Despite a robust scheme for its protection and a considerable range of governmental, intergovernmental and civil society efforts to advance it, freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) is proving to be a difficult human right to guarantee and protect. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that FoRB is the fastest eroding human right in the world.
I would like to offer some reflections in light of the current situation.
Some of the challenges to advancing FoRB for all derives from increasingly sceptical attitudes towards human rights in general. Obstacles to the full and free exercise of FoRB are taking place in a deteriorating environment for human rights generally across the world. There has been a notable retreat from universalism in many places. The universalist worldview is coming under relentless assault from authoritarians, populists, and purveyors of an aggressive, chauvinistic nationalism. Some people are frightened by the idea of a shrinking universe. The world is coming to their doorstep as a result of the Internet and migration flows and they fear this. They reject the greater interconnectedness and openness of societies and they try to keep out “otherness”. They gravitate towards their own kind. Diversity and multi-culturalism are seen as threats, they dilute “core” identity and traditional ways of living and introduce foreign values. FoRB and other universal human rights are increasing falling victim to these pernicious forces.
Another problem stems from within the world of FoRB advocacy itself, which has been infected by some of the attitudes just described. At the same time as rhetoric on behalf of FoRB has grown louder, in recent years some of its advocates have grown less sympathetic to FoRB for certain religious communities and non-believers. Indeed, in some quarters, FoRB is being promoted in a tribal and exclusionary manner. In some cases, it would appear that “FoRB” is less about defending the right of religious believers to hold and practice their faith and more about defending the right of the majority to denigrate and abuse a vulnerable minority.
Finally, there are many misunderstandings and misconceptualisations about the nature, status and scope of FoRB as set out in universal standards. These stem, in large part, from a hardened secularist attitude towards religion in general and poor literacy about specific religious belief systems. FoRB has important individual, collective, institutional, educative and communicative dimensions, but unfortunately, we see an ever-increasing presence of a reductionist approach to, or understanding of, FoRB that seeks to limit it to mere belief or private worship while neglecting the equal protection given under international law to conviction-based practices, collective expression and manifestation, and religion’s public involvement. This is a very worrying phenomenon as it has real world effects. Misperceptions and inadequate conceptualisations lend intellectual support to excessive restrictions on FoRB, leading to worrying protection gaps for vulnerable/at risk groups such as migrants, refugees and religious minorities.
FoRB requires enabling or empowering environments that allow people to hold and practise their religion or belief freely. If there is not an enabling environment, then everyone’s rights are violated and not just those who may be experiencing discrimination or persecution. I would like to offer a few reflections on some of the features of such enabling environments.
One, there is a need for ongoing dialogue around a holistic understanding of FoRB as a human right underpinned by such key principles as universality, dignity, freedom, equality and non-discrimination. Conceptual clarity around the very substance of FoRB would seem necessary if States, civil society organizations and religious or belief communities are to build a common and coherent approach to advancing FoRB and related human rights for all.
In this regard, it should be remembered that:
• FoRB is linked with the idea of humanity in all its diversity and needs to be promoted unequivocally as a right for all people, because when it is restricted to one group it does indeed become a force for harm, not good. FoRB should not be used as a weapon of exclusion, and instead we should defend the freedoms of those with whom we deeply disagree, but which do not harm us
• FoRB has different aspects – individual, collective, institutional, educative and communicative. It is about freedom to as well as freedom from, freedom to choose and freedom to change. It also requires that the state serve as the trustworthy guarantor of FoRB for everyone; this means that States should provide an open, inclusive framework in which religious or belief pluralism can unfold freely and without discrimination. This requires overcoming any exclusivist settings; what must be overcome is an understanding in which the State identifies itself with one particular religion or belief at the expense of an equal and non-discriminatory treatment of followers of other persuasions
• there is no hierarchy of human rights, all of which are ultimately “universal, indivisible and interrelated and interdependent”, to cite a formula coined at the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna. In this regard, we need to avoid two extremes: FoRB as a “lesser” or “secondary” right; FoRB as “the first and foremost right”. Neither approach reflects adequately the complex realities on the ground. FoRB is closely related to and therefore cannot be isolated from, for example, freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of association and assembly, and rights related to gender equality and non-discrimination. FoRB is an inalienable and fundamental human right which is integral to a host of important social goods but this does not mean that it is more important than other rights. FoRB should not be used to restrict enjoyment of other human rights and vice versa; these human rights tend to rise and fall together
Two, efforts to advance FoRB for all are best achieved in environments that embody universal values. There needs to be a commitment on the part of all actors to the universality of FoRB and other human rights. A key question here is how can we help people make international standards on FoRB, and the values that underpin them, their own? An important lesson is that while FoRB interventions should not lose sight of universal norms they must also have strong local anchorage/roots. Context matters and with particular force in this field. So interventions to promote FoRB must be locally relevant and resonant. This requires strong local actors and ownership. It is important to listen carefully to local voices, especially religious or belief communities and their leaders who hold important local knowledge and are likely to be key actors in promoting or undermining FoRB for all in their societies. In most countries, however, local FoRB leadership is weak, divided and isolated, pointing to the need for active engagement with, and support to, local actors through well-crafted capacity building, training, and networking. Such support needs to be coupled with broader efforts to strengthen the local legitimacy of FoRB, eg through processes of “vernacularisation”, helping people understand how and why FoRB is relevant to their reality, their lived experience.
Three, it has been encouraging to see efforts to engage a range of important stakeholders in the creation of such enabling environments. These commonly include State authorities, religious and belief communities, civil society organizations, national human rights institutions and equality bodies, academic institutions and schools, the media. Nevertheless, there is an urgent need to diversify the range of actors involved. Broader alliances and coalitions are needed to advance FoRB for all. Very often, groups and networks that discuss FoRB are self-selecting ones involving people who have been long involved in the topic, eg minorities and their activists, etc. How do we engage with those who might exclude themselves or be left out of important conversations about FoRB? One way to do this is to mainstream issues of FoRB into other conversations rather than making it a standalone topic. How can FoRB be linked to issues that people care about, for example peace, climate change, sustainable development, and made relevant to these important discussions? This could be a way of ensuring that more people and more institutions realise the value of FoRB.
Four, the role of education, formal and informal, is a critical part of building and sustaining open, inclusive and religiously diverse environments underpinned by respect for FoRB and other human rights. Young people, especially, need access to education that teaches them, from the earliest years, about the idea of humanity in all its diversity, including in the domain on religion and belief. Education about religions and beliefs usually focuses on children and young people, but neglects the vital role of continuing education for adults. Education and exchange at all levels are vital to support inclusive approaches to religion and belief in society. Further, there is also an educational responsibility that falls to religious or belief communities, teachers, community leaders, families, civil society to change attitudes, values and behaviours of individuals.
24 May 2019, Yerevan
Contemporary Issues of Freedom of Religion or Belief in Armenia, Georgia and beyond, regional conference, Yerevan
