- User contributions [en]

Freedom of Association/Country intepretation

2023-08-05T22:33:19Z

Ncackett37: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of Association |section=Culture and Politics |question=Country intepretation |questionHeading=Is this right interpreted and exercised in different ways in different countries? Focus on particular countries in which the right is interpreted distinctively |pageLevel=Question |contents=The right to freedom of association is recognized by the United Nations as universal and intrinsic to every human being, encompassing an individual’s right to..."

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Association
|section=Culture and Politics
|question=Country intepretation
|questionHeading=Is this right interpreted and exercised in different ways in different countries? Focus on particular countries in which the right is interpreted distinctively
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=The right to freedom of association is recognized by the United Nations as universal and intrinsic to every human being, encompassing an individual’s right to interact and organize with others to collectively “express, promote, pursue and defend common interests”. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a key text in the history of international human rights law, states in its Article 20 that “everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association” and “no one may be compelled to belong” to one, with an individual’s right to “form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests” being expanded upon in Article 23 (UN General Assembly 1948, 5-6). Freedom of association is also closely related to freedom of assembly, with the latter often being seen as falling under the umbrella of “association”. However, this freedom is not guaranteed to the same capacity in every state, with countries having their own interpretations and practices of the right within their legal code, in part due to their unique cultural and political context. This results in different protocols and limitations related to the formation of associations, with some states interpreting the right in a more restrictive manner and outlawing certain groups, placing obstacles in their creation, or impeding them through particular practices, while other states are more lenient as long as the organizations are not engaging in violent practices.

While the Constitution of the United States recognizes and protects the rights to freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom to petition the government, it does not explicitly mention the right to freedom of association. However, as the report by the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in the U.S. affirms, “The right to freedom of association is implicitly guaranteed by the first and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution, read together, which protect the rights of free speech and assembly and due process, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in a number of cases” (“Report..” 2017, 10). These cases include NAACP v. Alabama and Bates v. Little Rock (1960) in which the Supreme Court recognized the right of individuals to “associate together free from undue state interference” and that “freedom of association finds protection within the First Amendment’s free speech and assembly clauses” respectively (“Case Studies” 2023, 1). This gives citizens the ability to “associate, organize and act collectively”, forming special interests groups and allowing workers to unionize, though the latter is “regulated by several pieces of legislation at the federal, state and local levels” and laws that are “supplemented by court and tribunal decisions that establish related standards and principles” (“Report…” 2017, 10). The freedom of association is not absolute in the United States, as “forms of association that are neither ‘intimate’ nor ‘expressive’ within the meaning of First Amendment Case law may not receive constitutional protection” (“Overview of Freedom of Association” 2023). Nevertheless, even individuals who form associations for the purpose of engaging in assembly can be subject to government oversite, as the UN’s Special Rapporteur wrote that the “Supreme Court has held that the right to assemble is not absolute, allowing the authorities to impose restrictions on the time, place and manner of assembly and to require permits”, though they are “prohibited from restricting assemblies based on their content”. He further noted that the “interpretation by the Supreme Court of this right falls short of international standards, owing to the approach to restrictions on the time, place and manner of assembly” (7). Under the legal code, the Supreme Court has also held that “compelled association” can violate the Constitution: "in some circumstances, laws requiring organizations to include persons with whom they disagree on political, religious, or ideological matters can violate members’ freedom of association, particularly if those laws interfere with an organization’s message” (“Overview of Freedom of Association” 2023).

Freedom of association in Niger is explicitly granted in article 9 of the country’s constitution, giving citizens the right to form unions, non-governmental organizations, and political parties with certain restrictions. During a visit to Niger to report on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Special Rapporteur Clément Nyaletsossi Voule noted: “Ordinance No. 84-06 of March 1, 1984, on the regime of associations reaffirms discrimination in the Nigerien Constitution against territorial associations and indigenous peoples, where associations of a regional or ethnic nature, specifically associations of ethnic groups, tribes and other territorial divisions are prohibited (Voule 2022, 13). He further wrote that this “censorship of certain types of associations is not in line with international standards relating to freedom of association and the obligation of democratic states to guarantee pluralistic spaces and to ‘leave no one behind’ in the implementation of sustainable development goals.” (13). The legal code in Niger does not allow for the creation of these groups, interpreting the right to freedom of association differently than in countries where it is not prohibited to form political groups along those lines. Though the Constitution of Niger does provide for the right to association, Special Rapporteur Voule emphasized that in practice it can be quite difficult to exercise in the country: “The Special Rapporteur became aware, during interviews with representatives of civil society, of the time needed to register associations and receive recognition orders, which can range from two to ten years. While these deadlines are provided for by Ordinance No. 84-06, the procedure established by Decree No. 2022-182 may accentuate the slowness of the process, making it practically impossible to create associations, in particular those whose purpose is to respond to the current political and social situation and to act accordingly.” (Voule 2022, 16) Niger’s ability to exercise the right is considerably hindered by its slowness in carrying out the registration process, creating a discrepancy between its legal code and the reality for its citizens.

Iran, a theocratic state, guarantees freedom of association in its constitution, though with certain restrictions. In its 2022 Country Report on Human Rights in Iran, the U.S. Department of State stated that the Iranian Constitution protects the “establishment of political parties, professional and political associations, and Islamic and recognized religious minority organizations, as long as such groups do not violate the principles of freedom, sovereignty, national unity, or Islamic criteria, or question Islam as the basis of the country’s system of government” (“Iran” 2023, 40). Authorities have the power to regulate them and decide whether an association violates the constitution, with the Department of State’s report stating that the government limited freedom of association through “the imposition of arbitrary requirements on organizations” and broadening “arbitrarily the areas of civil society work it deemed unacceptable, to include conservation and environmental efforts” (40). While providing for the right under its legal code, the government interprets it in a more restrictive manner and heavily regulates it, prohibiting the formation of several types of groups, such as trade unions and labor organizations The non-profit organization Freedom House found that labor organizations and nongovernmental agencies that seek to address human rights violations are routinely suppressed, though “groups that focus on apolitical issues also face crackdowns” (“Freedom in the World” 2023).

