Freedom of Religion

Dealing with the issues that are somehow linked with different beliefs and ideas are comparatively very hard to resolve. Issues of these natures have often resulted in international issues and wars among states. If we take a look at the historic timeline, we come across the fact that rulers in the past have bowed before ideas which resolved the disputes in state. “Progressive jurisprudence” has changed their concentration from mere tolerance to genuine respect when concerned with ideas that revolve around religion. It should be noted that in all agreements and deals for human rights, there is always a special section for religious issues and is kept away from rights which forbid religious discrimination. It should be noted that “religious convention” came into existence after 1948.

It has already been stated in the second article of “UDHR” that “every individual, because of their religious beliefs or philosophical beliefs, have the right to live freely from persecution”. When dealing with an agreement, it is to be noted that, in accordance with the 18th article of “UDHR”, every individual must have the liberty to speak, give suggestions, and practice their religion. It should be noted that in all agreements and deals for human rights, there is always a special section for religious issues and is kept away from rights which forbid religious discrimination. It should be noted that “religious convention” came into existence after 1948.

It has already been stated in the second article of “UDHR” that “every individual, because of their religious beliefs or philosophical beliefs, have the right to live freely from persecution”. When dealing with an agreement, it is to be noted that, in accordance with the 18th article of “UDHR”, every individual must have the liberty to speak, give suggestions, and practice their religion. It should be noted that, in all agreements and deals for human rights, there is always a special section for religious issues and is kept away from rights which forbid religious discrimination. It should be noted that “religious convention” came into existence after 1948.

It is to be noted here that the right to have or choose a set of religious beliefs or have beliefs of your choice is safeguarded by the “Article 18(2) of ICCPR” but there exists some restrictions on this liberty in “UDHR’s Article 18. The article 18(3) of the Committee permits “restrictions on an individual’s liberty of religion or belief only if they are prescribed by law and necessary to protect public safety, order, health, morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others”. It is agreed upon by the “Committee” that improvements can be made in “Article 18’s third paragraph”. There shouldn’t be any exemption while implementing prohibitions.

The issues regarding this Act are going on with each day and it can be seen by the

30 appeals which have been put forward till now. The approach that is relied upon

by the “Committee” while dealing with such cases is signified by the 2 significant

petitions that demonstrate. A person belonging from the Sikh class in Canada filed

a case against the state, with reference to “Article 18(1)”, while stating his liberty

to wear a “turban” was violated. Since the government officials are officially

instructed to wear solid head gears, therefore, the “Committee” declared that the

restriction was justifiable as per “Article 18 paragraph 3”. During a case in

“Uzbekistan”, where a student named “Raihon Hudoyberanova” challenged the

state as the state declared that no one can cover their head. Later on, “Uzbekistan”

was found guilty as they failed to give an acceptable interpretation. It was

established that they have breached the “Article 18 of the ICCPR”. It is to be noted

that the main goal of “1981 Declaration on Religion or Belief” was preventing

discrimination that is based upon a person’s religious or philosophical beliefs. It

has been declared clearly by “Article 1(1)” that all individuals have the religious,

ethical, and philosophical liberty. These rights are applicable to the entire range of

religious and philosophical practices e.g. “worshiping, observing, practicing,

educating one’s beliefs either in public or private”. In light of the “8th Article”, it

is stated that “nothing in this Declaration shall be understood as diminishing or

derogating from any right recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights or the International Covenants on Human Rights”. The way “Article 1” has

been written reflects the diverse interpretations of “freedom to change religion or

belief” across different nations. This provision provides a legal basis for countries

to oppose those advocating for the liberty of people to switch religions or

philosophical ideologies. It has been affirmed that both the provisions are

applicable because “Article 18 of UDHR and Article 18(2) of ICCPR” both are

taking side of the claim.

First article of “American Convention” keeps a wider approach when dealing with

“nondiscrimination”. Furthermore, as it has been mentioned in “ICCPR’s Article

12” therefore religious liberty is also safeguarded and it is also unhindered as per the

“African Charter’s Article 8”.

There exists a large amount of similarities between ECHR’s 9th article and

UDHR’s 18th however the first one had some issues in the writing procedure.

