https://www.rightspedia.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Emk28 2026-05-01T16:22:24Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.38.2 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/The_Bahamas&diff=20476 2023-08-04T15:46:35Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=The Bahamas<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=The Constitution of The Commonwealth of The Bahamas was ratified on July 10th 1973. Article 22 protects freedom of religion. The preamble does specifically mention Christian values and the supremacy of God. Constitution Project. “Bahamas (the) 1973 Constitution.” Constitute, POGO, 27 Apr. 2022, https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Bahamas_1973?lang=en.<br /> <br /> <br /> The Bahamas’ 1973 Constitution contains the first assertion of freedom of religion in the country’s independent history. Article 22 of the document outlines this right. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas.” The Government of the Bahamas. Accessed July 20, 2023. https://www.bahamas.gov.bs/wps/wcm/connect/04fb4632-1bd7-414f-b66e-9c499b382480/Chap+3+Protection+rights+and+freedoms.pdf?MOD=AJPERES<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Botswana&diff=20475 2023-08-04T15:44:59Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Botswana<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=Botswana’s Constitution of 1966 is the first document in the country’s independent history to protect freedom of conscience. Article 3(b) outlines this right. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Botswana 1966 (rev. 2016).” Constitute. Accessed July 20, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Botswana_2016<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina&diff=20474 2023-08-04T15:44:36Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Bosnia and Herzegovina<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=The Bosnian and Herzegovinian Constitution of 1995 contains the first assertion of freedom of religion in the country’s independent history. Article 3(g) specifically outlines this right. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Bosnia and Herzegovina 1995 (rev. 2009).” Constitute. Accessed July 20, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Bosnia_Herzegovina_2009<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Bolivia&diff=20473 2023-08-04T15:44:10Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Bolivia<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=Freedom of conscience is recognized in Title II of Bolivia’s 1826 Constitution, which also states that the country’s religion is Catholicism. However, the Constitution has since gone through 16 iterations, with the most current adopted in 2009. It protects the right in Article 4, and separates church from state. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Bolivia (Plurinational Republic of) 2009.” Constitute. Accessed July 20, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Bolivia_2009<br /> <br /> “Constitution of the Bolivian Republic.” World Constitutions Illustrated, Heinlonline. Accessed July 20, 2023. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzbo0003&amp;i=1<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Benin&diff=20471 2023-08-04T15:43:34Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Benin<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=Freedom of religion was first specifically outlined in Article 135 of Benin’s 1977 Constitution. However, its predecessor, the Constitution of Dahomey (1965) did state that the country “guarantees the freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, procession and manifestation.”<br /> <br /> <br /> “Constitution of Dahomey.” World Constitutions Illustrated, Heinlonline. Accessed July 20, 2023. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzbj0002&amp;i=1<br /> <br /> “Fundamental Law of the People’s Republic of Benin.” World Constitutions Illustrated, Heinlonline. Accessed July 20, 2023. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzbj0035&amp;i=3<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Belize&diff=20470 2023-08-04T15:43:07Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Belize<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=Freedom of religion was first guaranteed in Belize by its Constitution of 1981. Article 11 of the document specifically outlines this right. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Belize 1981 (rev. 2011).” Constitute. Accessed July 20, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Belize_2011<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Belgium&diff=20469 2023-08-04T15:42:38Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Belgium<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=Articles 19, 20, and 21 of Belgium’s 1830 Constitution contain the first protections of freedom of religion in the country’s history. However, Article 19 states that “offenses committed when this freedom is used may be punished.”<br /> <br /> <br /> “Belgium’s Constitution of 1831 with Amendments through 2014.” Constitute. Accessed July 20, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Belgium_2014.pdf?lang=en<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Belarus&diff=20468 2023-08-04T15:41:58Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Belarus<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=The Belarussian Constitution of 1994 contains the first assertion of freedom of religion in the country’s post-Soviet history. Article 31 of the document defines this right. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Belarus 1994 (rev. 2004).” Constitute. Accessed July 20, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Belarus_2004<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Barbados&diff=20467 2023-08-04T15:41:33Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Barbados<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=Barbados’s Constitution of 1966 was the first document to protect freedom of religion in the country’s independent history. Article 19 specifically defines this right. <br /> <br /> <br /> “The Constitution of Barbados.” Organization of American States. Accessed July 20, 2023. https://www.oas.org/dil/the_constitution_of_barbados.pdf<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Bahrain&diff=20466 2023-08-04T15:41:02Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Bahrain<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=The Bahraini Constitution of 1973 contains the first assertion of religious freedom in the country’s independent history. Article 22 specifically articulates this right. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Bahrain Old Constitution (1973).” International Constitutional Law Project. Accessed July 20, 2023. https://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/ba01000_.html<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Azerbaijan&diff=20464 2023-08-04T15:39:37Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Azerbaijan<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=Azerbaijan’s Constitution of 1995 contains the first assertion of freedom of religion in the country’s post-Soviet history. Article 48 of the document specifically defines this right. <br /> “Azerbaijan 1995 (rev. 2016).” Constitute. Accessed July 19, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Azerbaijan_2016<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Austria&diff=20463 2023-08-04T15:39:03Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Austria<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=The current Austrian state has maintained the Basic Law on the General Rights of Nationals of 1867, drafted during the Habsburg Empire. This makes Article 14 of the document the first assertion of freedom of religion in the country’s modern history. However, deeper legal foundations for this right can be found in the Patents of Tolerance of 1781/82. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Austria’s Religious Landscape.” Austria Embassy Washington. Accessed July 19, 2023. https://www.austria.org/religion#:~:text=EXPRESSIONS%20OF%20THE%20BASIC%20RIGHT%20OF%20RELIGIOUS%20FREEDOM&amp;text=According%20to%20Austrian%20law%20(Law,choose%20his%20or%20her%20religion.