Freedom of Religion or Belief and Freedom of Expression

Abstract

This article discusses the relationship between the right to freedom of expression (FoE) and the right to freedom of religion or belief (FoRB). These two human rights are often understood to be in a tense relationship, and some see restrictions on FoE as a necessary precondition for full protection of FoRB. This article argues that the two rights are, however, best understood as inextricably interrelated and intertwined, and that restrictions on FoE will very often lead to restrictions on FoRB.

Keywords:

• freedom of religion or belief
• freedom of expression
• blasphemy laws
• apostasy laws
• hate speech
• human rights

Notes

1 Upon the 2020 republication of the Danish cartoons in the French Charlie Hebdo magazine, for instance, the Secretary General of the OIC emphasised that “Islamophobic acts [such as the republication] violate the freedom of religion and belief guaranteed by international laws” (OIC 2020).

2 Key documents in this regard are the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) and the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court (1998); ICCPR, Article 20 (2); Human Rights Committee, General Comment no. 22, CCPR/C/21/Rev 1/Add.4, 1993, and General Comment no. 34, CCPR/C/GC/34, 2011; Human Rights Council, Resolution on combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatisation of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief, A/HRC/RES/16/18, 2011.

3 Some argue that certain expressions should be restricted or suppressed because of anticipated or actual violent reactions against the speaker. This is sometimes referred to as ‘the heckler’s veto’. But expressions that may result in violence against the speaker, no matter how likely it is that violence will erupt, should not be conflated with a speaker’s intentional incitement to violence. See Mchangama (2022) for a discussion of this.

4 The term “prohibit by law” in Article 20 of the ICCPR does not necessarily mean criminalisation; the Human Rights Committee has said it only requires States to “provide appropriate sanctions” in cases of incitement. Civil and administrative penalties (e.g. fines, restitution/compensation, retraction of statement, banning of associations) will in many cases be most appropriate, with criminal sanctions an extreme measure of last resort (Article 19 2018, 11).

5 Joint submission by Heiner Bielefeldt, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief; Frank La Rue, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; and Githu Muigai, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, presented at OHCHR expert workshop held in relation to the Rabat Plan of Action (2011).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Marie Juul Petersen

Marie Juul Petersen is a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for Human Rights. Her work focuses on the intersections between religion and human rights. Publications include For Humanity or for the Umma? (Hurst, 2016), The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and Human Rights (co-edited with Turan Kayaoglu, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2019), and The International Promotion of Freedom of Religion or Belief. Sketching the Contours of a Common Framework (co-authored with Katherine Marshall, DIHR, 2020).