ECHR’s Article 9.1 explicitly states that “individuals have the right to freedom of

thought, conscience, and religion, which encompasses the freedom to embrace a

new belief and openly demonstrate one's current faith through both public and private religious practices, including worship, education, evangelism, and observance”. There had been some obstacles which resulted in a restricted religious freedom. The to the point explanation of the Article 9.2 permitted a “degree of autonomy” for states. Apart from the Convention’s 9th Article, the second article of the “First Protocol to the Convention” ensures the liberty to get education which is endorsed by various religions’ ideologies. The decisions presented below are a reflection of the way “ECHR’s precedent on Article 9” led to its development. During the case “Kokkiniakis v. Greece in 1993”, the defendant “Mr. Kokkinakis”, who used to say that he had met God, got arrested more than 60 times because of promoting his religious ideologies. By using ECHR’s 9th article, he was assured of getting rid of the convictions. The Supreme Court has emphasized the significance of religious and moral freedom in maintaining a functioning democracy. In a ruling against Greece for violating Article 9, the Court recognized that limitations on this freedom are allowed under Article 9(2). However, Greece was unable to demonstrate that the restriction was necessary, leading to the Court's decision against the country.

A woman living in Switzerland, filed a case against the state for her liberty of covering her hair or wearing a “Hijab”. She had been doing so for nearly half a decade until a high rank government executive told her to stop it. However, the court went on to highlight the fact that Member States have some pliability in their approach. It was established that the restriction by the official was justifiable in the interest of keeping a democratic environment in the state because young children are susceptible to the influence of their peers. By these explanations, the restriction was considered lawful and appropriate under the provisions of “Article 9(2)”. It was concluded by the “Dahlab court” that the Islamic need for women to cover their hair was not compatible with Islam's rules of "tolerance, respect for others, and, most importantly, equality and nondiscrimination”. A girl in Turkey named “Leyla Sahin” went to the court stating that her “Article 9” rights were infringed because she was allowed to sit in the class wearing an “Islamic headscarf”. However, the chamber declared that the 9th article has not been breached in this situation. She asked to move the case into the “Grand chamber” as per article43(2). She went on allege the infringements of her rights as per the 9th, 2nd and the 14th article of “Protocol No. 1”. 2nd and 9th article comprised on rights to education and the 14th article was due to the reason that she had to make choice between “education and religion”. She didn’t stop there as she even said that her 8th and 10th rights have also been breached. Later on, it was decided by the court that 9th article hasn’t been breached. The decision made by the “Turkish Constitutional Court” was observed by the ECHR. It said that when it comes to dressing code in

an institute, the students do not have full liberty of expression. The action was justified to protect freedom and other’s liberty and to uphold public order. It also ensured the preservation of secularism and equality as fundamental principles. In Turkey, the two important rules are “Secularism and Equality”. The court when explaining the decision added that among the basic democratic traits lies secularism like equity and liberation and this prevents the court from ruling in favor of one religion. This event showed that Turkey is serious about its secular rules. In a similar case, “SAS v. France (2014)”, the court examined the French restrictions on wearing the hijab and other forms of public attire showing affiliation towards a religion. The French government argued that the law aimed to uphold "respect for a fundamental set of democratic and open-minded societal principles" as well as ensuring public safety. The notion of "living together," or "le Vivre ensemble" in French, was cited as essential for maintaining harmony within society. It was declared by the “Grand Chamber” that a complete ban is not necessary to ensure the safety of people. The fact that we are dealing with the way a state organizes its people and how they live and make interactions, there is a broad “Margin of Appreciation” therefore the court declared that there is no infringement of the convention. The court decision can have two possible reactions with one calling it as restriction to muslim women's rights and the others seeing it as an increased emphasis on human rights. The logic employed by the court in this case was different from its earlier ruling in Dahlab v. Switzerland, where it was acknowledged that women often face pressure to wear the headscarf because of the requirements of their religion. The court's changed approach appears to be a result of preconceived notions about Islam rather than safeguarding individual rights, is a positive development, and the credit goes to SAS for this.

Another issue arose in Switzerland, when the muslim parents faced a situation that their preteen daughters would have to take combined swimming lessons with no exceptions. This was the case “Osm an lu and Kocabas v. Switzerland”. Regardless of the fact that Article 9(1) was invoked, the State's actions were considered justified in the light of Article 9(2). In this case, the court declared that the authorities should make significant accommodations to relieve the petitioners' concerns about their children's participation in mixed swimming classes, including allowing the girls to wear bikinis. The Court concluded that “teachers and the State's educational system enjoy a considerable degree of discretion (referred to as a "margin of appreciation") in determining the interaction between religion and the government and the role of religion in society”. There exists a sequence between this ruling and the earlier ones when dealing with such cases. Furthermore, the “substantial leeway”, granted to nations in cases of this nature, should be emphasized upon by the court. It is to be noted here that the “Article 9” is at stake

and the court recognizes this fact but it considers that the responses of the states are satisfactory.