Freedom of Religion or Belief and other Rights

FoRB is related to other human rights like freedom of expression (FoE), or assembly, or education. These rights are organically linked to religious freedom, and make it possible to protect and promote it. However, FoRB is often controversial, even in human rights circles; as any two types of rights can contradict each other in a certain situation, and this is something normal.

The key issue lies in the extent of this freedom, and whether it is necessary for communities to limit it or consider it absolute. This intellectual and philosophical issue then impacts the legal situation, and the authorities’ role in organizing society and ensuring public order, while constituting a legal and political challenge on the best way to deal with religious freedom. This issue is made more difficult by the fact that freedom equally extends to religion, belief, thought, and conscience and applies to all of them regardless of classifications, and the fact that this expression includes a broad range of organically-related rights that should not be divided. Do all these criteria apply to any thought or belief? Is it possible to accept ideas that are extremist in nature or that contradict the traditions of a particular society? Or is it possible to establish some legal controls to limit this freedom?

Such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society”. It becomes evident here (in addition to what was mentioned in the General Comment about the role of the law and just implementation) that these legal limitations are only valid in a democratic society, with the rejection of these limitations, even if they are “legal”, should they not truly reflect people’s view and collective will through democratic, free, and fair elections or referenda.

Therefore, the law may prohibit any beliefs calling for hatred, curbing others’ freedom, attacking or killing. It may also prohibit any movement or group that poses a security threat, uses violence against others, or infringes upon their freedom.

It can be concluded that freedom is not absolute, in the philosophical, abstract sense of the word. It is rather possible – and might be necessary – to set a specific framework that regulates this freedom, ensures better safeguarding of human dignity, and contributes to a society’s development, provided that these limitations are imposed through a general democratic process that guarantees the reflection of the people’s will in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.

The answer to the above is based on the content of international
conventions and treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which mentioned in Article 18: “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others”. This article allows the adoption of certain limitations, but defines several conditions for these limitations to be acceptable. These can only be imposed by law and should not be linked to political or administrative decisions. These limitations should aim in a clear, direct and justified way at protecting public order, according to the above-mentioned article.

For a better understanding, one can refer to General Comment no.22 For a better understanding, one can refer to General Comment no.22 on this Article, which refuses to consider national security as a political cover for the suppression of freedoms. The Comment specifies that “Limitations may be applied only for those purposes for which they were prescribed and must be directly related and proportionate to the specific need on which they are predicated. Restrictions may not be imposed for discriminatory purposes or applied in a discriminatory manner”. If we go back to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , we find an additional clarification in Article 29 (para. 2), which applies to all rights, and states that: “In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations.

So, how can FoRB be linked to other freedoms? Here are some examples:

Religious minorities are often subjected to discrimination and to the violation of their right to health, education, and work, because of their religious identity. We’ve seen many examples of that during the COVID-19 pandemic, which limited some groups’ access to healthcare and exposed them to direct and structural discrimination.
Freedom of assembly and association is violated when religious and belief groups are denied the right to assemble, work, or practice their religion.
Limitations on FoE (such as: surveillance, contempt of religion, or blasphemy laws) might impact religious preaching or the issuance of religious publications. Without FoE, one cannot share, discuss or exchange with others about his/her religion.
The right to life is violated when people are attacked or killed because of their religion or beliefs.
Religious minorities and religious people are often more at risk of being imprisoned based on trumped-up charges. They are also more exposed than others to violations in prisons, in contexts in which the right to a fair trial or the right to not be tortured is not guaranteed.

FoRB and Freedom of Expression

FoRB and FoE are equally essential for the establishment of a functioning society, as the two freedoms complement each other and are equally important in protecting minorities, non-believers, and those whose views or beliefs differ from the views of those in power. The right to manifest one’s religion or belief includes the right to express it in words and actions. This is also guaranteed by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights : “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.
FoRB includes the right to express what an individual believes to be correct or incorrect. By saying what he/she believes to be correct – and implicitly what he/she also believes to be incorrect – they will probably contradict the basic faith principles of another tradition; which might upset the followers of this tradition. Without FoE, people would not be able to talk about their beliefs. FoRB also includes the freedom of those belonging to a certain religious group to express their religious opinions or have interpretations contrary to the interpretation endorsed by the official religious leaders of this community.

FoE goes beyond this, granting individuals the right to criticize religious beliefs and institutions or even to mock them. This is quite controversial and the reason behind the contradiction between FoRB and FoE.

It is important to remember that FoRB protects believers as individuals, and not believers’ feelings, nor the beliefs themselves. In other words, FoRB protects people and not God/sanctities. It is also important to remember that the ability to criticize religious groups (this includes our own group), is vital to improve the functioning and development of these groups. There is no human right to freedom from criticism, offenses, shocks, or being bothered by what others say or do. However, some states have drafted laws that protect sanctities. This does not mean that deriding others’ beliefs is ethical, as this is something regulated by one’s personal moral compass, mutual respect, and the management of living-together. Yet, there are legitimate limitations on FoE – and also on FoRB – especially when it comes to hate speech and incitement to animosity and/or violence. Rabat Plan of Action provides useful guidelines to determine when speech crosses the line and must be criminally prohibited. The plan stresses the importance of having very high standards, considering more than one aspect of speech, namely: context, speaker’s situation or position, intention or purpose of the speech, content, scope, likelihood of damage, violence, and discrimination.

