Regina v Metropolitan Magistrate ex parte Choudhury [1991] 1 All ER 306

Someone accused Salman Rushdie of blasphemous libel.

The divisional court dismissed the claim on the grounds that blasphemous libel was only available against those who “vilified the Christian religion”, which the Satanic Verses didn’t do. They also said that Articles 9 and 14 did not require the crime to be extended to all religions.

The court says that the book has not prevented Muslims from practicing their religion, while Article 14 (non-discrimination) has been interfered with on reasonable grounds, in that to extend the offence of blasphemous libel would lead to great incursions into free speech.

• Because of its not requiring intentional offence, in reality it would lead to all criticism of religion which people find offensive being banned.