While the right to freedom of association is considered a universal human right, it is not applied in a standard manner. Countries often hold different standards for the freedom, with their own rules and regulations, interpretations, and practices.

References:

“Case Studies: Freedom of Association.” 2023. Case Categories The First Amendment Encyclopedia. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/encyclopedia/case/12/freedom-of-association.

“Freedom in the World 2021 Country Report: Iran.” 2021. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/country/iran/freedom-world/2021.

“Freedom in the World 2023 Country Report: Iran.” 2023. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/country/iran/freedom-world/2023.

“Iran.” 2023. U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. March 20. https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/iran/.

“Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association on His Follow-up Mission to the United States of America.” 2017

“Overview of Freedom of Association.” 2023. Constitution Annotated. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-8-1/ALDE_00013139/.

UN General Assembly. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, , 217 A (III), https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/2021/03/udhr.pdf

Voule, Clément Nyaletsossi. 2022. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of
Peaceful Assembly and of Association in Niger
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G22/388/85/PDF/G2238885.pdf?OpenElement
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Pragmatism

2023-08-05T22:19:24Z

Ncackett37: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of Religion |section=Philosophical Origins |question=Tradition contributions |questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right? |breakout=Pragmatism |pageLevel=Breakout |contents=Pragmatism, a broad philosophical tradition that traces its origins to the United States, prioritizes action over doctrine, and holds that “an idea is like a tool developed in response to surrounding..."

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=Philosophical Origins
|question=Tradition contributions
|questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right?
|breakout=Pragmatism
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Pragmatism, a broad philosophical tradition that traces its origins to the United States, prioritizes action over doctrine, and holds that “an idea is like a tool developed in response to surrounding conditions, and the worth of an idea is tied to its practical effects” (Rorty et al. 2004, 1). The philosophy was pioneered by key figures like Charles S. Peirce and was later expanded upon by philosophers William James and John Dewey, among others, providing different interpretations and understanding of the movement. They utilized pragmatism as a lens through which to view public and social affairs, including human rights, liberties, religion, and ethics. For pragmatists, “theory answers to practice,” meaning that ideas such as the notion of human rights and liberties “must answer to their pragmatics, their use” (Luban 2013, 5-6). Through this approach, the right to freedom of religion is as useful as the effect it has on individuals and how it matters to us as humans, which pragmatists like James and Dewey saw as giving meaning to one’s life and shaping a moral order.

Founded in the 1870s, pragmatism is a philosophical movement that advances the idea that a claim or theory is true only if it has practical use or success and called for the testing of philosophies through the scientific method. Scholar Cheryl Misak identifies three notions that pragmatists commonly share: “that standards of objectivity are historically situated but their contingency does nothing to detract from their objectivity; that knowledge has and requires no foundation; and the importance of connecting philosophical concepts to everyday life” (Bacon 2012, ix). This last idea directly impacts how pragmatists interpret religion and the right of individuals to practice their faith, as they focus on the consequences of their existence and whether it is useful in one’s everyday life: “The pragmatist approach pushes [one] to focus on the practical effects of religion on one’s existence” (Romania 2016, 96). For a pragmatist, if the consequences of an individual practicing their religion are practical and beneficial to them then it is useful and has worth. Additionally, if the theory that all humans are born with fundamental rights, including the freedom of religion, has practical benefits and matters to individuals, then it too is useful and has worth.

William James, an American philosopher and psychologist, was an important figure in early pragmatism, with many of his works developing the tradition. He touched upon religion in his book, The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature, where he wrote on “religious experience and defined it through the ecstatic experience of individuals in their real life” (Romania 2016, 96). Instead of focusing on religious doctrine and institutions, he focused on the experience of the individual, seeing “religion as a guiding principle in daily life” and useful (Romania 2016, 96). John Dewey, another early champion of pragmatism, similarly wrote in length about religion and social life. Dewey “conceived religion as a form of access to the universal values of humanity. He naturalized religion, extending its borders to any beliefs able to move people toward the realization of the highest humanistic ends” (Romania 2016, 96). This notion of the utility and practicality of religion became common in pragmatist thought, with religion being “conceived as possessing a noetic character opening the way to access an unseen moral order and to organize one’s life consistently” (Romania 2016, 96).

The relationship between human rights and pragmatism is dependent on their effectiveness in everyday life. As Joseph Betz writes in his 1978 journal article John Dewey on Human Rights: “Doctrines of social philosophy, like other concepts, are tools and instruments used to solve problems, social problems” (23). He further argues that Dewey believes that “rights make abstract freedom effective”, meaning that legal rights, such as the right to freedom of religion and expression, are necessary to make the notion of human liberties practical and applicable (Betz 1978. 28).

Through the context of pragmatism, the right to freedom of religion is worth protecting if its practical and has beneficial results. Pragmatists such as James and Dewey believe that an individual’s religion does have worth as it holds them to a moral standard: “Both William James and John Dewey conceive the existence of an unseen moral order as central to religious belief and practice” (Romania 2016, 99). They further saw it as giving meaning to the individual’s life, with scholar David Luban stating that, “the pragmatist function of religion is rather intended as a symbolic universe people use to give meaningfulness to their lives in the long run” (99). Pragmatists view the consequences of individuals practicing their faith as overall positive: “In conclusion, pragmatist accounts of religion showed some common features: moral neutrality, practice-centrality, emphasis on the experiential dimension, symbolism, individualization of faith. They do not discuss the origins of transcendent ideals but rather assess their social validity on the practical ground of subjective gratification” (Romania 2016, 104). James and Dewey also saw human rights as necessary and useful if they served their practical purpose to solve social problems. If an individual’s religion has useful and practical effects, and protecting an individual’s right to practice that religion successfully allows them to do so, then the right to freedom of religion is positive and supported by pragmatism.

Pragmatism prioritizes the practical effects of a theory or claim, believing its consequences and usefulness to be most important when evaluating its worth. They apply this to religion and the right of an individual to practice that religion. Early pragmatists such as William James and John Dewey wrote extensively on the subject of religion, believing its effects to be overall positive for an individual and society, proving its worth. The right to freedom of religion is useful as it allows individuals to receive those positive consequences that come from practicing their faith, and thus, in the context of pragmatism, the right to freedom of religion proves its worth.

References:

Bacon, M. 2012 “Pragmatism: an introduction.” Polity.

Betz, J. (1978). John Dewey on Human Rights. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 14(1), 18–41. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40319827

Luban, David. 2013 "Human Rights Pragmatism and Human Dignity" Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works. 1317. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1317

Romania, Vincenzo. 2016 “Pragmatism, Religion and Ethics: A Review Essay. H. Deuser Et Al, The Varieties of Transcendence: Pragmatism and the Theory of Religion, New York: Fordham University Press

Rorty, Richard, Hilary Putnam, James Conant, and Gretchen Helfrich. 2004. “What Is Pragmatism?” Think 3 (8). Cambridge University Press: 71–88. doi:10.1017/S1477175600001056.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Georgia

2023-08-04T20:18:45Z

Ncackett37:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Georgia
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Before falling under the influence of the Soviet Union and becoming a soviet socialist republic, the short-lived, first modern establishment of the republic of Georgia (The Democratic Republic of Georgia) adopted a constitution that only lasted four days. This constitution, ratified in 1921, granted its citizens the right to freedom of religion under Article 31 (“Constitution of Georgia, 1921” 1921). After Georgia gained independence from the Soviet Union, the country adopted a new constitution in 1993 that also protected freedom of religion under Article 16 (Georgia 1995)

“Constitution of Georgia, 1921” 1921 მატიანე
https://matiane.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/constitution-of-georgia-1921/
Georgia 1995 “Georgia 1995 (rev. 2018)” Constitute Project
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Georgia_2018
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/The Gambia

2023-08-04T20:18:08Z

Ncackett37:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=The Gambia
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The Gambia Independence Order of 1965, written on January 29th, 1965, and presented to the British Parliament in the same year, protects and guarantees the right to freedom of religion in Gambia. Article 19 deals with freedom of conscience and its six sections address freedom of religion, granting it to all citizens (“The Gambia Independence Order” 1965).

“The Gambia Independence Order” 1965. Citizenshiprightsafrica.org
http://citizenshiprightsafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Gambia-Constitution-1965.pdf
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Gabon

2023-08-04T20:16:54Z

Ncackett37:

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Fiji

2023-08-04T20:16:25Z

Ncackett37:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Fiji
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Since the country’s independence in 1970, freedom of religion has been protected in Fiji. The Fiji Independence Order of 1970 and the 1970 Constitution of Fiji guarantee the right under section 11 (“Fiji Independence Order 1970 and Constitution of Fiji” 1970).

“Fiji Independence Order 1970 and Constitution of Fiji” 1970. Constitutenet.org
https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/1970_constitution.pdf
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Ethiopia

2023-08-04T20:15:55Z

Ncackett37:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Ethiopia
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The 1955 Constitution of Ethiopia ensures the right to freedom of worship to its citizens in Article 40. The section states that “there shall be no interference with the exercise, in accordance with the law, of the rites of any religion or creed by residents of the Empire, provided that such rites are not utilized for political purposes or prejudicial to public order or morality” (“1955 Revised Constitution of Ethiopia” 1955). However, it is the 1994 Constitution that explicitly states that citizens in Ethiopia have the full legal right to freedom of religion (Ethiopia 1994).

Ethiopia 1994. “Ethiopia 1994” Constitutenet.org
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ethiopia_1994
“1955 Revised Constitution of Ethiopia” 1955. Chilot.me
https://chilot.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/1955-revised-constitution-of-ethiopia1.pdf
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Eswatini

2023-08-04T20:15:24Z

Ncackett37:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Eswatini
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Eswatini’s current constitution, created and adopted in 2005, protects the right to freedom of religion for the citizens of the country. Article 23 deals with the protection of freedom of conscience and religion, with Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 ensuring the freedom (Eswatini 2005).

Eswatini 2005. “Eswatini 2005” Constitute Project
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Swaziland_2005
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Estonia

2023-08-04T20:14:57Z

Ncackett37:

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Eritrea

2023-08-04T20:09:44Z

Ncackett37:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Eritrea
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The earliest document that assures freedom of religion in Eritrea is Proclamation No. 73/1995 of 1995. It “calls for separation of religion and state; outlines the parameters to which religious organizations must adhere, including concerning foreign relations and social activities; establishes an Office of Religious Affairs; and requires religious groups to register with the government or cease activities” (U.S. Department of State 2019. 3). Though freedom of religion is present in the drafter constitution of Eritrea, it has not been ratified since its introduction in 1997.

U.S. Department of State 2019. “ERITREA 2019 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT”
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ERITREA-2019-INTERNATIONAL-
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Equatorial Guinea

2023-08-04T20:09:10Z

Ncackett37:

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/El Salvador

2023-08-04T20:08:31Z

Ncackett37:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=El Salvador
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The Constitution of 1886, more liberal than the previous constitutions of El Salvador, guaranteed freedom of religion to all citizens. This is found under Article 12 under Section II of the constitution (“Constitucion de 1886” 1886. 2).

“Constitucion de 1886” 1886. Jurisprudencia
https://www.jurisprudencia.gob.sv/DocumentosBoveda/D/2/1880-1889/1886/08/886EC.PDF
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Egypt

2023-08-04T20:07:51Z

Ncackett37:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Egypt
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The Royal Decree No. 42 of 1923 On Building a Constitutional System for the Egyptian State guarantees Egyptian citizens equal civil and political rights, regardless of religion, stated in Article 3 (“Royal Decree No. 42 of 1923” 1923). However, it was the Constitution of 1956 that made freedom of belief absolute in the constitution’s bill of rights (“The New Egyptian Constitution” 1956).

The New Egyptian Constitution. (1956). Middle East Journal, 10(3), 300–306.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4322826
“Royal Decree No. 42 of 1923” 1923. Constitutenet.org
https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/1923_-_egyptian_constitution_english_1.pdf
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Ecuador

2023-08-04T20:07:23Z

Ncackett37:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Ecuador
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The first liberal constitution of Ecuador was adopted in 1897, establishing and protecting freedom of religion in the country for the first time. Article 13 under Section IV states that the state respects all religions and their practice (“Constitución de 1897” 1897).

“Constitución de 1897” 1897. Consitutenet.org
https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/1897.pdf
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/East Timor

2023-08-04T20:06:59Z

Ncackett37:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=East Timor
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Created and ratified in 2002 after the country gained independence from Indonesia, the Constitution of East Timor guarantees its citizens freedom of religion. Two sections grant this right: Sections 1 and 2 under Article 12 and Sections 1 through 4 under Article 45 (Timor-Leste 2002).

Timor-Leste. 2002 “Timor-Leste 2002” Constitute Project
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/East_Timor_2002
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Dominican Republic

2023-08-04T20:04:59Z

Ncackett37:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Dominican Republic
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=After the death of Rafael Trujillo in 1961, a dictator who ruled over the Dominican Republic for several years, a new constitution was adopted. The 1963 Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion in Article 57 (“Constitución de la Nacion Dominicana” 1963. 21).

“Constitucion de la Nacion Dominicana” 1963 acnur.org
https://www.acnur.org/fileadmin/Documentos/BDL/2012/8873.pdf
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Dominica

2023-08-04T20:04:24Z

Ncackett37:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Dominica
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=After its independence from the United Kingdom in 1979, the Commonwealth of Dominica adopted its Constitution, which had been written the year prior. Article 9 deals with “Protection of conscience” and protects freedom of religion (Dominica 1978).

Dominica. 1978 “Dominica 1978 (rev. 2014)” Constitute Project
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Dominica_2014
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Dominica

2023-08-04T20:03:53Z

Ncackett37:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Dominica
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Dominica
After its independence from the United Kingdom in 1979, the Commonwealth of Dominica adopted its Constitution, which had been written the year prior. Article 9 deals with “Protection of conscience” and protects freedom of religion (Dominica 1978).

Dominica. 1978 “Dominica 1978 (rev. 2014)” Constitute Project
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Dominica_2014
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Djibouti

2023-08-04T20:03:20Z

Ncackett37:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Djibouti
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Djibouti’s constitution, adopted in 1992, affirms Islam as the state’s religion, though it respects all faiths and protects freedom of religion. The right is guaranteed under Article 11 (Djibouti 1992).

Djibouti. 1992 "Djibouti 1992 (rev. 2010)" Constitute Project. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Djibouti_2010
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Finland

2023-08-04T16:06:17Z

Ncackett37:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Finland
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The Finnish Constitution Act of 1919 stipulated that “a Finnish citizen has the right to practice religion publicly and privately, provided that the law and good practices are not violated, as well as, as separately provided thereon, the freedom to renounce the religious community to which he belongs and the freedom to join another religious community.” This assurance is found under Section 8 and applies to all citizens of Finland (“Constitution Act” 1919).

“Constitution Act” 1919 Finland
}}

Freedom of Religion/Fundamental and protected

2023-08-03T19:24:27Z

Ncackett37: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of Religion |section=Culture and Politics |question=Fundamental and protected |questionHeading=Is there general and widespread belief that this right is a fundamental right that should generally be protected (and that exceptions should be rare)? |pageLevel=Question |contents=Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a landmark document within the field of international human rights law, recognizes freedom of religion as a fun..."

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=Culture and Politics
|question=Fundamental and protected
|questionHeading=Is there general and widespread belief that this right is a fundamental right that should generally be protected (and that exceptions should be rare)?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a landmark document within the field of international human rights law, recognizes freedom of religion as a fundamental and intrinsic human right. It establishes the right to freedom of religion as encompassing an individual’s “freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance” (UN General Assembly 1948, 1). Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration by the United Nations General Assembly in December of 1948, freedom of religion is guaranteed in the charters and constitutions of several regional organizations, including the Organization of American States (OAS), the Council of Europe (CoE), and the African Union (AU), as well as their member states, reinforcing the belief that the right is fundamental and should generally be protected, with rare exceptions, on an international level. Individual states vary on their interpretation and length to which they guarantee the freedom, though a majority include it within their legal code and consider it a human right, with few nations serving as notable exceptions.

The right to freedom of religion is protected under international human rights law, appearing in various international documents and treaties, most markedly in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. The United Nations considers “that religion or belief, for anyone who professes either, is one of the fundamental elements in his conception of life and that freedom of religion or belief should be fully respected and guaranteed” (UN General Assembly 1981, 1). The organization expects its member states to promote and encourage universal respect and observance of the right, stating that the points set forth relating to freedom of religion in the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance “shall be accorded in national legislation in such a manner that everyone shall be able to avail himself of such rights and freedoms in practice”, with few exceptions: “Freedom to manifest one's religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others” (UN General Assembly 1981, 3). With 193 Member States, the UN is the world’s largest intergovernmental organization, pushing for the protection of the right to freedom of religion internationally and its recognition as a fundamental human right by all nations under international human rights law.

The Organization of American States (OAS) is an international organization that brings together “all 35 independent states of the Americas and constitutes the main political, juridical, and social governmental forum in the [Western] Hemisphere” (“OAS: Who We Are” 2023). It is committed to upholding freedom of religion, with the Declaration of the OAS General
Secretariat on the Promotion and Protection of Freedom of Religion or Belief reaffirming the organization’s belief that “guaranteeing freedom of religion or belief continues to be a fundamental responsibility of States” as it is “essential to understand that religious freedom or belief as a human right is, in turn, linked to the defense of the rights of all individuals and groups, in all areas” (“Declaration of the OAS General Secretariat.” 2023, 1). Currently, every country in the Americas includes a provision protecting freedom of religion in their constitution, though the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom raised concern for indigenous peoples in Latin America in their 2023 annual report: “Indigenous peoples in Latin America have long faced a series of collective and individual threats to the full enjoyment of their religious freedom and related rights” (75). It also focused on Cuba and Nicaragua as countries of particular concern, citing the Nicaraguan regime’s “campaign of harassment and severe persecution against the Catholic Church by targeting clergy, eliminating Church-affiliated organizations, and placing restrictions on religious observances” and the Cuban government’s tight control over religious “activity through surveillance, harassment of religious leaders and laypeople, forced exile, fines, and ill treatment of religious prisoners of conscience”. (20-30). The report did not note other concern or violation of freedom of religion in the Americas region in other states. The right is generally protected across America and is considered a fundamental human right.

Article 8 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted by the African Union in 1981, states that “freedom of conscience, the profession and free practice of religion shall be guaranteed” and that “no one may, subject to law and order, be submitted to measures restricting the exercise of these freedoms” (Organization of African Unity 1981, 4). The African Union is a continental union consisting of 55 member states, with a majority including provisions protecting freedom of religion in their constitutions, though there are a few countries where it is very limited or violated. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom highlighted Eritrea, Mauritania, Nigeria, Central African Republic, and Egypt for a lack of religious freedom, citing instances of religious persecution and punishment for certain religious minorities (“2023 Annual Report” 2023, 11). The report did not find any serious violations in other African nations, with most prohibiting religious discrimination and allowing individuals to practice their religion. The Council of Europe (CoE) also holds freedom of religion to be a fundamental right, explicitly stating so in Article 9 in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The document states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance” noting few exceptions as “are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others” (European Court of Human Rights 1950, 11). With the end of the Cold War, virtually all of Europe has an unprecedented general freedom of religion guaranteed by their constitution (Juviler 2003, 859). However, there have been concerns with rising Islamophobic legislation, including the banning of particular religious clothing like burqas (U.S. Department of State 2022, 6). Though practices vary, the freedom is held in high standard and seen as a core human right.

The Asia Pacific Forum (APF) is a regional grouping of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) that focuses on monitoring, promoting, and protecting human rights in Asia and the Pacific. It is a coalition of 25 independent national human rights institutions that aim to uphold human rights, including freedom of religion, educating and reaffirming the “purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations with regard to the promotion and encouragement of respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion” (Asia Pacific Forum 2013, 205). The Asia Pacific Forum notes that unlike other regions in the world, “there is no regional court or protection system in the Asia Pacific that people can turn to when their human rights are abused,” though they can help “shape laws, policies, practices and attitudes that create strong, fair and inclusive communities” to combat this (“About the Asia Pacific Forum 2023). Several countries in Asia were listed in the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom’s annual report on freedom of religion as countries of particular concern. It noted Afghanistan, China, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam, among others (“2023 Annual Report” 2023,
11). Though most states in the continent protect freedom of religion in their legal code, there is quite a discrepancy in their practices and extent to which they safeguard it. The report noted that Vietnamese authorities “intensified their control and persecution of religious groups—especially unregistered, independent communities” while the Saudi government “continued to systematically deny non-Muslims the ability to build houses of worship or worship in public” and create anti-blasphemy and apostasy laws (“2023 Annual Report” 2023, 38-46). It further states that China “has become increasingly hostile toward religion, implementing campaigns to ‘sinicize’ Islam, Tibetan Buddhism, and Christianity to remove alleged ‘foreign influences’” and in Afghanistan the government of the “Taliban also either actively targets, discriminates against, or outright denies the existence of many vulnerable religious minorities” (“2023 Annual Report” 2023, 12-16).

On an international level, there is a belief that freedom of religion is a fundamental human right that should be protected, with few exceptions. Intergovernmental organizations, which a majority of the countries in the world belong to, such as the UN, the AU, and the CoE, reaffirm the importance of the right and push its members to uphold it. On an individual state by state basis, however, the amount of protection and importance the right receives varies. The majority of countries include provisions safeguarding freedom of religion in the constitution, but their rules and regulations differ, as well as their practices. Overall, the right to freedom of religion is generally regarded as an intrinsic and fundamental by a large number of states and other actors.

References:

“About the Asia Pacific Forum.” 2023. Asia Pacific Forum. Accessed July 4.
https://www.asiapacificforum.net/about/.

“Annual Report” 2023. United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.
https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/2023-05/2023%20Annual%20Report.pdf

Asia Pacific Forum. 2013. Human Rights Education: A Manual for National Human Rights
Institutions. Asia Pacific Forum National Human Rights Institutions. https://apf-
prod.s3.amazonaws.com/media/resource_file/2019_HRE_Manual_for_NHRIs.pdf?AWS
AccessKeyId=AKIA57J6V557ISASX34R&amp;Signature=NXImyA3dX%2FFHi6h08a
uFkAwzEnE%3D&amp;Expires=1688487584.

