Religious freedom:

 Exercise of freedom of expression, assembly and association = central tenet

of pluralistic and tolerant society and key to participatory rights in its
political life. Taken together w freedom of thought, conscience and religion,
they constitute core civil and political rights. However these rights aren’t
absolute and the degree to which they may be restricted is frequently
subject of intense debates. There can be cultural differences esp in respect
of freedom of expression. Some states favor almost unlimited liberty eg US
whereas other ban speech considered offensive, or unacceptable attacks on
religion e.g nazi Germany. Curtailment of these rights is a defining feature
of totalitarian regimes and authoritarian states. Political activists, HR
defenders, journalists are esp vulnerable to harassment, illtreatment,
murder. Dozens of journalists, media workers killed every year, authorities
fail to protect. Murder of Anna Politkovskata in Russia = e.g of attacks on
journalists, forming part of broader attempts to hide the truth, silence
critical voices.
 Freedom of expression, assembly and association are recognized in ICCPR
and all regional HR treaties. Freedom of expression has broad scope of
encompassing political and artistic expression, media, commercial
advertising etc.
 Freedom of expression vs freedom of religion: Salman Rushdie’s Satanic
verses and the Jyllands Posten’s Danish cartoons on Prophet Muhammad
pbuh = two eg where exercise of freedom of was met w protests bc
insulting to religion. Jan 2015, 12 people killed in attack on French
magazine Charlie Hebdo, of which were 5 cartoonists, to avenge the
Prophet pbuh. These incidents have been pronounced in relation to issues
portrayed as fundamental to islam but potential for tensions is not confined
to islam. It raises Qs on rs between freedom of E and R, including
protection of indiv and minorities against discrim and attacks on their
religion. Attempts made by the organization of the Islamic conference in
the commission on HR and later hRC to prohibit defamation of religions was
met w resistance bc seen as overly restrictive of freedom of E.
  In ICCPR, freedom of E is subject to restrictions under Art 19(3) and
limitations under Art 20: prohibits propaganda for war and advocacy of
national racial or religious hatred. But such hatred only prohib where it
constitutes incitement to discrim, hostility or violence. Commentators
argue that broad nature of these terms brings about legal uncertainty and
need to show hatred and its causal link to prohib incitement. Art 20 ICCPR
is intended to counter propaganda targeting vulnerable indiv and
communities rather than protecting belief systems as such, evident from
high threshold.
 Art 18 ICCPR, freedom of religion provides protection against attacks on
religion only in so far as interfere w freedom to manifest and exercise ones
religion. Prohibiting defamation of religion would thus need to be justifiable
under Art 19(3) ICCPR: respect for rights of others, protection of national
security or public order/health/morals. This requires careful assessment of
circum. Whether proportionate to restrict freedom of expression even if
considered offensive.
 Exercise of right to manifest ones religion or express opinion is seen as
normal state of affairs unless infringes on right of other people or clearly
runs counter to legit pub concerns. As qualified rights by nature have to be
interpreted w ref to context, balancing of rights is bound to result in diff of
opinions on where approp line should be drawn. Commentators have called
for duty of self restraint (V. Muntarbhorn), but different actors have diff
understandings of what acceptable limits are and duty of self restraint to
use freedoms responsibly may been seen as stifling freedom of expression.
Thus courts, HR treaty bodies etc have to make difficult decision of where
limits of tolerance are.
 Veil has triggered intense debates on freedom of religion and womens
rights. Some countries women no choice but to cover heads, faces, others
e.g France, have banned full face veils in public or turkey prohib veil in
public buildings. These laws have been challenged in courts, HR treaty
bodies. Hudoyberganova v Uzbekistan: HRCtee held that laws banning
wearing religious symbols at uni violated applicants right to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion. This was recognition of right to wear veil,
 as mirrored in its GC 22, HRCtee also recognized this freedom was subject
to restrictions. Here since state no justif, thus violation. ECtHR in contrast in
Sahin v turkey: held that ban on headscarves in Turkish unis didn’t violate
art 9 ECHR. Grounds given by turkey to justify ban i.e protecting secular
order of state and rights of others, were legit and proportionate. Judgment
has been heavily criticized esp from feminist perspective. Court didn’t
consider right to privacy, Art 8 which provides for considerable degree of
personal autonomy, which would allow the court to appreciate perspective
of Layla who was acc affected by the ban; to what extent her choice was
personal and should’ve been respected. Instead court accepted turkeys
views that veil being expression of Islamic fundamentalism, negated gender
equality. Granting states wide margin of appreciation in this field raises
concerns bc it affects series of rights including right to education. The court
by yielding to turkeys version of secularism endorsed a system based on
uniform notions that pay little regard to rights of the indiv. In a broad
reading of what constitutes legit aim under Art 8,9 ECHR, ECtHR held in
S.A.S v France, that under certain conditions, respect for min requirements
of life in society or living together as invoked by france, can be linked to
legit aim of protection of rights of others. It considered the blanket ban on
veils in public as proportionate having regard the breadth of margin of
appreciation. Judges Nussberger and Jaderblom partly dissenting opinion
questioned notion of living together as being legit aim, criticized the
majority for considering the ban proportionate including its failure to take
into acc adverse impact on the women concerned. HRCtee in 2 decisions in
Dec 2018 explicitly rejected reliance on concept of living together,
dismissing it as v vague and abstract, right to interact w any indiv in public
and right not to be disturbed by others wearing full face veil are not
protected by ICCPR and thus cant provide basis for permissible restrictions
within art 18(3).(yaker v fance, Hebbadi v france).
 Report of SR on Freedom of Religion or Belief march 2022:
Indian authorities have closed mosques across Kashmir (ostensibly viewing
them as a focal point for unrest), imposed restrictions that frustrate
celebration of Islamic holidays, e.g barring public processions during
 Muharram and Eid. In Jerusalem, Israeli authorities reportedly restricted
Christians and Muslims from accessing certain places of worship, e.g the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre and Al Aqsa mosque.
State and non-State actors often seek to realize their goals through extinguishing,
expelling, or otherwise displacing entire communities. They frequently target
religious beliefs to inflict harm on minorities, deploying tools (violence,
intimidation, and discriminatory legislation) to restrict their human rights or
uproot or eradicate a community. Myanmar is allegedly committing genocide
against the Rohingya through a systematic campaign to extinguish or expel their
communities from Rakhine State, inflicting widespread violence.
State authorities have invoked situations of conflict or insecurity as either
politically convenient justifications for their failure to fulfil their human rights
obligations or to instrumentalize fragility of certain communities to further their
political goals. States use oppressive counterterrorism measures to infringe on
the rights of religious or belief minorities in the name of combating “extremism”
and insecurity. Monitors note that acts perpetrated against communities of some
10 million Uighurs in China are committed in the name of combating violent
extremism and that Chinese authorities often label peaceful manifestations of
faith e.g praying as “suspicious behaviour’. In October 2021, Israel banned six
Palestinian human rights organizations – including groups advocating for freedom
of religion or belief – alleging terrorist affiliations. Sri Lanka’s sweeping
counterterrorism measures reportedly translate to over-policing and intimidation
of minority religious communities, especially Muslims,.
The Special Rapporteur received reports of forced conversions to compel
assimilation and abandonment of faith identities. Forced conversions of
minorities have occurred in Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Sudan. In 2018,
twelve Christian men in Sudan were reportedly accused of apostasy, arrested,
severely tortured, and pressured to recant their Christian faith. Between March
and April 2020, seven Christian women were allegedly kidnapped in Northern
Nigeria and forcibly converted to Islam
SRap also recalls reports that authorities have raped, sexually abused and
sterilized Uighur women in "re-education" camps in China. While women are
often disproportionately targeted with gender-based violence, such assaults are
not limited to them. For instance, amongst the Rohingya Muslim population, the
military also targeted male heads of the household and Imams with torture and
sexual violence. Using this violence to destroy fabric of minorities.
SR recommends:

