Violations and abuses related to freedom of religion and belief have notably increased in recent years in Tunisia, particularly in light of the political, economic, and social situation characterized by instability and turmoil. This has contributed to the marginalization of religious minorities on the one hand while reinforcing stereotypes regarding freedom of thought and religious expression on the other. Such a situation generally leads to the neglect of acts of violence and hate speech, often marked by direct incitement against religious minorities, critics of religion, and those who hold differing interpretations from the prevailing narrative. Consequently, the majority of minorities feel compelled to conceal their religious identity and beliefs to protect their lives, livelihoods, and families.
Moreover, religious hate speech has come to dominate the Tunisian landscape in all its forms, with incitement to violence and crime against religious and ideological groups becoming widespread in virtual spaces and media platforms. Although some methods may not directly incite violence, they nonetheless encourage manifestations of fanaticism and extremism, effectively legitimizing acts of hate.
Additionally, some parliamentarians, politicians, and certain intellectuals associated with the country’s elite have engaged in disseminating hate speech and inciting violence, thereby failing in their essential role of safeguarding security and social peace and respecting state institutions and laws. Furthermore, illegal practices have been reported among some members of the security forces during detentions, interrogations, and other abuses carried out by local or central authorities
I- Violations by the state authority
Many constitutional and legislative provisions in Tunisia have recognized the freedom of belief and conscience, criminalizing violations of these freedoms. However, several other provisions have undermined these freedoms, leading to judicial rulings and administrative obstacles that discriminated against Tunisians based on religion. Tunisian law guarantees the right to freedom of belief and conscience, as stated in Article 27 of the 2022 Tunisian Constitution, and protects the freedom to practice religious rituals as long as they do not disrupt public order, as outlined in Article 28 of the same constitution. Nonetheless, while Article 1 of the 2014 and 1959 Constitutions defined the religion and identity of the state, allowing for various interpretations—only stating that the state’s religion is Islam and its language is Arabic—Article 5 of the 2022 Constitution presents a formulation that leaves no room for interpretation. This makes the religion of the majority predominant, assigning the state the responsibility to pursue the objectives of Islam (the objectives of Sharia – the five essentials). Consequently, Article 2 of the 2014 Constitution, which asserted: “Tunisia is a civil state, based on citizenship, the will of the people, and the supremacy of law,” was removed, eliminating the provision designed to create a balance between the first article, which declares that Islam is the state religion, and the second, which describes Tunisia as a civil state grounded in citizenship.
This change reflects a shift in the consensus between Islamists and secularists. Such constitutional modifications are likely to have negative legislative and judicial repercussions. The 2022 Constitution guarantees the right to practice religious rituals; however, this practice is conditioned on a crucial requirement: “not disturbing public order,” a term previously excluded from the 2014 Constitution due to its misinterpretation. Its reinstatement may thus invite further restrictions.
Some judges seek legal justifications for issuing penalties and rulings against individuals with differing religious beliefs. They aim to adopt legal articles, such as Articles 52 and 53 of the decree concerning freedom of the press, printing, and publication, stipulating a maximum prison sentence of three years. They also reference provisions that criminalize the distribution of brochures, publications, foreign writings, or anything that could disrupt public order or undermine good morals (Article 121 Third, Penal Code), thereby restricting freedom of religion and belief.
Additionally, we observe various forms of discrimination in the Tunisian law in the following matters: In matters of worship and burial rights, In matters of freedom of association, In matters of complaints and legal actions, In matters of arbitrary interrogations, Pursuing those who abstain from fasting during Ramadan.
