Freedom Of Religion And Criminal Offences
Freedom of Religion and Criminal Offences: Overview
Freedom of Religion is a fundamental human right recognized globally, often enshrined in constitutions and international human rights instruments (like Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ICCPR). It includes:
The right to hold or change one’s religion or belief.
The freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching.
However, this freedom is not absolute. States may impose restrictions on religious practices when necessary to protect public safety, order, health, morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. Such restrictions often appear as criminal offences when religious acts intersect with laws protecting social order or individual rights.
Key Tensions:
When religious practices conflict with criminal law (e.g., drug use in rituals, polygamy, blasphemy, proselytism restrictions).
Balancing religious freedom against state interest in maintaining public order.
Protecting vulnerable groups (e.g., children) when religious practices may harm them.
Landmark Cases Explaining the Relationship Between Freedom of Religion and Criminal Offences
1. Sherbert v. Verner (1963) — United States
Facts:
Sherbert, a Seventh-day Adventist, was denied unemployment benefits because she refused to work on Saturdays, her Sabbath day, due to religious beliefs.
Issue:
Does denying unemployment benefits to someone who refuses to work on their Sabbath violate their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion?
Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sherbert, establishing the Sherbert Test, requiring the government to show a "compelling state interest" if it wants to burden religious practice and must do so by the least restrictive means.
Significance:
This case reinforced that criminal sanctions or penalties (like denying benefits) that indirectly burden religious freedom must be justified by compelling interests.
2. Reynolds v. United States (1878) — United States
Facts:
Reynolds was charged with bigamy under U.S. law, but argued his Mormon religion permitted polygamy.
Issue:
Does the law banning polygamy violate Reynolds’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion?
Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the law, ruling that religious belief is protected, but religious practices that are judged criminal under law (bigamy) are not protected.
Significance:
This case established the principle that religious belief is protected absolutely, but religiously motivated actions can be regulated or prohibited when they violate criminal law or public policy.
3. R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. (1985) — Canada
Facts:
Big M Drug Mart was charged under the Lord's Day Act for selling goods on Sunday, violating the law enforcing Sunday as a day of rest based on Christian principles.
Issue:
Did the Lord’s Day Act infringe freedom of religion under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Decision:
The Supreme Court of Canada struck down the law as unconstitutional, finding it was coercing religious observance and violated freedom of religion.
Significance:
The case highlights that criminal laws enforcing religious observance (Sunday rest laws) can infringe on religious freedom and are unconstitutional if they coerce religious beliefs or practices.
4. S. A. S. v. France (2014) — European Court of Human Rights
Facts:
France banned the wearing of full-face veils in public places. S.A.S., a Muslim woman, challenged this law as violating her religious freedom.
Issue:
Does a ban on religious attire in public violate freedom of religion?
Decision:
The Court upheld the ban, accepting France’s argument that the law aimed to protect "living together" (public safety and social cohesion) and was a proportionate restriction.
Significance:
This case shows how criminal laws restricting religious expression can be upheld when balanced against public order or safety concerns.
5. R. (on the application of Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment (2005) — UK
Facts:
Parents claimed that compulsory sex education at school conflicted with their religious beliefs.
Issue:
Did the law violate freedom of religion?
Decision:
The UK courts ruled that while parents have the right to religious education, the state’s interest in providing comprehensive education justified some restrictions.
Significance:
Demonstrates the state’s power to restrict religious freedom in the context of education and protection of children, intersecting with criminal laws about education standards.
6. Brunette v. California (2020) — Hypothetical example for illustration
Imagine a case where a religious group uses an illegal substance (like peyote) in rituals and is prosecuted under drug laws.
Issue:
Does prosecution for drug possession violate religious freedom?
Typical Outcome:
Courts often uphold criminal laws banning substances even for religious use, unless special exceptions exist (like the U.S. Religious Freedom Restoration Act exemptions for Native American rituals).
Summary of Principles from These Cases:
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Religious belief vs religious conduct | Beliefs are absolute; conduct can be regulated if criminal. |
| Compelling state interest | Restrictions must serve an important public interest. |
| Least restrictive means | Laws should restrict religion as minimally as possible. |
| Public order, safety, health, morals | Legitimate grounds for restricting religious freedom. |
| Protection of others | Balancing individual rights with community interests. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments