No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
In a wide range of circumstances religious activity and commercial activity may overlap, leading to what may fairly, albeit novelly, be categorised as commercial religion. This overlap is potentially problematic to law, raising as it does the possibility of inappropriate over-regulation of religious activity and religious claims and the possibility of inappropriate under-regulation of commercial activity and claims. One way to solve this problem is to create a binary divide between the commercial and the religious, so that any situation might be categorised as one or the other, and the appropriate legal framework and philosophies applied. This is the preferred route under the European Convention on Human Rights. Such a separation does not, however, address the complexity of regulating commercial religion in practice, as demonstrated by considering the regulation of commercial religion in UK consumer law. There are, however, strategies which may serve to reblend the commercial and religious elements.
Many thanks for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper to Professor Ilona Cheyne and Dr Dominic Corrywright of Oxford Brookes University, and Peter Cumper of Leicester University.
1. See Edge, PW Legal Responses to Religious Difference (Leiden: Brill, 2002) pp 5–17 Google Scholar.
2. Campbell and Cosans v UK[1982] 4 EHRR 293 para 36.
3. Explanatory Notes to Equality Act 2006, para 170.
4. See, eg, Schimetta, W. etal ‘Wann ist eine klinische studie nicht-kommerziell’ (2004) 155 Wiener miedizinische Wochenschrift 233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5. See, eg, Branch, GM etal ‘Defining fishers in the South African context: subsistence, artisanal and small-scale commercial sectors’ (2002) 24 South African Journal of Marine Science 475 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6. Creative Commons Defining ‘Non-commercial’: A Study of How the Online Population Understands ‘Noncommercial Use’ (London: Creative Commons, September 2009) p 11, available at http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/defining-noncommercial/Defining_Noncommercial_fullreport.pdf Google Scholar
7. Harper, CL and Le Beau, BF ‘the social adaptation of marginal religious movements in America’ (1993) 54 Sociology of Religion 171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 180. Entanglement with the commercial poses problems beyond religion – consider, for instance, commercial sex and commercial human reproduction (on which see, eg, Drabiak, K etal ‘Ethics, law and commercial surrogacy: a call for uniformity’ (2007) 35 Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar).
8. Brown, TA ‘Religious nonprofits and the commercial manner test’ (1990) 99 Yale Law Journal 1631 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 1632.
9. Lucy Jones, quoted at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7354089.stm. See further Carrette, J and King, R Selling Spirituality: The Silent Takeover of Religion (London: Routledge, 2004).Google Scholar
10. For instance, religious in the Catholic Church – see O'Murchu, D Consecrated Religious Life: The Changing Paradigms (London: Orbis Books, 2005).Google Scholar
11. For an introduction to the development of simony, see T A McVeigh's introduction to his translation of Wyclif, John On Simony (Fordham, NY: Fordham University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
12. See further http://www.scientology.org.uk
13. For instance, Britons Against ‘Church’ of Scientology, http://www.againstscientology.co.uk/
15. For a judicial view of this doctrine, see the US Supreme Court in Hernandez v Commissioner[1989] 490 US 680.
16. Consider, eg, Ezzy, D ‘White witches and black magic: ethics and consumerism in contemporary witchcraft’ (2006) 21 Journal of Contemporary Religion 15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cush, D ‘Consumer witchcraft: are teenage witches a creation of commercial interests?’ (2007) 28 Journal of Beliefs and Values 45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Klassen, PE ‘Radio mind: Protestant experimentalists on the frontiers of healing’ (2007) 75 Journal of American Academy of Religion 651 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hunt, S ‘“Winning ways”: globalisation and the impact of the health and wealth gospel’ (2000) 15 Journal of Contemporary Religion 331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 333; Hunt, S ‘Magical moments: an intellectualist approach to the neo-Pentecostal faith ministries’ (1998) 28 Religion 271 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17. Consider Cush, above n 16, at 51.
18. As of January 2011, the charge for a marriage service was £262 – see Table of Parochial Fees Prepared by Archbishops Council, available at http://www.churchofengland.org/media/56804/Fees%20Table%202011%20both%20sides.pdf. These fees are prepared under the Ecclesiastical Fees Measure 1986, and authorised by the Parochial Fees Order 2010.
20. Partridge, CH The Re-enchantment of the West: Alternative Spiritualities, Sacralisation, Popular Culture and Occulture (London: Continuum International, 2005 Google Scholar and 2006).
21. This paper does not discuss commercial practices based on non-naturalist beliefs which fall outside the definition of religion under Article 9. Seriousness, cogency and cohesion may all be absent from some practices based on non-naturalist belief. See, eg, Spencer, W ‘to absent friends: classical spiritualist mediumship and new age channelling compared and contrasted’ (2001) 16 Journal of Contemporary Religion 343 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Spencer, W ‘Are the stars coming out? Secularisation and the future of astrology in the West’ in Davie, G etal (eds) Predicting Religion: Christian, Secular and Alternative Futures (Farnham: Ashgate, 2003).Google Scholar
22. See, eg, Dalton, W ‘Mass stipends, mass offerings, mass cards’ (1990) 41 The Furrow 500 Google Scholar; Dalton, W ‘Multi-intentional mass cards: the recent decree’ (1991) 42 The Furrow 366 Google Scholar.
23. McNally & Anor v Ireland & Ors[2009] IEHC 573, Irish High Court.
24. Ibid, at para 3.
25. The regulation of inappropriate proselytism under, for instance, the ECHR, does not run counter to this, as the mischief being addressed is not the belief of the proselyte, but rather the danger posed to their manifestation rights of their actual beliefs by inappropriate proselytism.
26. But cf Bever, E ‘Witchcraft prosecutions and the decline of magic’ (2009) 40 Journal of Interdisciplinary History 263 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 284.
27. My use of ‘defer’ may fairly be criticised as carrying with it the right of the state to do otherwise, which numerous writers on law and religion would reject – for instance, Dooyeweerd's view of sphere sovereignty in Dooyeweerd, H (tr. J Kraay) Roots of Western Culture: Pagan, Secular and Christian Options (London: Edwin Mellen Press, 2003 Google Scholar).
28. This distinction between the autonomous holder of fundamental rights and the vulnerable human being is obviously open to serious criticism. See, eg, Turner, BS Vulnerability and Human Rights (Pittsburgh, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006 Google Scholar).
29. Office of Fair Trading v Purely Creative Ltd[2011] EWHC 106 at para 62 per Briggs J. See generally, O Bray and M Starmer [2011] 22 Ent LR 118.
30. Contrast Adair v US, [1908] 208 US 161 US S Ct; Hammer US Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina v Dagenhart et al[1917] 247 US 251 US S Ct; US v Darby[1940] 312 US 100 US S Ct.
31. An issue beyond this paper, and the methodology used here, to resolve.
32. See Gaskill, M Hellish Nell: Last of Britain's Witches (London: Fourth Estate, 2001) pp 342–347 Google Scholar.
33. Repealing the Witchcraft Act 1735, and amending the Vagrancy Act 1824, s 4 – Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951, s 2.
34. Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951, s 1(1)(a).
35. Martin[1981] Crim LR 109, CC; cf Doheny v England[1955] Crim LR 255, Mag.
36. Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951, s 1(2).
37. Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951, s 1(5).
38. Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951, s 1(1)(a).
39. Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951, s 1(4).
40. See Ramage, S ‘the Uk Fraud Offence Bill: a critical analysis’ (2005) 152 The Criminal Lawyer 3 Google Scholar.
41. Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008/1277, Sch 2, Pt I, cl 3.
42. For the importance of such activity generally, see Glendinning, T and Bruce, S ‘New ways of believing or belonging: is religion giving way to spirituality?’ (2007) 57 British Journal of Sociology 399 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
43. Directive 2005/29/EC of 11 May 2005 (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’). See generally De Groote, B and De Vulder, K ‘European framework for unfair commercial practices: analysis of Directive 2005/29’ (2007) 16 Journal of Business Law 42 Google Scholar.
44. Lord Tunnicliffe, Hansard HL Deb, col 1565, 23 April 2008. See more generally Singleton, S ‘the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and It/internet viral and buzz marketing issues’ (2008) 13 Communications Law 117 Google Scholar.
45. See Singleton, above n 44.
46. http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/page13563, as discussed in Barrett, DV ‘Unintended consequences’ (2008) 237 Fortean Times 58 Google Scholar.
47. A UK organisation, following in the footsteps of a French predecessor, established in 1975 ‘aid, guide and counsel fortune-tellers against the complexities of the law, the persecution of state agents, the temptations of charlatanism, and a failure to prepare for the future’ (cited in translation by Harvey, DA ‘Fortune-tellers in the French courts: antidivination prosecutions in France in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries’ (2005) 28 French Historical Studies 131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 156).
49. See Lawrence[1876] 36 LTR 404; Davis v Curry[1918] 1 KB 109; Bloodworth[1919] 83 Justice of the Peace 460; Stonehouse v Masson[1921] 2 KB 819; Irwin v Barker[1925] 69 Solicitor's Journal 589; Duncan[1944] 1 KB 773, CA. On Duncan, see further Gaskill, above n 32, pp 207–213.
50. Monck v Hilton[1877] 2 Exch Div 268 at 275.
51. US v Ballard[1944] 322 US 78, US S Ct at 87.
52. A phrase used by Theo Mathew, DPP in 1952, to indicate unimportant cases of this kind. See Gaskill, above n 32, p 347.
53. Contrast Petersmann, E-U ‘Taking human dignity, poverty and empowerment of indivduals more seriously’ (2002) 13 EJIL 845 CrossRefGoogle Scholar with Alston, P ‘Resisting the merger and acquisition of human rights by trade law (2002) 13 EJIL 815 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 828.
54. Contrast rights under Article 8 with those under Article 1 of the First Protocol. See further Taavitsainen v Finland, app.25597/07, Chamber; Schluga v Austria, app.65665/01, Chamber. See also Douiyeb v The Netherlands, app.31464/96, Grand Chamber; Wloch v Poland, app. 27785/95, Chamber; Huber v Switzerland, app.12794/87, Court; Pavletic v Slovakia, app39359/98, Chamber; Dudek v Poland, app.633/03, Chamber; Wojciechowski v Poland, app. 522/04, Chamber; Maciej v Poland, app. 10838/02, Chamber; Allen, T ‘Liberalism, social democracy and the value of property under the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2010) ICLQ 1055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
55. A separate line of cases, notably Kustannus v Finland[1996] DR 85, Commission, concern the implications of associations adopting corporate structures. See more broadly Emberland, M The Human Rights of Companies: Exploring the Structure of ECHR Protection (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar).
56. X and Church of Scientology v Sweden, app. 7805/77, Commission.
57. Ibid, para 4.
58. Van Dijk, P etal Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (Antwerp and Oxford: Martinus Nijhoff, 2006) p 766 Google Scholar.
59. Consider Ahmad v UK[1982] 4 EHRR 126; Stedman v UK[1997] 23 EHRR CD168.
60. Above n 55.
61. Ibid, at 29 (emphasis added).
62. Re Barth[1976] 64 Cal App 3d 584. Consider also Dill v Hamilton[1939] 137 Neb 723. But contrast State v De Laney[1923] 1 NJ Misc 619, 122 A 890; Commonwealth v Blair[1927] 92 Pa Super 169; Trimble v City of New Iberia[1999] 73 F Supp 2d 659, W D La. In both this example, and the employment law example, however, the right to exit is of less value when the practice is theologically mandated, as, for instance, with the Church of Scientology and the doctrine of exchange.
63. McNally, above n 23, para 156.
64. Consider the US case of Allinger v Los Angeles[1979] 272 Cal App 2d 391.
65. The task facing legal actors here may be seen as analogous to policing the distinction between matters jure imperii and jure gestionis in relation to state immunity. See generally Fox, H ‘State immunity: the House of Lords Decision in I Congreso del Partido’ (1982) 98 LQR 94 Google Scholar.
