13 Oct Pop musician’s conviction for blasphemy violated the Convention

In the case of Rabczewska v. Poland (application no. 8257/13, 15.09.2022) the European Court of Human Rights held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned a pop singer in Poland known as Doda and comments she had made in an interview about the Bible which the courts decided were blasphemous. Following a complaint brought by two private individuals, the prosecuting authorities issued a bill of indictment against her for offending their religious feelings, an offence under Article 196 of the Criminal Code. In January 2012 the Warsaw District Court convicted her as charged and fined her 5,000 Polish zlotys (approximately 1,160 euros). It ruled in particular that her statements suggesting that the Bible’s authors had written under the influence of alcohol and narcotics were deliberately insulting and showed contempt for believers.

First, the Court noted that the applicant’s interview had contained statements which could shock or disturb some people. It reiterated that such views were protected under the Convention provided that they did not incite to hatred or religious intolerance. It had not, however, been argued that her statements had amounted to hate speech. Nor had it been established that her statements had been capable of stirring up or justifying violence, hatred or intolerance and that interfering with her right to freedom expression had been necessary to ensure the peaceful coexistence of religious and non-religious groups and individuals in Poland.

Indeed, the domestic courts had failed to comprehensively assess the wider context of the applicant’s statements, which had not meant to contribute to any serious debate on religious matters but had been made in reply to questions about her private life, in a frivolous and colourful language intended to spark her young audience’s interest. Overall, the courts had failed to identify and carefully weigh the competing interests at stake, namely her right to freedom of expression against the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected and religious peace preserved in the society. 

The Court found that the domestic courts, despite having wide discretion to decide on matters concerning the interests of society as whole, had failed to provide sufficient reasons to justify the applicant’s conviction and interference with her freedom of speech. Moreover, the sanction imposed on the applicant – a criminal conviction and fine amounting to fifty times the minimum – could not be considered insignificant. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

Reference from the official website oft he European Court of Human Rights