator! I'd like to thank the editor for publishing, and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard for writing, an article show- ing the injustice of EU 'justice'.
Duncan H. Macdonald siulimtau@hormail.com
Previous page
