U iscekivanju rezultata irskog referenduma, kao jedinog dopustenog u svim zemljama EU, o novom ustavu Evropske federacije, nije zgoreg podsetiti se na izreceni stav Evropskog suda pravde iz 2000 godine, da se svaka kritika EU i njenih institucija moze zabraniti pod izgovorom da se radi o bogohuljenju, verovali ili ne.
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer ventured into blasphemy law in an opinion delivered on 19 October in a landmark free-speech case - number C-274/99 P. It involves a British economist, Bernard Connolly, who argues that he was unlawfully sacked from the European Commission for writing The Rotten Heart of Europe.
Last year Connolly lost his case in the EU's lower court, the Court of First Instance, which ruled that the EU has an undefined - and seemingly unlimited - power to restrict political criticism in `the general interests of the Communities'. He appealed against this astounding ruling, challenging the big boys in the full Court of Justice to ensure that sanity prevailed. Instead, he now finds himself up against Mr Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, who has upped the ante, chattering about blasphemy. As if it could not get any worse, the lead judge handling the case is Melchior Wathelet, the disgraced Belgian justice minister driven from office for bungling the Dutroux paedophile scandal. Sanity is very far from prevailing.
The advocate-general's opinion cited the blasphemy case of Wingrove v. United Kingdom, invoking it to demonstrate a precedent in English and European law that there are some forms of expression so offensive to the `rights of others' that they can legitimately be restricted. By extension, therefore, the EU can take action to protect itself against Mr Connolly's turbulent book, which has caused huge annoyance to Europe's ruling class since it was published in 1995.