<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Australia&diff=20462 2023-08-04T15:38:34Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Australia<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act was ratified on July 6th, 1900. Article 116 prevents any legislation on religion, including legislation to stopping its free expression. Commonwealth Parliament. “Chapter V. The States.” Parliament of Australia, Commonwealth Parliament, 16 Jan. 2019, https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/chapter5#chapter-05_116. Austria The Constitution of Austria was ratified on October 1, 1920 and reinstated on May 1, 1945. Article 7 bans discrimination, including on the basis of religion, and Article 14 (b) bans discrimination on the basis of religion in public schools specifically. Constitution Project. “Austria the Federal Constitutional Law of 1920 Law No. 153/2004 ...” Constitute, POGO, 27 Apr. 2022, https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/Austria%20_FULL_%20Constitution.pdf.<br /> <br /> <br /> In accordance with English Common Law, Australia’s Constitution does not clearly guarantee freedom of religion. However, Article 116 of the document orders the “Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion.” Additionally, multiple Australian states have adopted laws and constitutions protecting the right. <br /> <br /> <br /> “The Australian Constitution.” Parliament of Australia. Accessed July 19, 2023. https://www.aph.gov.au/constitution<br /> <br /> “2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Australia.” U.S. Department of State. Accessed July 19, 2023. https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-report-on-international-religious-freedom/australia/#:~:text=In%20Queensland%2C%20Victoria%2C%20and%20the,the%20grounds%20of%20religious%20belief.<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Armenia&diff=20461 2023-08-04T15:37:44Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Armenia<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=The 1995 Constitution of Armenia contains the first assertion of freedom of religion in the country’s post-Soviet history. The right guaranteed in Article 8.1 as long as organizations operate “in accordance with the law.” Meanwhile, the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church is cited as the national church. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Armenia 1995 (rev. 2005).” Constitute. Accessed July 19, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Armenia_2005?lang=en<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Antigua_and_Barbuda&diff=20460 2023-08-04T15:37:07Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Antigua and Barbuda<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=Antigua and Barbuda’s 1981 Constitution contains the first assertion of freedom of religion in the country’s independent history. Article 11 specifically outlines this right. <br /> <br /> <br /> “The Republic of Antigua and Barbuda Constitutional Order 1981.” Political Database of the Americas. Accessed July 19, 2023. https://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Antigua/antigua-barbuda.html<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Angola&diff=20459 2023-08-04T15:35:56Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Angola<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=Freedom of religion was first protected by Article 7 of Angola’s 1975 Interim Constitution. It was later replaced by the Constitution of 1992, which also guaranteed the right. <br /> <br /> <br /> “The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Angola.” World Constitutions Illustrated, Heinonline. Accessed July 19, 2023. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/rsl2&amp;i=197<br /> “Constitutional Law of the Republic of Angola.” Constitution Network. Accessed July 19, 2023. https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/Angola%20Constitution.pdf<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Andorra&diff=20458 2023-08-04T15:35:11Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Andorra<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=The Andorran constitution ensures freedom of expression and the freedom to share information in the 12th article of their constitution. This right was codified in 1993 and includes a prohibition on public censorship.<br /> <br /> “Andorra 1993 Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed September 14, 2022. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Andorra_1993?lang=en.<br /> <br /> <br /> Andorra’s 1993 Constitution is the first document in the country’s history to define freedom of religion. Article 11 specifically outlines the right.<br /> <br /> <br /> “Andorra 1993.” Constitute. Accessed July 19, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Andorra_1993<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Algeria&diff=20457 2023-08-04T15:34:02Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Algeria<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=Freedom of religion was first guaranteed in the Algerian Constitution of 1963. Article 4 of the document guarantees this right, while also stating that Islam is the state religion. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Constitution of Algeria.” World Constitutions Illustrated, Heinonline. Accessed July 19, 2023. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzdz0026&amp;i=1<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Federated_States_of_Micronesia&diff=20456 2023-08-04T15:33:11Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Federated States of Micronesia<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=The Micronesian Constitution of 1978 was the first document to protect freedom of religion in the country’s independent history. Article IV, Section 2 specifically outlines this right. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Micronesia (Federative States of) 1978 (rev. 1990).” Constitute. Accessed July 27, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Micronesia_1990<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Montenegro&diff=20455 2023-08-04T15:32:39Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Montenegro<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=Montenegro’s Constitution of 2007 contains the first assertion of freedom of religion in the country’s history. Article 46 specifically describes the right, which is also alluded to in Article 14. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Montenegro 2007.” Constitute. Accessed July 27, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Montenegro_2007<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Mongolia&diff=20454 2023-08-04T15:31:55Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Mongolia<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=Article 15 of Mongolia’s 1992 Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. However, when the country was known as the Mongolian People’s Republic, the right was first enshrined in its 1940 Constitution. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Constitution of the Mongol People’s Republic.” World Constitutions Illustrated, Heinonline. Accessed July 27, 2023. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/cososnat0002&amp;i=735<br /> <br /> “Mongolia 1992 (rev. 2001).” Constitute. Accessed July 27, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Mongolia_2001<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Monaco&diff=20453 2023-08-04T15:31:08Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Monaco<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=Article 10 of Monaco’s 1911 Constitution contains the first assertion of freedom of religion in the country’s history. The document was then heavily revised in 1962 and remains in use to this day. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Constitution of Monaco.” World Constitutions Illustrated. Accessed July 27, 2023. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.beal/connat0002&amp;i=474<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Moldova&diff=20452 2023-08-04T15:30:24Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Moldova<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=Freedom of religion was first asserted in Moldova’s 1994 Constitution. Article 31 specifically lays out this right.<br /> <br /> <br /> “Constitution of the Republic of Moldova.” Constitutional Court of Moldova. Accessed July 27, 2023. https://www.constcourt.md/public/files/file/Actele%20Curtii/acte_en/MDA_Constitution_EN.pdf<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Mexico&diff=20451 2023-08-04T15:29:22Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Mexico<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=The Political Constitution of the Mexican United States was ratified on 5 February 1917. Articles 1, 3.2(c), 24, 27.2, 130(b-d) grant religious freedom, equality, and prohibit religious discrimination. Article 130 declares a separation of church and state; and that religious minister cannot promote candidate, nor attack national symbols. Constituent Congress of 1917. “Koxtitusion Poríitika Mejikopo Nesaweme Constitución ... - Senado.gob.mx.” Senate of the Republic. Mexican Government, 2005. Last modified 2005. Accessed June 21, 2022. https://www.senado.gob.mx/comisiones/puntos_constitucionales/docs/CPM_INGLES.pdf.<br /> <br /> <br /> Article 24 of Mexico’s 1917 Constitution, which is still in use today, contains the first assertion of freedom of religion in the country’s post-revolutionary history. However, prior to the 1910 Revolution, the first amendment to the country’s 1859 Constitution (also known as the Law of September 25, 1873) did state that the legislature should not adopt any law that established or forbid a religion. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Constitution.” World Constitutions Illustrated, Heinonline. Accessed July 27, 2023. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzmx0010&amp;i=1<br /> “Mexico 1917 (rev. 2015).” Constitute. Accessed July 27, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Mexico_2015<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Mexico&diff=20450 2023-08-04T15:28:31Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Mexico<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=The Political Constitution of the Mexican United States was ratified on 5 February 1917. Articles 1, 3.2(c), 24, 27.2, 130(b-d) grant religious freedom, equality, and prohibit religious discrimination. Article 130 declares a separation of church and state; and that religious minister cannot promote candidate, nor attack national symbols. Constituent Congress of 1917. “Koxtitusion Poríitika Mejikopo Nesaweme Constitución ... - Senado.gob.mx.” Senate of the Republic. Mexican Government, 2005. Last modified 2005. Accessed June 21, 2022. https://www.senado.gob.mx/comisiones/puntos_constitucionales/docs/CPM_INGLES.pdf.<br /> <br /> Article 24 of Mexico’s 1917 Constitution, which is still in use today, contains the first assertion of freedom of religion in the country’s post-revolutionary history. However, prior to the 1910 Revolution, the first amendment to the country’s 1859 Constitution (also known as the Law of September 25, 1873) did state that the legislature should not adopt any law that established or forbid a religion. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Constitution.” World Constitutions Illustrated, Heinonline. Accessed July 27, 2023. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzmx0010&amp;i=1<br /> “Mexico 1917 (rev. 2015).” Constitute. Accessed July 27, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Mexico_2015<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Mauritius&diff=20449 2023-08-04T15:27:23Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Mauritius<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=The 1968 constitution of Mauritius was the first notable protection of freedom of expression in the country.<br /> <br /> “Mauritius 1968 (Rev. 2016) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed November 13, 2022. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Mauritius_2016?lang=en.<br /> <br /> <br /> The first assertion of freedom of religion in Mauritius’s history is contained in the country’s 1968 Constitution. Article 11 specifically outlines the right. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Mauritius 1968 (rev. 2016).” Constitute. Accessed July 27, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Mauritius_2016<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Mauritius&diff=20448 2023-08-04T15:26:27Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Mauritius<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=The 1968 constitution of Mauritius was the first notable protection of freedom of expression in the country.<br /> <br /> “Mauritius 1968 (Rev. 2016) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed November 13, 2022. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Mauritius_2016?lang=en.<br /> <br /> The first assertion of freedom of religion in Mauritius’s history is contained in the country’s 1968 Constitution. Article 11 specifically outlines the right. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Mauritius 1968 (rev. 2016).” Constitute. Accessed July 27, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Mauritius_2016<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Mauritania&diff=20447 2023-08-04T15:25:28Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Mauritania<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=Article 2 of Mauritania’s 1959 Constitution contains the first assertion of freedom of religion in the country’s independent history. The document also states that “the religion of the Mauritanian people is the Muslim religion.”<br /> <br /> <br /> “Islamic Republic of Mauritania Constitution of 22 March 1959.” World Constitutions Illustrated, Heinonline. Accessed July 27, 2023. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzmr0017&amp;i=3<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Marshall_Islands&diff=20446 2023-08-04T15:24:21Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Marshall Islands<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=The Marshall Islands’ Constitution of 1979 contains the first assertion of freedom of religion in the country’s independent history. Section 1 specifically outlines this right. <br /> <br /> <br /> “The Constitution of the Republic of the Marshall Islands.” Republic of the Marshall Islands Parliament. Accessed July 27, 2023. https://rmiparliament.org/cms/constitution.html<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Malta&diff=20445 2023-08-04T15:23:22Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Malta<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=Article 40(1) of Malta’s 1964 Constitution contains the first guarantee of freedom of religion in the country’s independent history. Meanwhile, Article 2 states that the country’s official faith is the Roman Catholic Apolistic Religion. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Malta 1964 (rev. 2016).” Constitute. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Malta_2016<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Mali&diff=20444 2023-08-04T15:22:39Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Mali<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=Article 4 of Mali’s Fundamental Law No. 1 (1991) contains the first assertion of freedom of religion in Mali’s independent history. This was followed up by a 1992 Constitution which also protected the right. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Acte Fondamental No. 1/C.T.S.P.” World Constitutions Illustrated. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzml0008&amp;i=3<br /> “Mali 1992.” Constitute. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Mali_1992<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Malaysia&diff=20443 2023-08-04T15:21:07Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Malaysia<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=Article 11 of Malaysia’s 1957 contains the first assertion of freedom of religion in the country’s independent history. However, the article’s 5th clause stipulates that “in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.”<br /> <br /> <br /> “Malaysia 1957 (rev. 2007).” Constitute. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Malaysia_2007<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Malawi&diff=20442 2023-08-04T15:20:15Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Malawi<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=The first assertion of freedom of religion in Malawi’s independent history is contained in the country’s 1964 Constitution. Article 19(1) specifically defines this right. