Firstly, to commit blasphemy, you do not need to have intention. Therefore, it just needs to be proved that abuse of Christianity occurred, regardless of whether it had literary of artistic merit. Add to which the fact that there is no defence to blasphemy; it makes it very easy to prosecute someone. In this way, protection of religion is upheld.
Another example can be seen from the Visions of Ecstasy case. Here, Article 10 freedoms were made secondary to Article 9 when the film was refused a certificate from the board. It was given a blanket ban, which was held to be lawful, considering the film was entirely blasphemous. This case thus clearly demonstrates the strength of the law in order to prevent abuse of Christianity.
However, it is the fact that Christianity is the only religion protected that provides the Act with one of its biggest flaws, it leaves every other religion completely unprotected. Given the spectrum of religions that currently exist today, it hardly seems fair to single out Christianity for sole protection. This has been manifested through the Salman Rushdie Case where it was held that Muslims could not bring a case because their religion was not Christian. This case has been the focal point of the ongoing debate as to whether the law should be extended to include other religions. However it has been argued that it would impossible to extend the law because it cannot be defined as noted by the Law Commission. Moreover, the debate queries whether other sacred institutions should be included, which included Manchester United Football club as a possibility. In essence, the fact that only Christianity is protected doubtlessly proves to be a limitation to the protection of religion.
We should also consider that Lord Denning stated blasphemy was a ‘dead letter.’ Yet the law was used some twenty years in Whitehouse v Lemon. In this case it seems that the state system was not interested in this blasphemous libel case, and it took Mary Whitehouse to bring a private prosecution, therefore this shows that prosecutions are a rarity, which in turn doesn’t allow the law the opportunity to be effective in providing protection.
In essence, blasphemy is effective, but seeing as it currently only applies to Christianity it is somewhat limited in its effectiveness and extending the law would appear, prima facie, to be troublesome.
Due to EU obligations the Employment Equality (religion and belief) Regulations 2003 has been passed and it aims to protect from religious discrimination throughout all facets of employment. It will protect from direct discrimination (denying someone a promotion due to their race), indirect discrimination (a dress code that could affect Muslims), harassment (offensive or distressing behaviour) and victimisation (detrimental treatment because of an action they have taken, for example if they complained about harassment). As it is a fairly new law, there is no case law available to evaluate the EER; however there are some blatant flaws to the regulations.
Firstly, there is no available definition of religion. This does in turn give flexibility and the change of offering protection to all religions, however a definition would be made by the judiciary, and given their composition, it is unlikely that they would fully understand the complex nature of certain religions, and possibly even forget to include some religions. It is as the Law Commission stated, it is virtually impossible to extend the law due to the lack of a definition for religion.
Secondly, Genuine Occupational Requirements (GOR) will allow for interferences, for example if a faith based care home can show it can only employ people who practice this faith, it is a GOR. In its defence, these will be subject to tight controls and very limited circumstances and GOR’s can only be deemed so by an employment tribunal.
Finally, this regulation is only available within the workplace, which is perhaps its biggest flaw. It will not protect anyone who is subject to discrimination, harassment or victimisation on the street. But given these issues, it is undeniable that the regulation is a step in the correct direction to ensure the fullest protection for religion.
In response to the question, the extent to which the principle is recognised is to an extent limited, as there are many flaws and limitations in the protection of freedom of religion. However, the EER 2003 is possibly signalling a change in the level of which protection is given to various religions.