An Important win for freedom of speech.
Ai Law has acted on a successful claim against Blackpool Borough Council with respect to their government decision taken to ban bus adverts advertising an event held in September 2018 at the Blackpool Winter Garden by charity group Lancashire Festival of Hope. The event featured American minister Franklin Graham, son of internationally renowned Christian evangelist Billy Graham, who had visited from the States to take part in a speaking engagement ahead of a planned upcoming UK tour.
The Council made the decision to remove the adverts, which has now been found to have been unlawful and amounted to a direct discrimination, after receiving limited complaints about Graham’s views on same-sex relationships and Islam.
The Council have been found to have unlawfully discriminated against the festival organisers and to have violated their right to free expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Council were ordered by the court to make a public apology and pay Lancashire Festival of Hope £25,000 in damages and a further £84,000 in costs.
Counsel for the defence had argued that Graham should be likened to a convicted terrorist for his views, however this claim was entirely dismissed by the Judge who on speaking about the existence of Mr Graham’s views commented that whilst “they may be offensive to some people, […] they cannot properly be characterised as “extremist”.”
During the festival the Council lit the Blackpool Tower in rainbow colours in opposition because they said in evidence that they felt it “was the right thing to do”. It was held that Blackpool Borough Council’s actions had demonstrated a “wholesale disregard for the right to freedom of expression” finding that the Council had deliberately allied itself with those opposing Graham’s views and such behaviour was “the antithesis of the manner in which a public authority should behave in a democratic society.”
The evidence from the Council was criticised by the Court as “varied and inconsistent”. The decision is an important reminder as to how far the right to freedom of speech must go in a democratic society.
As said by Lord Justice Sedley in Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] EWHC Admin 733 “Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”
Mr Graham in response to the Judgment said: “This is a huge win in the battle against “cancel culture”. This helps every Christian and church in the UK, confirming what we already know to be true: all believers have the right to openly share God’s truth.”
Blackpool Borough Council public apology acknowledges: “that the advertisements were not in themselves offensive. We further accept that in removing the advertisements we did not take into account the fact that this might cause offence to other members of the public and suggest that some voices should not be heard. […] We accept […] that we discriminated against Lancashire Festival of Hope because of the religious beliefs of Franklin Graham and in doing so interfered with Lancashire Festival of Hope’s right to freedom of speech. We sincerely apologise […] for the upset and inconvenience caused.”
Further Sources:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-57902349
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1999/733.html
Lancashire Festival of Hope with Franklin Graham Limited v Blackpool Borough Council & Anor [2021] Manchester Cty Ct F00MA124
https://christian.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Approved%20Judgment%20F00MA124.pdf
This information is in no way to be taken as legal advice or tax advice. It is for information purposes only and is in no way to be relied upon. You should always seek the appropriate professional legal advice before attempting to act on any of the information given here.Go back to previous page
RECENT ARTICLES
A Brave New World: Changes to Making a Will during COVID
twitterlinkedininstagramInsight below, from our Dominic Davidson, takes a look at the temporary amendment to the law on executing wills during the COVID pandemic. The UK's common law system is a dynamic one and it is vital for Parliament, and in turn Judges, to be...
BREXIT: Changes to Service Address rules for UK Intellectual Property Office
twitterlinkedininstagramUK Trade Mark Holders required to have a UK registered service address. From 1st January 2021, UK Trade Mark Holders are required to have a UK registered service address. EU registered addresses are no longer allowed. Ai Law provides a...
Can a Director be liable for its actions on behalf of an insolvent Company in England & Wales?
twitterlinkedininstagramA limited company is an incorporated entity. It has legal fiction, meaning in the eyes of the law, it is for all intents and purposes a natural person. Of course, the separate legal entity does not have arms or legs or a mouth, and so it needs...
GDPR shows its teeth against Twitter ($500,000 teeth), but does it go far enough?
twitterlinkedininstagramThe European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has made its first binding decision over a fine against Twitter for breach of GDPR by Twitter pursuant to its powers under Article 65 of GDPR in its "Decision 01/2020 on the dispute arisen on the draft...