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Constitution of Malawi.” Citizenship Rights Africa. Accessed July 26, 2023. http://citizenshiprightsafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Malawi-Constitution-1964.pdf<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Madagascar&diff=20441 2023-08-04T15:19:30Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Madagascar<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=Article 39 of Madagascar’s 1975 Constitution contains the first assertion of freedom of religion in the country’s independent history. However, the preamble of the country’s 1959 Constitution does protect freedom of speech, assembly, and association which may have helped protect freedom of religion to an extent. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Constitution de la République démocratique malgache.” Digithèque MJP. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://mjp.univ-perp.fr/constit/mg1975.htm#2<br /> “Constitution of the Malagasy Republic.” World Constitutions Illustrated, Heinonline. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzmg0017&amp;i=2<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Luxembourg&diff=20440 2023-08-04T15:18:29Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Luxembourg<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=Luxembourg’s Constitution of 1848 was the first document to guarantee freedom of religion in the country’s independent history. Article 20 specifically outlines this right. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Mémorial Législatif et Administratif du Grande-Duché de Luxembourg.” Strada Lex Luxembourg. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://www.stradalex.lu/fr/slu_src_publ_leg_mema/toc/leg_lu_mema_184807_52/doc/mema_1848A0389A<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Lithuania&diff=20439 2023-08-04T15:17:04Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Lithuania<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=The first assertion of freedom of religion in Lithuania’s post-Soviet history is contained in the country’s 1992 Constitution. Article 26 specifically defines this right. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Lithuania 1992 (rev. 2006).” Constitute. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Lithuania_2006<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Liechtenstein&diff=20438 2023-08-04T15:16:11Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Liechtenstein<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=Liechtenstein’s 1862 Constitution is the first document in the country’s history to assert freedom of religion. Article 8 of the document specifically defines this right, stating that “freedom of the person and of external worship are guaranteed.”<br /> <br /> <br /> “Constitution of 26 September 1862.” World Constitutions Illustrated, Heinonline. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzli0005&amp;i=2<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Libya&diff=20437 2023-08-04T15:15:12Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Libya<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=Article 21 of Libya’s 1951 Constitution contains the first assertion of freedom of religion in the state’s independent history. However, Libya has gone through significant changes in government since the founding of this document, and under the current regime the right is protected in Article 1 of the Libyan Constitution of 2011. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Constitution of 1951.” DCAF Libya. Accessed July 25, 2023. https://security-legislation.ly/en/law/31474<br /> “Libya’s Constitution of 2011.” Constitute. Accessed July 25, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Libya_2011.pdf<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Liberia&diff=20436 2023-08-04T15:04:46Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Liberia<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=The Liberian Constitution of 1847 is the first document in the country’s history to assert freedom of Religion. Article 3 of the document specifically outlines this right. <br /> <br /> <br /> “Constitutional Convention of 1847.” Government of Liberia. Accessed June 25, 2023. http://crc.gov.lr/doc/CONSTITUTION%20OF%201847%20final.pdf<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Expression/Government_curtailment&diff=20243 2023-08-01T20:41:27Z

<p>Emk28: Created page with &quot;{{Right section |right=Freedom of Expression |section=Limitations - Restrictions |question=Government curtailment |questionHeading=Is this right often curtailed by government authorities for reasons other than those which are generally viewed as permissible? |pageLevel=Question |contents=In some cases, governments have curtailed freedom of expression for reasons that are not generally seen as permissible by the standards of the United States. As noted by Professor J...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Expression<br /> |section=Limitations - Restrictions<br /> |question=Government curtailment<br /> |questionHeading=Is this right often curtailed by government authorities for reasons other than those which are generally viewed as permissible?<br /> |pageLevel=Question<br /> |contents=In some cases, governments have curtailed freedom of expression for reasons that are not generally seen as permissible by the standards of the United States. <br /> <br /> As noted by Professor Jérôme Viala-Gaudefroy, not all types of expression are protected under US law. Those involving “obscenity, fraud, child pornography, harassment, incitement of illegal conduct and imminent lawless action, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising, copyright or patent rights” (Viala-Gaudefroy 2021) can be restricted, among others. That said, there have been instances within the US where the right was curtailed for a reason not listed above. These justifications, therefore, would be viewed as non-permissible restrictions on freedom of expression. <br /> <br /> The Minnesota state legislature passed a statute that barred voters and other individuals from wearing political apparel and accessories inside a polling place on election day, which included a “political badge, political button, or other political insignia” (Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky 2018, 1). The legislation was meant to create “an island of calm in which voters [could] peacefully contemplate their choices” (Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky 2018, 11), essentially eliminating disruptions at the polling place. However, the ban was challenged by the Minnesota Voters Alliance (MVA) and other individual plaintiffs, who argued that it violated their first amendment rights “both on its face and as applied to their particular items of apparel” (Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky 2018, 1). The Supreme Court agreed with the general sentiments of the Minnesota law, stating that “casting a vote is a weighty civic act, akin to a jury’s return of a verdict, or a representative’s vote on a piece of legislation. It is a time for choosing, not campaigning. The State may reasonably decide that the interior of the polling place should reflect that distinction (Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky 2018, 11). However, the body ruled in favor of the MVA, explaining that the legislation was too broad and muddled - “the State must be able to articulate some sensible basis for distinguishing what may come in from what must stay out… the unmoored use of the term ‘political’ in the Minnesota law, combined with haphazard interpretations the State has provided in official guidance and representations to this Court, cause Minnesota’s restriction to fail even this forgiving test” (Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky 2018, 12-13). The state’s ban on expression within polling places was thus not deemed permissible. <br /> <br /> Similar to US law, the European Convention on Human Rights does not protect all types of expression. Article 10 of the document clearly states that the right can be restricted when “necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of reputation or rights of others, for preventing disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary” (Council of Europe 1950, 12). However, what a country believes is a necessary restriction on one of these grounds does not necessarily match up with the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, which has the final say on what types of expression are permissible. <br /> <br /> In 2005, journalist Eynulla Fatullayev, an Azerbaijani national, visited Nagorno-Karabakh, a region that has been the subject of a territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan and at the time