Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:34:18.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is There a Right to Be ‘Free from’ Religion or Belief at Strasbourg?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2016

Caroline K Roberts
Caroline K Roberts*
Affiliation:
Research Student, School of Law, University of Bristol
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The theme of the Ecclesiastical Law Society's 2016 Day Conference, ‘Freedom of/from religion’, reflects the growing interest in the idea that, in addition to a right to freedom of religion, there is a right to ‘freedom from’ religion. In recent years, there has been a trend towards increased use of the language of freedom from religion in academic literature and in material produced by practitioners, organisations and activists in discussions of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Keywords

freedom of religionrightsArticle 9 ECHR
Type
Comment
Information
Ecclesiastical Law Journal , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 35 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 See, for instance, Franklin, J, ‘Freedom from religion and freedom from irreligion’, (2014) 9 Connor Court Quarterly 1–12 Google Scholar; Gogineni, R and Gule, L, ‘Humanism and freedom from religion’ in Lindholm, T et al. (eds), Facilitating Religion or Belief: a deskbook (Leiden, 2004), pp 699–719 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Guoira, A, Freedom from Religion: rights and national security (Oxford, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wallace, M, Freedom from Religion: rethinking Article 18 (Sydney, 2015)Google Scholar; Weiler, J, ‘Freedom of religion and freedom from religion: the European model’, (2013) 62:2 Maine Law Review 760–768 Google Scholar.

3 This is the central focus of my PhD thesis, ‘The development of the Strasbourg jurisprudence concerning religious freedom and the need for a reappraisal of the understanding of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (to be submitted to Bristol University).

4 Buscarini and Others v San Marino App no 24645/94 (ECtHR, 18 February 1999) at para 34.

5 X v Austria (1963) Collection 13, pp 42–54.

6 Alexandridis v Greece App no 19516/06 (ECtHR, 21 February 2008) at para 32; Sinan Işik v Turkey App no 21924/05 (ECtHR, 2 February 2010) at para 38.

7 The distinction most frequently used in the literature relating to Article 9 is that between rights which fall within the scope of the forum internum (the internal realm of the mind) and the forum externum (the external realm of action).

8 H Bielefeldt, ‘Streit um die Religionsfreiheit’, Erlanger Universitatsreden 77/2012 (2012), p 16, available at <https://www.zuv.fau.de/einrichtungen/presse/publikationen/erlanger-universitaetsreden/Unirede-77.pdf>, accessed 11 October 2016.

9 Article 9 protects ‘the right to hold and not to hold religious beliefs’. See Buscarini v San Marino at para 34 and, most recently, Güler and Uğur v Turkey App nos 31706/10, 33088/10 (2 Feb 2014) at para 34.

10 Darby v Sweden (1990) Series A no 187, at para 51.

11 Eg Bielefeldt, H, Ghanea, N and Weiner, M, Freedom of Religion or Belief (Oxford, 2016), p 106 Google Scholar; Howard, E, Law and the Wearing of Religious Symbols (Abingdon, 2013), pp 4, 24, 25, 159, 160Google Scholar; Lerner, N, Religion, Secular Beliefs and Human Rights (Leiden, 2006), p 18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 National Secular Society, ‘What is secularism?’, available at <http://www.secularism.org.uk/what-is-secularism.html>, accessed 31 August 2016.

13 See Gogineni and Gule, ‘Humanism and freedom from religion’, pp 705–706. For a discussion of this trend, see Bielefeldt, H, ‘Misperceptions of religion or belief’, (2013) 35:1 Human Rights Quarterly 33–68 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Lautsi v Italy App no 30814/06 (ECtHR, 3 November 2009).

15 Ibid at para 56.

16 Ibid at para 47(e). This is the first time that ‘negative freedom’ was used by Strasbourg in relation to Article 9. In support, the Court cited its use in relation to the Article 11 case of James, Young and Webster (1981) Series A no 44 at paras 52–57.

17 Lautsi v Italy I at para 55.

18 Karaduman v Turkey App no 16278/90 DR 93 at p 108. See also Dahlab v Switzerland App no 42393/98 (ECtHR, 15 February 2001); Sahin v Turkey App no 44774/98 (ECtHR, 10 November 2005); Kose and 93 Others v Turkey App no 26625/02 (ECtHR, 24 January 2006); Kurtulmuş v Turkey App no 65500/01 (ECtHR, 24 January 2006).

19 Lautsi v Italy I at para 50.

20 Ibid at para 55.

21 Ibid at para 55.

22 Ibid at para 57.

23 Evans, M, ‘And should the first be last’ (2014) 3 BYU Law Review 531–545 at 532Google Scholar.

24 Lautsi and Others v Italy App no 30814/06 (ECtHR, 19 March 2011) at para 60.

25 This reading is bolstered by reference to Judge Bonello's interpretation of freedom from religion as the ‘the right not to embrace a religion at all’. Ibid, concurring opinion of Judge Bonello at para 2.6.

26 SAS v France App no 43835/11 (ECtHR, 1 July 2014).

27 Ibid at para 157.