a) Promote and protect freedom of religion or belief for

minorities by repealing anti-conversion and anti-blasphemy
laws , revoking restrictions on manifestations of their religion
or beliefs , and adopting comprehensive anti-discrimination
laws with input from all disadvantaged groups.
(b) Fulfil obligations to prohibit incitement (online
and offline) to discrimination, hostility, or violence based on
religion or belief, consistent with IHRL and standards, and
condemn and prosecute violations.
C) Establish frameworks that allow individuals and groups
to hold, change or determine their own religious or belief
identities; recognizing and protecting those that exist.
(l) Implement educational programs, peer-to-
peer learning and awareness-raising campaigns - including
through the media - to promote mutual respect, religious
diversity and human rights, with built-in feedback loops
measuring impact.
Good practices:
Some States have taken steps to address violence, discrimination, and hatred
against religious or belief minorities and have pledged to strengthen their efforts.
Such undertakings include Italy’s initiative to address discrimination based on
religious identity and Mexico’s promotion of interfaith meetings to encourage
religious tolerance. The U.N. Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility
to Protect has engaged diverse actors, including faith-based and secular
organizations, to develop the “Fez Plan of Action,” proposing concrete steps to
prevent incitement to violence that may lead to atrocity crimes. Civil society
organizations (e.g. Alliance of Iraqi Minorities) have worked on reforming
education curricula to represent and respect ethno-religious diversity
Harmful religious practices: Dr. Brenda E. Bartelink
- Honor killing/Honour-Related Violence is various forms of
violence against women that are associated with the virtue
of the community or the family, often related to the
 demand for sexual chastity and virginity (Sadik 2000). E.g
acid throwing, honour killing. Acid throwing is reported in
particular in the context of India (Kanchan 2015) and wider
South Asia (Pio and Singh 2015), in response to the refusal
of marriage by a girl, but increasingly so in the context of
land and family disputes. Marking women with permanent
injuries, often in the face, is seen as symbolically attacking
the honour of the family. Acid throwing leads to severe
physical, mental and social damage for the victims. Honour
killings are reported mainly parts of South Asia, where
approximately 5000 women a year are the victims of this
practice (Kulczycki and Windle, 2011). Many killed for the
‘dishonour’ of having been raped, often by a member of
their own family (Sadik 2000). The view of women as being
under the authority of their male kin is a deeply-rooted
cultural view, and Islamic tenets are often invoked to
reinforce the subordination of women.
- FGM: a practice that removes part of the female genitals.
Harmful and unacceptable by WHO, for three reasons
(Earp 2016). Firstly, FGM/C is considered painful and
traumatic, resulting in severe health problems (including
sexual dysfunction, pregnancy and delivery problems, ,
menstrual problems and infections). Secondly, it is seen as
a manifestation of gender discrimination and inequality.
Thirdly, it violates rights of women to bodily integrity, esp
since often performed on underage children, unable to
consent. FGM documented in 28 countries in Africa and in
a few countries in Asia and the Middle East (cf. Yoder and
Khan 2008, WHO 2008).
While most studies conclude that FGM/C cannot be seen as a
faith practice (Roth 2013,Gruenbaum 2005) faith is
nevertheless often mentioned as part of the ‘beliefs’ that
support or legitimise FGM/C in local contexts (UNICEF 2016).