was controlled by Armenian military forces. Fatullayev interviewed both locals and officials during his visit, as well as some Azerbaijani refugees who had fled the region, which he then published the following year. In his piece, Fatullayev claimed that during the Nagorno-Karabakh war in 1992, civilians “had been mutilated by [their] own” (Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan 2010, 4) Azerbaijani forces as they attempted to flee the region, among other statements. Upon reading the article, a group filed a criminal complaint against Fatullayev, asking that he “be convicted of defamation and of falsely accusing Azerbaijani soldiers of having committed an especially grave crime” (Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan 2010, 5). Fatullayev was later convicted of these crimes, as well as of terrorism or the threat of terrorism for another article he had published which appeared to address Iranian-Azerbaijani relations and threaten ethnic conflict. As a citizen of a country that signed the European Convention on Human Rights (hereby known as“the Convention”), Fatullayev was able to appeal his convictions to the European Court on Human Rights (“the Court”) on the grounds that his right to freedom of expression as defined by Article 10 of the Convention had been violated. The Court sided with the applicant, saying that he was presenting a set of opinions in a debate and did not seek to defame or act maliciously towards the victims and actors involved in the war, and thus was not abusing their rights. Additionally, the Azerbaijani government’s interference was not “necessary in a democratic society” or “a pressing social need” (Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan 2010, 22). Therefore, the body concluded “that the statements that gave rise to the applicant's conviction did not amount to any activity infringing the essence of the values underlying the Convention or calculated to destroy or restrict the rights and freedoms guaranteed by it…the applicant's freedom of expression cannot be removed from the protection of Article 10” (Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan 2010, 22). By the Court’s standards, then, Azerbaijan’s attempt to inhibit the applicant’s freedom of expression was unacceptable. <br /> <br /> References<br /> <br /> Council of Europe. 1950. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf<br /> <br /> Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, Application no. 40984/07, ECtHR judgment of 4 October 2010. <br /> https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-216685<br /> <br /> Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 849 F. 3d 749 (2018). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1435_2co3.pdf<br /> <br /> Viala-Gaudefroy, Jérôme. 2021. “The Idolization of Free Speech in the United States.” The Conversation, February 22, 2021. https://theconversation.com/the-idolization-of-free-speech-in-the-united-states-155778#:~:text=Free%20speech%20is%20not%20absolute,advertising%2C%20copyright%20or%20patent%20rights<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Association/Dependants&diff=20242 2023-08-01T20:12:21Z

<p>Emk28: Created page with &quot;{{Right section |right=Freedom of Association |section=Conflicts with other Rights |question=Dependants |questionHeading=Are there other specific rights that are critical to the exercise of this right? Can you identify specific examples of this? |pageLevel=Question |contents=Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are two of the most critical liberties for upholding freedom of association. As noted by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), “freedom of exp...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Association<br /> |section=Conflicts with other Rights<br /> |question=Dependants<br /> |questionHeading=Are there other specific rights that are critical to the exercise of this right? Can you identify specific examples of this?<br /> |pageLevel=Question<br /> |contents=Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are two of the most critical liberties for upholding freedom of association. As noted by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), “freedom of expression is frequently a necessary component of the rights to freedom of assembly and association when people join together for an expressive purpose” (ICJ n.d.), indicating that the liberties are intertwined. The United States Supreme Court itself has also stated that it “has recognized a right to associate for the purpose of engaging in those activities protected by the First Amendment-speech, assembly, petition for the redress of grievances, and the exercise of religion” (Roberts v. United States Jaycees 1984, 618). In other words, true freedom of association is not possible without the freedom to speak or to practice a religion, both of which often involve congregation and organization among citizens. <br /> <br /> Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are often discussed together in court cases, indicating that the two rights are enmeshed. For example, in 2009 the country of Honduras experienced a coup d’etat when then-President Zelaya was forced out of office by members of his own cabinet and other government organs. Many protested this act, including four judges who expressed their support for rule of law by attending demonstrations and conversing with others. These individuals were also a part of the Association of Judges for Democracy (AJD), and used the organization’s platform to speak out against the coup. Once it was found that the judges had and expressed political opinions in these ways, they were stripped of their positions, prevented from holding AJD membership, and convicted of violating the judicial code of ethics (Lopez Lone et al. v. Honduras 2015, 14-48). The plaintiffs, then, appealed the judgements to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights (IACHR), citing infringements on both freedom of expression and freedom of association. The Court eventually confirmed that the rights of the judges had been violated, explaining that their political participation was acceptable “in a context in which democracy is being impaired” (Lopez Lone et al. v. Honduras 2015, 57), while in other cases impartiality of officials is necessary. On the subject of the liberties that were violated and their importance, the Court stated that “it has recognized the relationship that exists between political rights, freedom of expression, the right of assembly and freedom of association, and that these rights, taken as a whole, make the democratic process possible. In situations where there is a breakdown of institutional order following a coup d’état, the relationship between these rights is even clearer, especially when they are all exercised at the same time in order to protest against actions by the public authorities that are contrary to the constitutional order” (Lopez Lone et al. v. Honduras 2015, 52). In addition, it claimed that “the ability to protest publicly and peacefully is one of the most accessible ways to exercise the right to freedom of expression, and can contribute to the protection of other rights” (Lopez Lone et al. v. Honduras 2015, 55). Through this case, the IACHR affirmed that freedom of expression is deeply intertwined with freedom of association. <br /> <br /> The critical connection between freedom of expression and freedom of association is further made clear in the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) case of Williams v. Zimbabwe. Between 2003 and 2013, individuals representing the organization Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) participated in protests where they used verbal expressions, held placards, and more. As a result, members were arrested multiple times by the Zimbabwean police and charged with attempts to disturb the peace and similar crimes under the state’s criminal code. Even after the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe stepped in and defended the rights of the victims, police continued to perform arbitrary arrests and blocked members of WOZA from peacefully protesting. As a result, members of the organization filed a complaint to the ACHPR stating that the Zimbabwean government had denied them multiple rights, including freedom of association and freedom of expression, as defined by the African Charter (Williams v. Zimbabwe 2021, 1-3). When deciding this case, the Court states that they would analyze the alleged