“Declaration of the OAS General Secretariat.” 2023. Organization of American States. General
Secretariat https://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-008/23.

European Court of Human Rights. 1950. European Convention on Human Rights. Council of
Europe. https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf.

Juviler, Peter. 2003. Freedom and Religious Tolerance in Europe . University of Michigan.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1316&amp;context=mjil.

“OAS: Who We Are.” 2023. Organization of American States.
https://www.oas.org/en/about/who_we_are.asp.

Organization of African Unity. 1981. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
https://au.int/sites/default/files/treaties/36390-treaty-0011.pdf.

UN General Assembly. 1981. Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of
Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, OHCHR.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/declaration-elimination

UN General Assembly. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 217 A (III),
https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/2021/03/udhr.pdf

U.S. Department of State. 2022. France 2022 International Religious Freedom Report.
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/441219-FRANCE-2022-
INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf.
}}

Freedom of Religion/Government curtailment

2023-08-03T19:01:47Z

Ncackett37: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of Religion |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=Under international human rights law, freedom of religion is a fundamental and generally protected right, with exceptions. Though states have their own rules and regulations curtailing the..."

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|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=Under international human rights law, freedom of religion is a fundamental and generally protected right, with exceptions. Though states have their own rules and regulations curtailing the right to freedom of religion, they often fall under reasons that are generally viewed as legitimate by the international community, with those that do not being subject to scrutiny. There are a small, but prominent number of states that, despite this international pressure from intergovernmental organizations and other nations, restrict freedom of religion for reasons that do not fall under that category, most notably those with an authoritarian style of government (Majumdar and Villa 2020) . The UN’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief has also noted that there are governmental authorities that obstruct freedom of religion under the pretense of using generally accepted limitations, such as public safety, without clear evidence, using the “excuse to limit the rights of persons belonging to a religion or belief community that it finds inconvenient” (United Nations Human rights Council 2023, 27). While the majority of nations curtail freedom of religion for reasons that are widely viewed as permissible, there are various instances where these reasons are abused and the actions taken exceed international norms, with a small number of states consistently restricting the right for reasons regarded as unjustified. Article 1 of the United Nation’s Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance sets the international standard for permissible limitations to the right to freedom of religion as those that “are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others” (UN General Assembly 1981,
3). The United Nations further clarified these restrictions in paragraph 12 of the Commission on Human Rights resolution 2005/40 and paragraph 14 of the Human Rights Council resolution 6/37, stating that these limitations must be “applied in a manner that does not vitiate the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” only being applied for its intended purpose, in a proportionate manner.

The Pew Research Center (PRC), a nonpartisan American think tank, produces annual reports analyzing the extent to which governments and societies around the world impinge on religious beliefs and practices, including countries that curtail the right for reasons not justified under international human rights law. It noted that “the global median level of government restrictions on religion – that is, laws, policies and actions by officials that impinge on religious beliefs and practices – [has] continued to climb” since PRC began tracking the data in 2007. It labeled 56 countries as having “high” or “very high” levels of government restrictions, or “28% of the 198 countries and territories included in the study” (Majumdar and Villa 2020, 5). The report looked at government laws, policies, and actions, as well as acts of religious hostilities by private individuals, organizations, or group societies, finding that “most of the 56 countries with high or very high levels of government restrictions on religion are in the Asia-Pacific region (25 countries, or half of all countries in that region) or the Middle East-North Africa region (18 countries, or 90% of all countries in the region)” (Majumdar and Villa 2020, 3-6). The scores states received depended in part on a series of questions that determined how governmental authorities handled religious freedom, including whether they were discriminatory towards certain religions in law and/or practice, used physical force, or passed laws that impeded the right. The 56 countries designated as having high or very high levels of governmental restrictions were found to curtail freedom of religion excessively, often for reasons that are not viewed as permissible under international human rights law, such as accusing religious practitioners of inciting dissent, engaging in blasphemy, or practicing an unpopular religion in the state, among others (Majumdar and Villa 2020, 10-11).

The Pew Research Center’s report, titled "In 2018, Government Restrictions on Religion Reach Highest Level Globally in More Than a Decade, named China and Iran as having the highest level of government restriction on religion. In China’s case, the report cited the government’s continued “detention campaign against Uighurs, ethnic Kazakhs and other Muslims in Xinjiang province, holding at least 800,000 (and possibly up to 2 million) in detention facilities ‘designed to erase religious and ethnic identities,’ according to the U.S. State Department,” as well as its prohibition of certain religious practices (Majumdar and Villa 2020, 8). The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom further denounced the Chinese government’s implementation of its “sinicization of religion” policy which demands that “religious groups support the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) rule and ideology,” punishing those that did not (United States Commision on International Religious Freedom 2022, 1). Iran was similarly criticized for its persecution of religious minorities, including the Iranian government’s continued usage of “antisemitic rhetoric to incite intolerance against Jews”, the sentencing of Christian “on national security grounds”, and repression of Sunni Muslims for arbitrary reasons (United States Commision on International Religious Freedom 2022, 27). These acts have received international backlash, drawing the concern from intergovernmental agencies like the UN, as well as other nations. The other 54 states listed as having high or very high governmental restrictions followed similar trends, making up 28% of the states and territories that were included in the study.

