The right to freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) and freedom of expression (FoE) have many similarities. Both protect the individual’s dignity and right to develop an independent way of thinking. One cannot exist without the other.

However, both these human rights often seem like competing entitlements or even damaging to one another. The use of hate speech and the enactment of discriminatory laws that target religious or belief groups to constrain expressions unduly for protecting certain religious sentiments are two of many examples. The entanglements between FoRB and FoE are complex and require dialogue and mutual understanding between different actors to listen, engage and learn from one another.

With the aim of kick-starting such conversations, in December 2021, a day before the UN Human Rights Day, we hosted the third High-level Dialogue on “ Freedom of Religion or Belief, civic space and expression: building safe and inclusive societies for all”, which saw participation from 50 parliamentarians, religious leaders and civil society actors from across the world. This Dialogue is part of a series of High-level Dialogues on FoRB and SDGs being organized by Freedom of Religion or Belief Leadership Network (FoRBLN), IPPFoRB, Danish Institute for Human Rights, Religions for Peace, African Parliamentarians Association for Human Rights and the UN’s Faith for Rights Initiative.

In this learning blog, we put together the different issues, problems, and solutions explored by the participants during the Dialogue. We have also tried to conclude with recommendations and a future perspective, in relation to SDG 16 (promote just, peaceful and inclusive societies).

The Dialogue began with Katharine Thane (Project officer FoRBLN/IPPFoRB project) opening the “digital floor” for the following panellists:

· Faruq Faisel (Regional Director for Bangladesh and South Asia, Article 19),

· Hina Jilani (Pioneering lawyer, pro-democracy campaigner and women’s rights activist. Joined the Elders in 2013 and Co-Chair, Justice Taskforce since 2018),

· Simona Cruciani (Political Affairs Officer, UN Office on Genocide Prevention and Responsibility to Protect), and

· Dr Marie Juul Petersen (Senior Researcher, Danish Institute for Human Rights).

Each panellist presented a different aspect of the relation between FoRB and FoE from their area of expertise; generally, the speakers stressed an interconnection of these two rights, but also the danger of the misuse of the two rights as political tools. A common misconception is an assumption that any kind of speech must be protected by FoE. That is not the case; FoE does not protect advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence against religious institutions or their members. Additionally, FoRB cannot be used to justify advocating harmful practices, hate speech or violence under the garb of ‘protecting religion’. When restricting one of the rights, either FoRB or FoE, it becomes evident, how these two rights are intersected and interconnected. For example, restrictions on FoE will result in restrictions on FoRB, and sometimes vice versa as well. Promoting either FoRB or FoE will strengthen the standing of the other right. Eventually, this will lead to a general better enjoyment of human rights for individuals.

The above salient points provided the foundation for conversations between the participants when they went into regional/national breakout groups. In the groups, the participants discussed what issues around this topic mean and how they manifest themselves in their communities, how they can be part of potential processes of change, and what support is needed.

The Issues

Participants in the Asian Regional Group discussed the “use of religion as a political tool”, which may be used to “foster nationalism at the macro-level”. In the Southeast Asian countries, there was unanimity in recognizing the difficulties for religious minorities. Struggles for nurturing religious diversity and solidarity were debated from Sri Lankan, Malaysian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi perspectives, as well in the light of the question of how to tackle hate speech, societal exclusion, and the daily life of discriminatory experiences for minorities.

“The Rise of the Taliban has an effect on Southeast Asia.” – Participant from the Asia Group

Issues discussed in the African Regional Group aimed at the fact that some countries had incorporated aspects of religion in domestic law, especially where there is a significant majority religion present.

“Examples of these issues can be found in interreligious marriages and religious education, both have to do with FoRB and cross-cultural understanding.” – Participant from the Africa Group

Towards Change

In the European Group, the distinction between living in a respectful society and inter-religious understanding was discussed. The latter requires more than a respectful or peaceful society: the necessity to respect and appreciate other faiths and beliefs and to let individuals and communities have space to manifest their religion or belief without fear or hindrance. As the former Special Rapporteur on FoRB, Heiner Bielefeldt, noted: “To emphasize the positive interrelatedness of FoRB and FoE does not mean to deny possible conflicts between the two rights.”[1]

“This is not an easy task to achieve.” – Participant from the Europe Group
“We have social harmony, but not inter-religious tolerance.” – Participant from the Europe Group

The necessity of including various stakeholders, like parliamentarians, civil society leaders, universities, and more, was stressed intensely because,

“People often think of religion as a taboo issue.” – Participant from the Europe Group

Generally, the perception of civic space seems to include freedom of expression and freedom of association. A participant noted that the understanding of FoRB in the civic space is quite limited, although civic space should include all Human Rights.

“We need to avoid politicization: a solution is to work with people without interference from larger forces.” – Participant from the Asia Group

What support would be needed?

In the European Group, the importance of working jointly with parliamentarians, academics, religious leaders and civil society actors was emphasized. Including international organizations (IOs) was generally perceived as an asset and partnerships with IOs were broadly well-received. The African Group, on the other hand, stressed the value of grassroots organizations and smaller religious entities:

“At the community level, some organizations are changing their constitutions to allow spaces for women inclusion in leadership, which is a good practice.” – Participant from the Africa Group

The Africa Group called for civic education on mutual religious understanding to help interpret and understand freedoms. Participation of all, including women, would strengthen the credibility and the inclusivity of religious institutions and organizations in society. Increased sensitization on FoRB would promote mutual understanding and in the long run acceptance towards a more respectful future. Especially rural communities need support, for example in the form of better access to education.

Opportunities and Recommendations

In all the regional groups, there is an emphasis on enhancing education for a better understanding of FoRB and FoE. These insights concur largely with SDG 16 (Promotion of Peaceful and Inclusive Societies) and its target 16.10:

“Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements”.

The possibility to express your political and religious opinions is precious in all societies, so the supposed protection of FoRB by implementing “blasphemy laws” does not achieve its goal and usually infringes on FoE. On the contrary, an opinion that amounts to incitement to discrimination, hatred, or violence, should not be covered by FoE. However, a general restriction on FoE would be fairly similar to a so-called “blasphemy law”. This demonstrates the necessity for every case to be seen in its context and dealt with in accordance with, on one hand, the spheres of liberty and freedoms, and on the other hand, permissible limitations.

For further information, please read:

Freedom of Religion or Belief and Freedom of Expression Briefing Paper by Dr. Marie Juul Pedersen

Rabat Plan of Action: OHCHR | The Rabat Plan of Action

SDG 16.10: SDG Indicators — SDG Indicators (un.org)

UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief

Freedom of Religion or Belief: An International Law Commentary by Heiner Bielefeldt, Nazila Ghanea, and Michael Wiener (ISBN: 9780198703983)

Religious Freedom Under Scrutiny by Heiner Bielefeldt and Michael Wiener (2019).

[1] Religious Freedom Under Scrutiny. By Heiner Bielefeldt and Michael Wiener (2019) p. 91