violations of both rights at the same time, because “the rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association are intertwined to the extent that they are fundamental human rights that form the foundations of democratic societies”(Williams v. Zimbabwe 2021, 18). The Commission also stated that, in the past, they had “found a violation of freedom of expression when the State violated the rights to freedom of association and freedom of assembly” (Williams v. Zimbabwe 2021, 18). Eventually, the body was led to the conclusion that the restrictions placed on freedom of expression, and by default freedom of association, were not justified. As noted in the case report, “associations must be given the freedom to pursue a wide range of activities, including exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly” (Williams v. Zimbabwe 2021, 18), summarizing how both rights are critical to each other in the context of the case and in general. <br /> <br /> Judiciaries have also often examined freedom of religion and freedom of association together, as can be seen in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) case Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova. In 1992, the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia was created. It applied to the Moldovan government for recognition as a religious denomination, as was required by Moldovan law. However, the application went unanswered by the government, and so for the next seven years the institution alternated between pursuing legal proceedings against the government and reapplying for recognition. In every case, the government ignored or refused the Church’s requests, stating that it was “not a denomination distinct from the Orthodox Church but a schismatic group within the Metropolitan Church of Moldova and that any interference by the State to resolve the conflict would be contrary to the Moldovan Constitution” (Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova 2001, 10). On top of this, members of the Church of Bessarabia were continually harassed, intimidated, assaulted, and prevented from worshiping or conducting services by authorities. As a result, the institution and individual members applied to the ECHR to hear their case on the grounds that it was breaching the freedom of religion as defined by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In their assessment, the court sided with the applicants, noting that “refusing to recognise the applicant Church…amounted to forbidding it to operate, both as a liturgical body and as an association” (Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova 2001, 24), indicating that religious communities are akin to associations, which are also protected under the Convention. As a result, the Court ruled that the Moldovan government had violated the right to freedom of expression, and added that the regime’s “refusal to recognise, coupled with the authorities’ stubborn persistence in holding to the view that the applicants could practice their religion within the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, infringed their freedom of association, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention” (Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova 2001, 35). The ruling, then, exemplifies how associations can be religious in nature, and religions can act as associations, meaning that the protection of religion is critical to upholding freedom of association, and vice versa. <br /> <br /> References <br /> <br /> International Commission of Jurists. “Chapter four: Freedom of Assembly, Association, and Expression.” Accessed July 5, 2023. https://www.icj.org/sogi-casebook-introduction/chapter-four-freedom-of-assembly-association-and-expression/<br /> <br /> Lopez Lone et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 30 ¶ 14-18, 52, 55, 57 (Oct. 6, 2015).<br /> https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_302_ing.pdf<br /> <br /> Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, Application no. 45701/99, ECtHR of 2001. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-59985%22]}<br /> <br /> Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984). https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep468/usrep468609/usrep468609.pdf<br /> <br /> Williams v. Zimbabwe, African Comm. Hum. &amp; Peoples’ Rights, Comm. No. 446/13 (February 25, 2021) https://rfkhr.imgix.net/asset/WOZA-Case-_-ACHPR-Full-Decision-compressed-2.pdf<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/Threatening_to_government&diff=20241 2023-08-01T20:06:51Z

<p>Emk28: Created page with &quot;{{Right section |right=Freedom of Religion |section=Limitations - Restrictions |question=Threatening to government |questionHeading=Is this right often perceived as threatening to government authorities? |pageLevel=Question |contents=Government authorities have often viewed freedom of religion as a threat. In the modern era, it is generally agreed that all people should be able to practice religion freely, as the liberty is enshrined in Article 18 of the Universal De...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=Limitations - Restrictions<br /> |question=Threatening to government<br /> |questionHeading=Is this right often perceived as threatening to government authorities?<br /> |pageLevel=Question<br /> |contents=Government authorities have often viewed freedom of religion as a threat. <br /> <br /> In the modern era, it is generally agreed that all people should be able to practice religion freely, as the liberty is enshrined in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, governments continue to restrict certain aspects of the right if they find it to be intimidating. In many cases, legislation has pointed to a government feeling uneasy about aspects of religious freedom; in France for example, the legislature passed Act No. 2010-1192, which banned face coverings in public places. According to writer Heraa Hashmi, this targeted Muslim women who wore the niqab or burqa in an attempt to protect public order and to ensure others’ rights and freedoms,” (Hashmi 2022) pointing to the government’s concerns about religious expression. In other cases, simply refusing to protect religious rights, or doing so in an extremely selective manner, can indicate that a government authority is threatened by a certain faith and/or its expression. According to the US Embassy in Saudi Arabia, the country’s laws contain “no legal recognition or protection of freedom of religion” (US Embassy to Saudi Arabia 2021). However, blasphemy of Islam has been criminalized, and the Basic Law states that “the duty of every citizen is to defend Islam,” (US Embassy to Saudi Arabia 2021). In addition, scholars have argued that “where [Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman] has truncated the power of the religious establishment, it is to consolidate power into the central state and specifically, to boost his own control” (Hoffman 2022). On top of that, there is “a comprehensive effort by the state to eliminate all independent or dissenting religious voices capable of challenging MbS’s desired monopoly on Islam in Saudi Arabia” (Hoffman 2022). This would indicate that Saudi leadership is heavily connected to Sunni Islam, and therefore the existence of other religions is viewed as a threat. <br /> <br /> In some cases, states may see freedom of religion as a threat due to negative impacts on public health. In California, the state legislature passed Senate Bill No. 277, which eliminated exceptions to mandatory vaccinations based on personal beliefs. This decision was made based on the findings of a government report which had shown that “when belief exemptions to vaccination guidelines are permitted, vaccination rates decrease” (Brown v. Smith 2018, 5) leading to difficulty controlling the spread of contagious viruses. While it is worth noting that the idea of “personal belief exemptions” are not exclusively related to religion, and thus the elimination of such exemptions are not specifically targeting faiths, some California parents understood this law as a restriction on their religious freedoms due the the fact that they “describe themselves as Christians” who were therefore “opposed to the use of fetal cells in vaccine” (Brown v. Smith 2018, 11). Other parents saw the law as suppression of their “sincerely held philosophic [and] conscientious…beliefs” (Brown v. Smith 2018, 6), and allied with those opposing the Bill based on their faith, eventually