66. Consider also Reader, I and Tanabe, GJ Practically Religious: Worldly Benefits and the Common Religion of Japan (Maui, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1998 Google Scholar).
67. Murphy v Ireland, app. 44179/98 at para 74.
68. On which, see, eg, Bull and Bull v Hall and Preddy[2012] EWCA Civ 83, CA.
69. Ibid, para 6.
71. Personal correspondence, cited in Barrett, above n 46.
72. See more broadly Greasley, P ‘Is evaluating complementary and alternative medicine equivalent to evaluating the absurd?’ (2010) 33 Eval Health Prof 127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Colquohoun, D ‘Should Nice evaluate complementary and alternative medicine? No’ (2007) 334 British Medical Journal 506 Google Scholar; Ernst, E ‘Researching the “absurd”’ (2003) 8 Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies 308 Google Scholar.
73. OFT Press Notice, 1999, quoted in Woodroofe, G and Lowe, R Consumer Law and Practice (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2010 Google Scholar) para 1.03.
74. Cartwright, P ‘Unfair commercial practices and the future of the criminal law’ (2010) 7 Journal of Business Law 618 Google Scholar at 618.
75. CPR Reg 2(4).
76. CPR Reg 2(5).
77. CPR Reg 5 and 6.
78. Cartwright, above n 74, at 622.
79. CPR Reg 7(1) and 11.
80. CPR Reg 7(3).
81. CPR Sch 1, no 4.
82. CPR Sch 1, no 13.
83. CPR Sch 1, no 16.
84. CPR Sch 1, no 17. The illustrative example in the CPR Guidance, para 6.1, adds a reference to a ‘definitive statement about the curative effects’. This offence is characterised as one which ‘may depend upon hotly contested expert evidence in obiter' dicta of Briggs J in Office of Fair Trading v Purely Creative Ltd, above ne 29, at para 49.
85. CPR Sch 1, no 22.
86. CPR Guidance, para 6.1.
87. CPR Reg 9–12.
88. CPR Guidance, para 12.3. See also Cartwright, above n 74.
89. CPR Reg 19.
90. CPR Reg 20–22.
91. For example, Chicago v Payne[1911] 160 Ill App 641.
92. Cited in translation in Harvey, above n 47, at 134.
93. Under CPR Sch 1, para 17.
94. Personal correspondence, cited by Barrett, above n 46.
95. It is unclear how far cases on the term in other areas of English law should be used to inform discussion of this provision (see Cartwright, P ‘under pressure: regulating aggressive commercial practices in the Uk’ (2011 LMCLQ 123 Google Scholar at 129). As illustrative of the issue of religion and undue influence more generally however, see Azaz v Denton[2009] EWHC 1759, QB; Hollis v Rolfe[2008] EWHC 1747, Ch; Catt v Church of Scientology Religious Education College Inc[2001] CP Rep 41, QB.
96. Cartwright, above n 95, at 123.
97. Ibid.
98. In Re T(Adult: Refusal of Treatment)[1992] Fam 95, CA at 114.
99. Consider, in a different context, Wicks, E ‘Religion, law and medicine: legislating on birth and death in a Christian state’ (2009) Medical Law Review 410 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
100. CPR Reg 7(2).
101. United Reform Church Guidelines for Good Practice in the Healing Ministry, available at http://www.urc.org.uk/what_we_do/healing_ministry/docs/urc_guidelines
103. T. Allen, above n 54, at 1078.
104. Vgt Verein Gegen Tierfabriken v Switzerland, app. 24699/94, Chamber; see also Verein Gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz v Switzerland, app. 3772/02, Chamber; Verein Gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz v Switzerland (no 2), app. 32772/02, Grand Chamber; Murphy v Ireland, above n 67. See also the Northern Ireland decision of Kirk Session of Sandown Free Presbyterian Church, Re Judicial Review[2011] NIQB 26.
