Freedom of Religion/Limitations - Restrictions/Derogations
Under international human rights laws, what permissible exceptions (often called derogations) exist?
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The UDHR provides for exceptions to human rights “determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.” American Convention on Human Rights: Article 12-3 of the convention states that religious practice may “be subject only to the limitations prescribed by law that are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals, or the rights or freedoms of others.” The relevant court has “recognized that a state can limit the exercise of free religious expression when there is a conflict with other rights or when such expression constitutes a threat to society or political stability” (Gomes 2009, 98). European Convention on Human Rights: Article 9-2 states that “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations 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.” The European Court of Human Rights has interpreted a right not to have one’s religious views insulted by the public and has condoned state action against blasphemy (Koev 2019) . In Valsamis v. Greece (1996) , the court ruled against a defendant seeking a religious a religious exemption from a school-sponsored activity (Coev 2019) .
In Eweida and others v. UK (2013) , the court ruled against civil servants who refused to register same-sex marriages (Coev 2019) . In Sahin v. Turkey ( 2004) , the court upheld restricts on beards and headscarves for Muslim university students to “reconcile the interests of various groups” (Coev 2019) . In SAS v. France, t he court upheld a ban on public face coverings because the face coverings would intrude on concepts of secularism and liberty (because, the court argued, face coverings symbolize subservience).
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Gomes: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2450& context=lawreview
Koev: http://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=bb31 f9a9-0997-4bb0-a34c-eeb97b46b9c7%40sdc-v-sessmgr01&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2Z Q%3d%3d#AN=136782604& db=asn