taking their complaints to the California Court of Appeals. While the coalition of parents eventually won the case, it was not based on violations of religious freedom. The Court quoted previous case law discussing faith and health such as Prince v. Massachusetts, which explained that “the right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death” (Brown v, Smith 2018, 11). This indicates that freedom of religion is not all-encompassing in the United States; there are limitations. As a result, if a group such as the plaintiffs in Brown v. Smith refuses to comply with laws such as Senate Bill No. 277, they are threatening the interests of the state to protect public health and safety. <br /> <br /> Governments have also felt threatened by religious freedom when it is perceived as hazardous to public safety and or morality. In Iran, state authorities have restricted the rights of the Baha’i faith group, as well as other religious minorities, for these reasons. According to reports from the US State Department, in 2022 many such individuals were systematically jailed and accused of having membership in organizations that “disrupt national security,” or “agitating the public consciousness” (US Department of State 2022, 22). Independent media outlet Iranwire has also reported that several Baha’i preschool teachers were detained by Iranian intelligence officers and accused of being spies, a charge that has been leveled against members of the faith for years (Sabeti 2022). According to the news outlet Reuters, Iranian authorities have also been carrying out “propaganda missions to propagate Baha’i teachings” and “infiltrat[ing] various levels of the education sector” (Reuters 2022). Members of the faith are punished and restricted from religious expression because the government feels that they threaten national security and disseminate incorrect teachings. <br /> <br /> Government obligations to protect a state’s majority religion have also caused regimes to see the practice of minority faiths as a threat. In Sri Lanka, the constitution states that “The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e)” (Constitution of Sri Lanka 1978, art. 9), which include the freedom of conscience, religion, and thought, as well as “the freedom, either by himself or in association with others, and either in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching” (Constitution of Sri Lanka 1978, art. 14(1)(e)). In practice, this has meant that the government has limited the actions of religious minorities. For example, in 2003 a Roman Catholic Order submitted a request to incorporate to the government of Sri Lanka, which was enacted by passing it into law. This bill allowed the Order to “to spread knowledge of the Catholic religion” and “to impart religious, educational and vocational training to youth,” (UNCHR 2004, 4). However, a private citizen claimed that this statute was unconstitutional given that it allowed the Order to proselytize and did not sufficiently protect Buddhism. The case was eventually taken to the Sri Lankan Supreme Court, which sided with the objector and stated that “the propagation and spreading Christianity as postulated in terms of clause 3 [of the Bill] would not be permissible as it would impair the very existence of Buddhism or the Buddha Sasana” (UNCHR 2004, 5). The judicial body thus limited the ability of Catholics to express their faith and proselytize in order to protect the majority religion; however, the United Nations Human Rights Committee objected to this reasoning in Sister Immaculate Joseph v. Sri Lanka, claiming that it violated the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UNCHR 2004, 11). <br /> <br /> References <br /> <br /> Brown v. Smith (2018) 24 Cal. App. 5th 1135. https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2018/b279936.html<br /> <br /> Constitution of Sri Lanka (Rev. 2015), 1978. Art. 9. https://www.parliament.lk/files/pdf/constitution.pdf<br /> <br /> Hashmi, Heraa. 2022. “Niqab and the Religious Freedom Violations in France.” UC Davis Journal of International Law and Policy. March 9, 2022. https://jilp.law.ucdavis.edu/blog/posts/niqab-and-the-religious-freedom-violation-in-france.html#:~:text=In%202010%2C%20France%20passed%20a,particularly%20impactful%20for%20many%20people.<br /> <br /> Hoffman, Jon. 2022. “The Evolving Relationship Between Religion and Politics in Saudi Arabia.” Arab Center Washington D.C. April 20, 2022. https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/the-evolving-relationship-between-religion-and-politics-in-saudi-arabia/<br /> <br /> Reuters. 2022. “Iran arrested Baha’i citizens, accuses them of Israel links - state media.” August 1, 2022. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-arrested-bahai-citizens-accuses-them-israel-links-state-media-2022-08-01/<br /> <br /> Sabeti, Kian. 2022. “Baha’is Arrested for Instigating ‘Sedition’ and Protests.” Iranwire. October 18, 2022. https://iranwire.com/en/politics/108702-bahais-arrested-for-instigating-sedition-and-protests/<br /> <br /> UNHRC, Communication No. 1249/2004, Sister Immaculate Joseph v. Sri Lanka, UN Doc CCPR/C/85/D/1249/2004<br /> <br /> United States Department of State. 2022. 2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: Iran. https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/iran/#:~:text=Since%201999%2C%20Iran%20has%20been,redesignated%20Iran%20as%20a%20CPC.<br /> <br /> US Embassy in Saudi Arabia. 2022. 2022 Report on International Religious Freedom for Saudi Arabia. https://sa.usembassy.gov/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom-for-saudi-arabia/#:~:text=Since%202004%2C%20Saudi%20Arabia%20has,severe%20violations%20of%20religious%20freedom.<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Expression/Threatening_to_government&diff=20240 2023-08-01T19:58:56Z

<p>Emk28: Created page with &quot;{{Right section |right=Freedom of Expression |section=Limitations - Restrictions |question=Threatening to government |questionHeading=Is this right often perceived as threatening to government authorities? |pageLevel=Question |contents=At times, states have felt intimidated by different instances and types of expression. Historical concerns about expression have been documented as far back as ancient Rome, where laws were put in place that made offenses against state...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Expression<br /> |section=Limitations - Restrictions<br /> |question=Threatening to government<br /> |questionHeading=Is this right often perceived as threatening to government authorities?<br /> |pageLevel=Question<br /> |contents=At times, states have felt intimidated by different instances and types of expression. <br /> <br /> Historical concerns about expression have been documented as far back as ancient Rome, where laws were put in place that made offenses against state leaders and the country in general a criminal act. Later, this legislation evolved to enact severe punishments on those who caused offense to the sovereign, whether through verbal or other attacks (“Lese Majesty”). In Medieval England, heretics - those that expressed sentiments and performed acts contrary to the Church of England and its teachings - were prosecuted and burned at the stake for threatening religious authority (Statutes of the Realm, 2:12S-28: 2 Henry IV). Centuries later in 1798, the US government made it illegal for any citizen to print, state, or distribute words about the government or its members that were considered to be spiteful and untrue by passing the Sedition Act. Those who were prosecuted for such crimes were largely Democratic-Republican Journalists, indicating that the ruling Federalist party passed the legislation to suppress opposition figures whose speech threatened their authority (“Alien and Sedition Acts ” 1798). <br /> <br /> In the current era, studies evaluating freedom of expression suggest that the right continues to be viewed as a threat to many national governments. In fact, according to the 2023 Freedom in the World report, the number of countries that are classified as having the lowest possible score in terms of freedom of expression have doubled. Additionally, statistics show that 109 countries approved some sort of legislation that restricted this same right in the year 2022 (Gorokhovskaia, Shabaz, and Slipowitz 2023). In many cases, both recently and in the past, regimes of all types have justified limitations on the freedom of expression as actions meant to protect public