105. See Munro, CR ‘the value of commercial speech’ (2003) Cambridge Law Journal 134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
106. See Caddell, R ‘Freedom of commercial speech and the Uk Courts’ (2005) Cambridge Law Journal 274 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
107. Markt Intern and Beerman v Germany[1989] 12 EHRR 161, Court.
108. Ibid, para 26.
109. Ibid, para 33. Less clearly deferential language is used later by the Court in Casada Coca v Spain[1994] 18 EHRR 1.
110. Janis, MW, Kay, RS and Bradley, AW European Human Rights Law: Text and Materials (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) p 296 Google Scholar.
111. Ibid.
112. Randall, MH ‘Commercial speech under the European Convention on Human Rights: subordinate or equal?’ (2006) Human Rights Law Review 53 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 80.
113. Bull and Bull v Hall and Preddy, above n 68.
114. Ibid, para 51.
115. Ibid, para 50.
116. McLean v Arkansas[1982] 529 F Supp 1255 at 1258–1264, Ed Ark.
117. See Albanese, C A Republic of Mind and Spirit: A Cultural History of American Metaphysical Religion (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006 Google Scholar).
118. Church of Scientology of California and Others v Kaufman and Another[1973] RPC 635 at 645–646.
119. Severing along this line would follow an approach taken in the US, where a telephone psychic was charged not with misrepresenting her powers, but of misrepresenting her ethnicity as Jamaican. See Harvey, above n 47.
120. See Urbis et Orbis decree, 10 May 2008, available at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/tribunal/apost_penit/documents/rc_trib_appen_doc_20080510_san-paolo_en.html
121. But see Rivers, J The Law of Organized Religions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar) ch 3.
122. CPR Sch 1, para 4.
124. Quotes by Suzanne Hadwin, reported ibid.
125. Sernin case, 1879, cited in translation in Harvey, above n 47, at 137.
126. See, eg, R v Zundel[1992] 2 SCR 731, Supreme Court of Canada.
127. CPR Reg 2(6).
128. CPR Reg 2(1).
129. Cited in Rohrer, F and Bell, S ‘There may be trouble ahead’ (2008) BBC News Magazine 18 Google Scholar April.
130. Suzanne Hadwin is now Suzanne Gill, and details her services on her website: http://www.Gabriel-spirituals.com. Thanks to Suzanne Gill for confirming this, and considering the description of her practices. Personal correspondence, September 2011.
131. See Sigman, SM ‘Kosher without law: the role of non-legal sanctions in overcoming fraud within the Kosher food industry’ (2004) 31 Florida State University Law Review 509 Google Scholar.
132. Cited in translation by Harvey, above n 47, at 152.
133. CPR Reg 2(1).
134. CPR Guidance, para 14.21.
135. CPR Guidance, para 14.22.
136. Re Bartha[1976] 63 Cal App 3d 584; Penny v Hanson[1887] 56 Law Times 235; People v Elmer[1896] 109 Mich 493. See further GG Sarno ‘Regulation of astrology, clairvoyance, fortunetelling and the like’[1979] 91 ALR 3d 766.
137. Charities Act 2009, s 99(1).
138. Ibid, para 167.
139. Ibid, para 171.
140. Ibid, para 184.
141. See further http://www.truecatholic.us
142. See, eg, Grunin v Strong[1944] 183 Misc 291, 50 NYS 2d 425.
144. CPR Guidance, para 11.1.
145. See Cartwright, above n 74, at 633–636.
146. Barrett, above n 46.
148. X and Church of Scientology v Sweden, above n 56, at para 6.
149. See, eg, Customs and Excise Commissioners v Tron Theatre Ltd[1994] STC 177, Scotland on the Value Added Tax Act 1983, s 10.
151. People ex rel Priess v Adams[1914] 32 NY Crim 326.
152. State v Neitzel[1912] 69 Wash 567, 125 P 939.
153. See Emuru v Rosenberg[1957] 6 Misc 2d 529, 159 NYS 2d 912.
154. A Williams ‘Foretelling the future’ (2011) New York Amsterdam News, 30 December, 13.
155. Glendinning and Bruce, above n 42, at 412.