While a minority of governmental authorities actively curtail the right to freedom of religion for reasons that are not viewed as permissible by the international community, there is a larger number of states that do so for generally acceptable reasons but apply it in a manner inconsistent with international human rights law. The UN’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief delivered a report to the UN General assembly raising the concern that “the precise extent of such limitations in specific circumstances has become a salient topic in many countries,” with many governmental authorities obstructing freedom of religion under the pretense of using generally accepted limitations (United Nations Human rights Council 2023, 27). The Special Rapporteur recognized the “need to protect public safety and public order” but warns “there is a risk that States will cite them to justify restrictions on [freedom of religion or belief] imposed for reasons tantamount to national security interests, by arguing that a [religious or belief] group is engaged in political activities that endanger public safety and order” (Special Rapporteur 2018, 8). The report asserts that “laws on apostasy or blasphemy, which are often framed as ‘anti-incitement legislation’, [and] exist in at least 69 States, reflect the idea that the expression of certain views within a society may create ‘discontent’, subvert ‘national unity’ or undermine public order and public safety” (Special Rapporteur 2018, 9). They further mention that some “states have also adopted measures to address concerns that some religious publications (both online and off), including sacred texts, may constitute a threat to peace and security”, which can lead government authorities to ban or censor certain religious materials (Special Rapporteur 2018, 9). Critics have recently accused France of engaging in such activity, citing the “controversial Reinforcing Republican Principles Bill, also known as the Anti-Separatism Law,” passed by the National Assembly in 2021 (Freedom House 2022). Freedom House, a nonprofit organization that conducts research, reported that “claiming to combat ‘religious separatism,’ the law allows the government to dissolve religious organizations, increases the surveillance of mosques and Muslim associations, and requires the latter to sign a contract of ‘respect for Republican values’ when applying for state subsidies. Critics have warned that it particularly stigmatizes Muslims and could increase Islamophobic sentiment”
(Freedom House 2022). Though the state’s reasoning for limiting religious freedom may be viewed as permissible (national security concerns, public safety, etc.), these same limitations may become overextended and used in an oppressive manner.

Freedom of religion is protected under international human rights law, which allows for exceptions when limitations are needed to “protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others” (UN General Assembly 1981, 3) . Most states curtail the right for these reasons, however, there is a smaller percentage of countries that do not do so, acting in a more restrictive manner. Additionally, there are states that use the reasons that are generally viewed as permissive but apply it in a manner inconsistent with international human rights law.

References:

Freedom House."France: Freedom in the World 2022 Country Report." 2022.

Majumdar, Samirah, and Virginia Villa. "In 2018, Government Restrictions on Religion Reach Highest Level Globally in More Than a Decade." Pew Research Center, 2020.

Special Rapporteur. "Interim report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief."
United Nations General Assembly, 2018.

UN General Assembly. Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of
Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. OHCHR, 1981.

United Nations Human rights Council. "Rapporteur"s Digest on Freedom of Religion or Belief"
United Nations. 2023.
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Religion/RapporteursDige
stFreedomReligionBelief.pdf.

United States Commision on International Religious Freedom. "2022 Annual Report." 2022.
}}

Freedom of Expression/Country intepretation

2023-08-03T18:48:00Z

Ncackett37: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of Expression |section=Culture and Politics |question=Country intepretation |questionHeading=Is this right interpreted and exercised in different ways in different countries? Focus on particular countries in which the right is interpreted distinctively |pageLevel=Question |contents=The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December of 1948, recognized freedom of expression as a u..."

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=Culture and Politics
|question=Country intepretation
|questionHeading=Is this right interpreted and exercised in different ways in different countries? Focus on particular countries in which the right is interpreted distinctively
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December of 1948, recognized freedom of expression as a universal human right, inherent and applicable to all individuals. A milestone declaration, it has subsequently influenced countless state constitutions, treaties, and legal codes, defining the right as including the “freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (UN General Assembly 1948, 5). Though a majority of nations grant freedom of expression to their constituents in a formal capacity, there are often discrepancies in the way they are practiced and protected, as well as interpreted, in part because of a country’s history, political philosophy, and social factors. Some states are more restrictive of expression, prohibiting or discouraging acts and speech that reflect negatively on the nation’s religion, regime, or culture, while others safeguard this form of expression. Nearly all have censorship laws in place that touch upon defamation and libel, hate speech, and obscenities, though with varying degrees of consequences and protection.

Nations with strong secular traditions, such as France, allow for criticisms and negative portrayals of religion under the right to freedom of expression, while theocratic states, like Iran and Pakistan, completely restrict it under threat of punishment. Freedom of expression has been a fundamental right for French citizens since the proclamation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789, which provided a “limited freedom of expression whose scope is defined by law,” leaving it up to legislators to establish those limits (Guedj 2021, 1). The right was redefined by the Law on the Freedom of the Press of 1881, which reemphasized the public’s ability to express itself while forbidding libel, defamation, offence to public decency and provocations to crimes, among others, and then again with the Pleven Act of 1972 and the Gayssot Act, which prohibited incitement to racial/religious hatred and Holocaust denial respectively (Colosimo 2018, 2). Those who violate these laws can be subject to fines or imprisonment. However, under France’s legislature, it is “possible to insult a religion, its figures and symbols,” as long as it does not incite violence or “insult members of a religion” for belonging to that faith (Colosimo 2018, 2). Though the lines between the two can be blurry, the right to freedom of expression in France is quite liberal when it comes to discussion around religion and allows for acts of expression that go against theological doctrine and criticize it.

There are several theocratic states that have provisions within their legal framework that also guarantee freedom of expression, though they heavily restrict it through strict anti-blasphemy laws that prohibit any act or speech that can be perceived as negative by governmental authorities and carry punishments. Article 24 of Iran’s constitution states, “Publications and the press have freedom of expression except when it is detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam or the rights of the public. The details of this exception will be specified by law” (“Islamic Republic of Iran” 2023, 14). Pakistan has a similar provision in its constitution with Article 19: "Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defense of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, committing, or inciting an offence" (Pakistan Constitution, ch. 1, art. 19). While Iran and Pakistan do have a legal freedom of expression, they restrict it, with the international non-profit organization Reporters Without Borders (RWB) citing various cases in which they censored and filtered what is put online and “punished citizens for statements that were considered blasphemous” (“2023 World Press Freedom Index” 2023, 5). Restrictions of expressions on religion are not only enforced in theocratic countries, however, as Finland forbids breaching the sanctity of religion “which includes ‘blaspheming against God,’ publicly defaming or desecrating to offend something a religious community holds sacred, and disturbing worship or funeral ceremonies” with violators being subject to “fines or imprisonment of up to six months” (“Finland 2021 Report” 2021, 3).