interests in some way, shape, or form. <br /> <br /> Governments may demonstrate that they feel threatened by free expression through police crackdowns or legal actions. As an example, in 2022 Iranian authorities began to violently crack down on citizens protesting the death of Mahsa Amini, a young woman who had perished at the hands of the country’s morality police. Demonstrations grew, with many opposing the Islamic republic’s policies, including mandatory veiling. As a result, authorities reacted by employing internet blackouts, arrests, imprisonments, and more (Ziabari 2023). President Ebrahim Raisi justified these repressive actions and threatened further crack down on dissidents, stating that they were opposing Iran’s “security and tranquility” (The Guardian 2022), making it necessary to curtail freedom of expression. <br /> <br /> Fears that freedom of expression may compromise public security have also been demonstrated in countries such as the United States. A primary example is the Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio, decided in 1969. The proceeding was based around a Ku Klux Klan leader who had spoken at a rally for the organization, “advocat[ing]... the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform” (Brandenburg v. Ohio 1968, 444-445), according to prosecutors. As a result of this reasoning, the plaintiff was convicted under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute, a decision that was later appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that it violated freedom of speech and expression as defined by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. This piece of legislation was described by the court as a way to prevent the teaching “of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence” (Brandenburg v. Ohio 1968, 448), indicating that Ohio’s state government had produced the law due to concerns that certain types of expression could lead to public corruption or insurrection. Ultimately, the Supreme Court deemed the state’s Criminal Syndicalism statute unconstitutional, widening the scope of freedom of expression in the United States (Brandenburg v. Ohio 1968, 448-449). <br /> <br /> The interests and values of a majority group often play a contentious role in governments’ feelings and responses to certain expressive acts. Offending a dominant religion, ethnicity, or other social group tends to be perceived as a threat to the government, which can be viewed in the 2005 case heard by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), İ.A. v. Turkey. The applicant, a citizen of Turkey who was referred to throughout the case as Mr. İ.A., owned and directed a publishing house which had released the novel “Yasak Tümceler”, which discussed various religious and philosophical issues. Turkish prosecutors deemed the book an offense to Islam and charged him with blasphemy against the nation’s dominant religion based on Article 175 of Turkey’s Criminal Code (İ.A. v. Turkey 2005, 1-2). As a result, Mr. İ.A. appealed to the ECHR, saying that his conviction infringed upon the right to freedom of expression as defined by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. For their part, the Turkish government insisted that “the book had fallen short of the level of responsibility to be expected of criticism in a country where the majority of the population were Muslim” (İ.A. v. Turkey 2005, 4), and thus freedom of expression had to be limited. The ECHR eventually sided with the Turkish government, agreeing that “as paragraph 2 of Article 10 recognises, the exercise of that freedom carries with it duties and responsibilities. Among them, in the context of religious beliefs, may legitimately be included a duty to avoid expressions that are gratuitously offensive to others and profane” (İ.A. v. Turkey 2005, 5). Given this reasoning, the court confirmed that the limitations authorities placed on the applicant’s freedom of expression were justified and a “pressing social need” (İ.A. v. Turkey 2005, 5-6). The Turkish government’s actions and legislation to protect the religious majority’s feelings from an expression that abused it, backed by the ECHR. <br /> <br /> In some cases, freedom of expression can be viewed by the government as a threat to public morality. This justification for limiting the right can be viewed in another ECHR case, Handyside v. The United Kingdom, which, similar to İ.A. v. Turkey, was based around the publishing of a book. The applicant, Mr. Handyside, owned a publishing company that bought the British rights to a work titled The Little Red Schoolbook, aimed towards school-aged audiences and including a section that discussed sexual matters (Handyside v. The United Kingdom 1976, 3-6). After it was released in the UK, many complaints about the book’s contents were made, with authorities eventually convicting Handyside of possessing obscene books for publication for gain under the Obscene Publications Acts of 1959 and 1964 (Handyside v. The United Kingdom 1976, 5), as well as confiscated the copies found in his office. Mr. Handyside then appealed these convictions to the ECHR on the grounds that the United Kingdom’s actions violated his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and breached several other rights laid out in the same document (Handyside v. The United Kingdom 1976, 13). However, the British government argued that they were justified in their actions, explaining that the limitations on expression were “necessary in a democratic society… for the protection of… morals” (Handyside v. The United Kingdom 1976, 16). This sentiment was backed by the ECHR, which found “that the 1959/1964 Acts have an aim that is legitimate under Article 10 para. 2 (art. 10-2), namely, the protection of morals in a democratic society” (Handyside v. The United Kingdom 1976, 16). <br /> <br /> <br /> References<br /> <br /> <br /> “Alien and Sedition Acts (1798)”. n.d. National Archives. Accessed June 7, 2023. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedition-acts#sedition<br /> <br /> <br /> Gorokhovskaia, Yana, Adrian Shahbaz, and Amy Slipowitz. 2023. “Freedom in the World 2023: Marking 50 Years in the Struggle for Democracy.” Freedom House. <br /> <br /> The Guardian. 2022. “Protests Spread in Iran as President Raisi vows to crack down.” September 29, 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/24/protests-spread-in-iran-as-president-raisi-vows-to-crack-down<br /> <br /> Handyside v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 5493/72, ECtHR judgment of 7 December 1976. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57499<br /> <br /> İ.A. v. Turkey, Application no. 42571/98, ECtHR judgment of 13 December 2005. <br /> https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-70113<br /> <br /> “Lese Majesty.” The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Columbia University Press, 2013, https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lese+majesty. Accessed 7 June 2023. <br /> <br /> Parliament of the United Kingdom. Obscene Publications Act 1959. 7 &amp; 8 Eliz. 2. c.66<br /> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/7-8/66/section/1<br /> Statutes of the Realm, 2:12S-28: 2 Henry IV<br /> Supreme Court Of The United States. U.S. Reports: Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444. 1968. Periodical. https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep395444/.<br /> <br /> Ziabari, Kourosh. 2023. “Iranian Protests and the Crisis of Free Speech.” Arab Center Washington DC. February 23, 2023. https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/iranian-protests-and-the-crisis-of-free-speech/<br /> }}</div>

Emk28 https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Religion/History/Country_sources/Algeria&diff=20212 2023-07-27T17:10:54Z

<p>Emk28: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Right section<br /> |right=Freedom of Religion<br /> |section=History<br /> |question=Country sources<br /> |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?<br /> |breakout=Algeria<br /> |pageLevel=Breakout<br /> |contents=In Algeria Freedom of expression is guaranteed by the 52nd article of the new constitution established in 1996. While the constitution has seen many changes since the 90s, Freedom of expression has remained protected.<br /> <br /> “Algeria 2020 Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed September 14, 2022. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Algeria_2020?lang=en.<br /> }}</div>

Emk28