For more information on how to counter hate speech, you can download the “Guide to addressing religious issues in traditional and social medial away from hate speech “.

FoRB and Minority Rights

Furthermore, religious identities of a minority/majority group sometimes intersect with other identities, like ethnic or linguistic ones. This is often the case for individuals belonging to minority ethnic groups or to a religious group that constitutes a minority and speaks the language of the minority. But minorities are not homogeneous blocks, as there often is significant diversity within the same group. This also applies to the communities of majorities. In fact, it is possible to speak of minorities within majority groups,as they might also be exposed to discrimination and violence, especially if their views, practices or interpretations are different from the prevailing ones.

In most contexts, numerical minorities lack economic and political power and are more exposed to discrimination and marginalization, to the point of persecution, based on their religious or ethnic identity/affiliation. In very few countries, numerical minorities currently hold or have historically held a prominent position, and have or had economic and/or political power, although this reality might change after major events, such as elections or wars.

According to Minority Rights Group, the term “minorities” refers to “ethnic, national, religious, linguistic or cultural groups which are fewer in number than the rest of the population and which may wish to maintain and develop their identity”. There is a clear relation between minorities’ rights and FoRB, as religious identity is one of the factors that can define a minority. The impact of belonging to a minority on everyday life varies greatly from one context to another, and depends primarily on how the majority and the state view the identities of these minorities.

What are the three main pillars to protect minorities’ rights?

Active participation

Identity protection

Protection against discrimination

How can FoRB and Minority Rights be Tackled then?

Considering a minorities-focused approach to FoRB is important, and often useful; as there is a great need to support minorities and advocate for their issues. However, when this approach is adopted, it is important to identify potential weaknesses, as listed below:

FoRB is a human right for all. Any person might be at risk of violations:

In many countries, majorities are also subject to FoRB violations.

The problem of terminology:

Language is considered important, especially when it comes to sensitive issues, like FoRB and minorities’ rights. Some people and groups that belong to a minority refuse to use the term “minority” to describe themselves or to describe the religious or ethnic group they belong to. In some contexts, the term “minority” is considered to put those belonging to this group in a less egalitarian situation than that of remaining citizens. In communities in which the concept of minority is “distorted”, it might be useful to use other concepts when working on promoting FoRB and/or minorities’ rights.

Political risks with social consequences:

In some contexts, one should be careful when tackling minorities and majorities’ issues. If the subject is not handled with care, focusing on the minority’s identity versus the majority’s identity might contribute to further polarization and politicization in society, reinforcing the “us” versus “them” mentality, especially in cases of religious manipulation for political purposes.

.Discriminatory personal status laws

Negative practices and acts of violence against women, justified by some inaccurate religious interpretations

.Low participation of women in religious leadership positions

.False and/or patriarchal interpretations of religious books

FoRB and Women’s Rights

Throughout the years, countries, institutions, and organizations have considered that everyone is exposed to violations in the same way, drawing mainly on men’s experiences in their analyses. These results highlight the gender, religious, and social gap in collecting information related to FoRB violations and identifying the appropriate ways to address them in the following fields:

It should be noted here that the main potential obstacles to
women’s Freedom of Religion and Belief are: patriarchal ideas and behaviors, some cultural and religious traditions and customs, religious nationalism and religious fundamentalism, discrimination within some religious minorities, and discriminatory religious laws and/or interpretations. In addition, the frequency of FoRB violations women are exposed to and their level of seriousness and complexity are found to exceed violations that men are exposed to. They are also often hidden. This phenomenon is linked to The phenomenon women’s social condition and the role they play in society. There also appears to be a gap in data collection regarding violations women are subject to, which are usually due to lack of awareness. But, at the same time, several clergymen refuse to involve women in FoRB discussions, as they consider that this might negatively impact their own religious and community values.

Therefore, in an effort to promote the right of women to religious freedom, the “Faith4Rights” toolkit was launched Special toolkit electronically in 2020, under the supervision of the OHCHR. Its goal was to involve different religious or belief stakeholders to promote gender equality, by reconsidering religious interpretations that reinforce harmful stereotypes or turn a blind eye to violence against women.

FoRB grants every woman the right to adhere/not adhere to social and religious customs, and the right to be protected from negative consequences like harassment or violence. In addition to FoE, FoRB opens the door to sound discussions about restrictive and discriminatory religious traditions and customs.

For example, women are subjected to FoRB violations through unfair personal status laws in some countries, which expose them to several challenges when it comes to matters of divorce, custody, and inheritance. Similarly, women face both social pressure as well as physical and/or verbal violence, justified by some false religious interpretations. Last but not least, women rarely take part in discussions around FoRB and women’s rights and do not easily access positions of power/influence in religious institutions.

Freedom of Religion or Belief and other Rights