Legal Discrimination Based on Gender
Tunisian law includes various forms of gender discrimination in some of its texts. One such text is the Personal Status Code, which, although considered modern and revolutionary when established in 1957, granted women many rights, surpassing numerous social norms. However, this code also deprived women of fundamental rights and entrenched male dominance.In matters of custody, Tunisian law limits the mother’s custody to the father’s authority. Therefore, the mother’s custody is deemed invalid for religious reasons. Article 59 of the Personal Status Code states: “If the person entitled to custody is of a different religion than that of the father of the child, her custody is not deemed valid, except if the child is under five, and there is no fear that he may become accustomed to a religion other than that of his father. The provisions of this article do not apply to the mother if she is the custodian.”
In matters of inheritance:
The difference in religion is classified as a barrier to inheritance by specific sectors of the Tunisian judiciary, referencing the decision of the Court of Appeal in Tunisia, in its ruling issued on June 26, 2014, which nullified the marriage contract between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim, thereby excluding the husband from his wife’s inheritance based on Articles 5 and 88 of the Personal Status Code, as they are considered prohibitions stipulated by Islamic law. The court additionally noted that the drafters of the Personal Status Code relied on the Maliki and Hanafi schools of thought in establishing its provisions; this case is among many instances that reference these articles and other similar rulings.
To limit these discriminatory texts, the Tunisian Cabinet ratified, on November 23, 2018, a draft law aimed at amending the Personal Status Code, which includes provisions for inheritance equality between men and women. This draft was then presented to Parliament for approval before coming into effect. However, it was not brought to a vote due to opposition from the Ennahda Movement, the Renaissance Party, and some affiliated with progressive movements. President “Kais Saied’s” stance on this issue was unequivocal; he pointed out that the Quranic text is explicit regarding this matter and that the inheritance system in Islam is based on justice and fairness. He added, “Equality, as articulated in liberal thought, is formal equality that does not rest on justice as much as it rests on the illusion of it.” (See)
Legal Discrimination Based on Gender
Tunisian law includes various forms of gender discrimination in some of its texts. One such text is the Personal Status Code, which, although considered modern and revolutionary when established in 1957, granted women many rights, surpassing numerous social norms. However, this code also deprived women of fundamental rights and entrenched male dominance.In matters of custody, Tunisian law limits the mother’s custody to the father’s authority. Therefore, the mother’s custody is deemed invalid for religious reasons. Article 59 of the Personal Status Code states: “If the person entitled to custody is of a different religion than that of the father of the child, her custody is not deemed valid, except if the child is under five, and there is no fear that he may become accustomed to a religion other than that of his father. The provisions of this article do not apply to the mother if she is the custodian.”
In matters of inheritance:
The difference in religion is classified as a barrier to inheritance by specific sectors of the Tunisian judiciary, referencing the decision of the Court of Appeal in Tunisia, in its ruling issued on June 26, 2014, which nullified the marriage contract between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim, thereby excluding the husband from his wife’s inheritance based on Articles 5 and 88 of the Personal Status Code, as they are considered prohibitions stipulated by Islamic law. The court additionally noted that the drafters of the Personal Status Code relied on the Maliki and Hanafi schools of thought in establishing its provisions; this case is among many instances that reference these articles and other similar rulings.
To limit these discriminatory texts, the Tunisian Cabinet ratified, on November 23, 2018, a draft law aimed at amending the Personal Status Code, which includes provisions for inheritance equality between men and women. This draft was then presented to Parliament for approval before coming into effect. However, it was not brought to a vote due to opposition from the Ennahda Movement, the Renaissance Party, and some affiliated with progressive movements. President “Kais Saied’s” stance on this issue was unequivocal; he pointed out that the Quranic text is explicit regarding this matter and that the inheritance system in Islam is based on justice and fairness. He added, “Equality, as articulated in liberal thought, is formal equality that does not rest on justice as much as it rests on the illusion of it.” (See)
In matters of partner selection: A government decision was issued on September 8, 2017, which repealed Circular No. 216—dated November 5, 1973—concerning the marriage of a Tunisian Muslim woman to a non-Muslim (See). In light of this decision, both the Ministers of Local Affairs and Foreign Affairs annulled all circulars related to restricting the freedom of Tunisian women in choosing their partners. This action was based on the contradiction of these circulars with the 2014 constitution, particularly articles 21 and 46, and their conflict with international agreements ratified by the Tunisian state. It is particularly noteworthy that circulars, by their nature, cannot create rights or affect legal statuses, as their role is limited to interpreting legislative and regulatory texts, as explained in the ministerial rationale. However, some municipalities have refused to implement the cancellation decision, arguing that the state constitution specifies that the religion of the state is Islam while adhering to Article 5 of the Personal Status Code, which states: “Marriage is not considered legitimate in the presence of any legal impediments.” This text is interpreted and adapted to conform to Islamic law according to Tunisian judicial jurisprudence. For instance, the municipality of “Le Kram,” located in the northern suburb of Tunis, refuses to contract a marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man unless the husband provides a document proving his conversion to Islam. The municipality bases its decisions on the Local Communities Code, which grants it a quasi-independent discretionary authority to make appropriate decisions for the territorial area under its jurisdiction. This obstinacy and refusal to follow central authority decisions have encouraged many municipalities and notaries to follow the example of “Le Kram” municipality in rejecting drafting marriage contracts between Muslim women and non-Muslim men.
Violations by Religious Authorities
Hate speech based on religious differences is a widespread social phenomenon in Tunisia, prominently led by notable religious leaders, politicians, and educated elites, who have attacked freedom of conscience and belief, as well as individuals belonging to religious minorities, describing them as a threat to the social order. Dozens of Salafists, incited by religious figures, stormed the “Abdaliyya” exhibition in the town of “La Marsa,” in the suburbs of the capital, on June 10, 2012, demanding the removal of specific artworks that they considered disrespectful to the sacred. This resulted in clashes between the exhibitors and the protesters (see). Sheikh “Hussein Al-Abidi,” the imam of the “Zaytouna” mosque, declared that the visual artists at the “Abdaliyya” exhibition are infidels whose lives must be taken, stating: “Anyone who engages in this work is a disbeliever according to explicit text; their lives must be taken,” repeating this statement three times (See). The confrontations between the Salafists and the security forces led to one fatality from live ammunition and the burning and destruction of several establishments.
the Primary Court in Tunisia issued a ruling in November 2021, convicting Sheikh “Mokhtar Dallali” for excommunication and incitement thereto, as well as incitement to hatred and hostility among races, religions, and sects, sentencing him to two years in prison, while suspending the sentence, confiscating the seized items, formally accepting the civil suit, and initially imposing a symbolic fine of one millime in favor of the personal rights claim; the “Inara” Association reported all of this on its official Facebook page. This judicial ruling followed a complaint lodged by the Association against Sheikh “Dallali” on August 16, 2021.
Deputy “Mohamed Al-Afess,” a former imam of the Grand Mosque in “Sfax,” remarked that: “Excommunication is a Sharia ruling, and we do not shy away from it” (see). Meanwhile, Deputy “Mohamed Ammar,” known for his opposition to the public display of Jews in societal life, expressed his support for the remarks made by Tunisian actor “Mahdhob Rmeili,” who called for a swap of “Zionist places of worship” in Tunisia with mosques, thus blurring the line between Zionism and Judaism as a religion (see).
This speech encouraged extremists to raise their voices loudly, inciting against those who differ religiously and ideologically and calling for the prohibition of all demonstrations that, in their view, contribute to the spread of non-Sunni Islamic religious ideas and beliefs. This is exemplified by Sheikh “Bashir Baqa,” who published a video on the social media platform “Facebook” in which he declared Bahá’ís to be infidels and urged Shia to pray behind the Sunni community, demanding that the authorities confront organizations defending religious minorities (see). In 2021, media outlets aligned with Islamists attacked the International Book Fair in Tunisia, claiming it allowed a Christian publishing house (the Bible House) to participate, which they considered a danger threatening society and a violation of the first chapter of the constitution, as Tunisia is a Muslim state (see). “Facebook” pages circulated the news along with photos of some visiting nuns at the fair, accusing them of proselytizing in the fair’s hallways.