Thailand, a constitutional monarchy, guaranteed freedom of expression to its citizens since the 1997 Constitution of Thailand and continues to guarantee it with the various different constitutions that have followed since, though it has a distinct interpretation of the right when it comes to the royal family. Thailand’s government is very restrictive of the way citizens can partake in this right, particularly with its strict lèse-majesté laws, seen as one of the harshest in the world. Lèse-majesté is an offence against the dignity of a ruling head of state, an act that is prohibited under Thailand’s legal code which states, “Whoever defames, insults, or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir to the Throne, or the Regent, will be punished with a jail sentence between three and fifteen years.” (Mérieau 2021, 77). The state’s right to freedom of expression does not cover speech or acts that are deemed negative towards the monarchy, with the law being considered ambiguous and open to the interpretation of authorities. This distinct interpretation of freedom of expression derives from the influence of Hindu-Buddhist culture in Thailand where kings were seen as divine figures to be respected, giving them a form of sanctity that left a lasting impact on the country’s political system (Mérieau 2021, 78). Other states that interpret freedom of expression in a similar way include Turkey, where it is illegal under Article 301 of the country’s penal code to insult the Turkish nation, its government, and its national heroes under threat of imprisonment (“Turkey: Article 301” 2006, 1).

Saudi Arabia, holds freedom of expression to a different status than the previously mentioned states, failing to articulate it in its law but still penalizing acts of expression that are deemed blasphemous or portray the regime in a negative light, with punishments ranging from hefty fines to death sentences. Saudi Arabia’s Basic Law of Governance, the country’s constitution-like charter, does not provide for freedom of expression or the press, simply stating, "Mass media and all other vehicles of expression shall employ civil and polite language, contribute towards the education of the nation, and strengthen unity. The media are prohibited from committing acts that lead to disorder and division, affect the security of the state or its public relations, or undermine human dignity and rights” (U.S. Department of State 2018, 23). This gives authorities ample power to determine what expression violates the law, placing heavy emphasis on the safeguarding of religious values and morals. A distinct feature of freedom of expression in the United States that differentiates it from many other nations is that certain hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. In the United States, “hate speech is given wide constitutional protection while under international human rights covenants and in other Western democracies, such as Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom, it is largely prohibited and subjected to criminal sanctions” (Rosenfeld 2002, 1523). This was reaffirmed in the 2017 U.S. Supreme Court Case Matal v. Tam, in which the justices determined that hate speech falls under the protection of free speech: “With few narrow exceptions, a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that the government may not punish or suppress speech based on disapproval of the ideas or perspectives the speech conveys” (2). The expression may be subject to punishment if it seeks to incite an imminent violent or lawless action This is quite a different interpretation than many other democratic nations, where expressions that are considered hate speech can be punishable by law. In Germany, for example, acts of expression that are racist, antisemitic, advocating for Nazism, denying the Holocaust, or glorifying the ideology of Hitler are illegal (“Germany: Freedom in the World” 2023, 9).

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a fundamental human right that applies to all individuals by the United Nations, being adopted and incorporated into the legal code or constitutions of a majority of states around the world. The right differs, however, in its interpretation and practice within each individual country, as well as the extent to which it is protected. Some states interpret freedom of expression through a more restrictive lens, prohibiting negative acts of expression that touch upon religion, government, or culture, while others allow it with more lenient limitations. A state’s interpretation of freedom of expression can be influenced by its unique history, its political climate, as well as social and religious factors, resulting in different interpretations and practices of freedom of expression around the world.

References:

“2023 World Press Freedom Index – Journalism Threatened by Fake Content Industry.”
2023. RSF. Accessed June 14. https://rsf.org/en/2023-world-press-freedom-index-
journalism-threatened-fake-content-industry.

Colosimo, Anastasia. 2018. “Blasphemy in France and in Europe: A Right or an Offense?”
Institut Montaigne. November 16. https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/expressions

“Finland 2021 International Religious Freedom Report.” 2023. U.S. Department of State.
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/FINLAND-2021

“Germany: Freedom in the World 2022 Country Report.” 2023. Freedom House. Accessed June
9. https://freedomhouse.org/country/germany/freedom-world/2022.

Guedj, Nikita. 2021. “The Law on the Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1881: A Text That Both
Guarantees and Restricts Freedom of Expression.” Fondation Descartes. July 16.
https://www.fondationdescartes.org/en/2021/07/the-law-on-the-freedom-of-the-press-of-
29-july-1881-a-text-that-both-guarantees-and-restricts-freedom-of-expression/.

“Islamic Republic of Iran 1979 (Rev. 1989) Constitution.” 1989. Constitute.
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Iran_1989?lang=en.

Matal, Interim Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Tam. 582 U.S. (2027)

Mérieau, E. 2021. “A History of the Thai lèse-majesté Law”. Thai Legal History: From
Traditional to Modern Law, 60-70.

Rosenfeld, Michel. 2002. “Hate speech in constitutional jurisprudence: a comparative analysis.”
Cardozo L. Rev., 24, 1523.

“Turkey: Article 301: How the Law on ‘Denigrating Turkishness’ Is an Insult to Free
Expression.” 2006. Amnesty International. March 1.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur44/003/2006/en/.

UN General Assembly. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, , 217 A (III),
https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/2021/03/udhr.pdf

U.S Department of State. 2018. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2017: Saudi
Arabia.
}}