Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that everyone has the right to freedom of religion, including the right to change one’s religion and the freedom to manifest one’s religion. To manifest one’s religion includes to practice and observe, or to teach and worship. The right to freedom of religion is also protected by the European Convention of Human Rights and the US Constitution, among others. Similarly, the freedom of religion is protected by the Constitution of Singapore.
Watch this video for an introduction to the debate surrounding the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsjhqqCubfw&t=25s
To understand why religious liberty is a fundamental human right, it may be helpful to consider situations where religious freedom has not been respected. The US Department of State’s report on International Religious Freedom concluded that the limitations to people’s freedom of religion leads to instability, human rights abuses and violent extremism. For instance, the Islamic State’s bid to form a territory of Islamic sovereignty has led to multiple genocides and ethnic cleansing against Christians, Kurds and even other Muslims who disagree with their regime.
As with all other human rights, how far does one’s right to religious freedom go? One may be free to practise one’s religion and propagate it, but when does it go too far and impinges on the freedom of another person’s right? One could argue that the Islamic State is merely exercising its religious freedom, but it would be near impossible to sustain the position that this is a legitimate exercise of religious freedom. Even where the right to religious freedom is enshrined as an absolute right, there must be safeguards to ensure that the exercise of religious freedom is subject to the rule of law.
Was Religious Freedom Respected in these instances?
- Xinjiang, China: Detention of Muslim Uighurs and Kazakhs
Large numbers of Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims are being detained in Xinjiang, China. The Chinese government considers these camps as voluntary training centres and likens them to boarding schools where they learn about Chinese values, performing arts and Communist ideology. However, human rights groups denounce these camps for teaching them communist propaganda and forcing them to renounce their Muslim religion.
These individuals are targeted for suspicious activity like having Whatsapp (which is banned in China) installed or if they do not socialise much with their neighbours. Although they have been labelled as boarding schools, individuals are not free to leave the camps at will.
- France: Ban on Burkinis
Burkinis – a portmanteau of “burka” and “bikini” – are a form of swimsuit for Muslim women to swim in public while adhering to the modesty requirements of their religion. However, burkinis have been banned across many towns in France because they are seen as a symbol of political islam and therefore incompatible with the secularist ideals of the French state.
In a recent act of civil disobedience, a number of Muslim women disobeyed the rules at a local swimming pool by swimming with burkinis. Although they were warned by lifeguards that their outfits were banned, they proceeded to swim with the public for about an hour. As a result, each woman involved was fined 35 euros for breaching the local swimming pool rules.
Is this an example of a discriminatory policy and prejudice in France? What is the risk to public interest or public morality if women bathed or swim with their burkinis on? On the other hand, are there any proselytising effects of wearing the burkinis? If the reason for banning the burkini is that it oppresses women, is this a sufficient reason for banning it or does it amount to religious colonialism?
Limits to Religious Freedom
When does the exercise of your right to religious freedom impinge on my rights? The manifestation of one’s religion must be circumscribed to ensure that other human rights are not curtailed. In Singapore, this safeguard is manifested as the Constitution clearly provides that the exercise of religious freedom does not authorise any act contrary to public order, health or morality. What is less clear is how such safeguards are to be interpreted and whether the practise of such safeguards would themselves constitute an unlawful restriction of religious freedom.
The keyword for limits to religious freedom is “necessary”. Restrictions to religious freedom are only legitimate where they are necessary, i.e. when the exercise of religious freedom disproportionately burdens another person’s freedom or rights. For instance, one cannot claim religious freedom for engaging in virgin sacrifice or to beat one’s spouse. Nor should a Muslim doctor refuse to treat a Zoroastrian patient on the grounds of religion.
Conversely, consider that Catholic churches or Muslim mosques may discriminate against women for ordination as their religions teach that certain religious orders are reserved for men. It would be an undue interference with their religious freedom because this discrimination against women can only be overturned by the state dictating the religious beliefs and practices to the faith community.
Similarly, a Muslim school should not be forced to hire a Jew as its vice-principal if the person does not share its beliefs and values. Given the importance of education to religious freedom and community, the integrity of the school’s religious ethos may be harmed by the state if it did impose such an appointment.
Yet, the Anti-Discrimination Commission of Queensland in 2018 has indicated that faith-based schools cannot ask prospective employees or students what their religious beliefs are. Is this a necessary restriction on the right to religious freedom or does it constitute an assault on the religious schools’ ability to maintain a religious ethos? These questions are what make the issue of religious freedom a complex one that requires wisdom and tact to navigate.
Questions for further personal evaluation:
- Do you agree with the “necessary” test in determining the legitimacy of a restriction to the right of religious freedom? Is it sufficiently clear or adequate? Why or why not?
- In the Youtube video, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission stressed the importance for public bodies and other institutions to respect the diversity of religions. Why is this so important? Does your analysis differ if you consider the context of Singapore?
Useful vocabulary:
- ‘genocide’: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political or cultural group
- ‘portmanteau’: a word whose form or meaning are derived from a blending of two or more words
- ‘proselytising’: to induce someone to convert to one’s faith
Here are more related articles for further reading:
- Report on Religious Restrictions: government restrictions on religion and social hostilities involving religion have increased around the world
“These trends suggest that, in general, religious restrictions have been rising around the world for the past decade, but they have not been doing so evenly across all geographic regions or all kinds of restrictions. The level of restrictions started high in the Middle East-North Africa region, and is now highest there in all eight categories measured by the study. But some of the biggest increases over the last decade have been in other regions, including Europe – where growing numbers of governments have been placing limits on Muslim women’s dress – and sub-Saharan Africa, where some groups have tried to impose their religious norms on others through kidnappings and forced conversions.”
- The Local Austria: Austrian politician denounced for comparing nuns wearing habits as ‘oppressed women’ wearing burkas
“In a second message posted on Facebook he explained that he was trying to convey that “every woman should be able to wear what they want as long as they chose the clothes themselves”.
His original post came after some French beaches adopted a controversial burqini ban and after comments made by Austrian cabinet politicians criticising the full face veil.
Demir received a mixed response to the original post and photo, with some commentators supporting his point and others criticising him for being “against” nuns.
One politician said his comparison of a burqa, a full veil covering that is sometimes worn by Muslim woman, with a nun’s habit in “inappropriate”.
“Full veils have never had a place in our society,” Reinhold Lopatka, from the right-wing OeVP party told the Tiroler Tageszeitung. “Niqab and burqa stand for intolerance and oppression of women, habits are symbols of a spiritual life in a freely chosen community.”
However, like nuns, many Muslim women argue that they choose to wear the full face veil voluntarily.”