Community Violations
Various groups carry out destructive acts targeting places or gatherings of those who differ in religion and ideology, taking advantage of occasional security and social instability.
For instance, between 2012 and 2013, there were assaults on the shrines of holy men and righteous guardians and shrines burning throughout northern and southern Tunisia, marking an unprecedented wave of violence in the country’s history. Perpetrators violated the sanctity of these shrines through acts of digging, burning, and demolition. Accusations were directed toward the “Salafis,” who oppose “Sufi” paths because “they stray from Islam and represent forms of idolatry”. The “Union of Sufi Orders” accused the Wahhabi Salafi movement of being behind the burnings of Sufi lodges and assaults on tombs, including the shrine of “saida Manoubia”. The Director-General of UNESCO condemned the attack on this site, stating that damaging these landmarks is tantamount to an assault on the Tunisian people, who have historically been known for their tolerance and respect for diverse beliefs and spiritual practices (see).
Additionally, in early 2018, an unknown group threw Molotov cocktails at a Jewish religious school on the Tunisian island of “Djerba” in an attempt to burn it. The president of the Jewish community in “Djerba,” “Perez Traboulsi,” confirmed that “unknown individuals took advantage of the police’s focus on public protests and threw incendiary devices inside the lobby of a Jewish school in the large neighborhood of “Djerba”, but there were no injuries, and the damage was minimal” (see).
The family and local community are seen as the primary sources of discrimination against individuals who change their religion, with some cases escalating to forced detention, severe violence, and harassment. The rates of violations against both genders are comparable; however, women make up a more significant percentage of recorded violation cases in recent years. According to the monitoring and follow-up unit for religious discrimination cases within “Talaki” organization, of the total 168 documented complaints (between mid-2021 and 2022) submitted to the organization—via phone calls, messages left on their “Facebook” page, or in-person visits—approximately 52% of the complaints were filed by women who reported that the violence and discrimination they experienced came from their own families and relatives. Among this group, 11% were forbidden to leave the house, their phones were confiscated, and they were prevented from continuing their education.
This statistic reflects the reality of women who belong to religious minorities or hold beliefs that contradict those of the majority. Despite the enactment of a fundamental law, number 58 of 2017, dated August 11, 2017, aimed at eliminating violence against women, the situation on the ground remains unchanged; assaults and violations persist without accountability or deterrents to protect women from such practices and safeguard their rights.
On the other hand, many Jewish and Christian cemeteries have recently faced systematic acts of vandalism, and even Islamic cemeteries have not escaped these violations; indeed, religious extremists are believed to be behind these acts, carried out based on a fatwa prohibiting construction over graves. Tunisian law punishes anyone who desecrates a grave with two years in prison and a fine of forty-eight dinars (Article 167 of the Penal Code). However, these crimes remain untried and are recorded as unsolved.
On December 6, 2023, the local labor union in Al Hammah issued a statement denouncing a potential visit by Jews to the area, deeming this visit as a “foreign body” in the town. The statement employed incendiary language against Jews, firmly calling for the rejection of the visit. (see)
The Ninth Channel removed the comments by a Tunisian Christian activist who appeared on the program “Under the Wall,” broadcast on May 4, 2023. Without any official explanation, his remarks were deleted across the channel’s platforms, including Facebook and YouTube. The activist reported being subjected to a campaign of violent harassment following the episode’s airing, during which a group of individuals stormed his home in the capital, assaulted him, and attempted to evict him from the house he was renting. The property owner joined this group in the eviction attempt, using derogatory terms like “infidel” and “accursed”. Despite police intervention, they were unable to provide sufficient protection, forcing the victim to relocate in search of safety, as he shared on his personal Facebook page.
