Condensed: Discrimination based on religion or belief is any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis. Reasonable and objective grounds must be provided for a distinction on the basis of religion or belief to be fair. Distinction based on religion or belief which may constitute discrimination includes inter alia prohibition on practicing or teaching certain religions or beliefs; registration requirements which limit a religious organizations possibility to operate; and limitations with regard to worship and observance (for example prohibition of religious attire). Comprehensive: Article 2 of the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief provides: 1. No one shall be subject to discrimination by any State, institution, group of persons, or person on the grounds of religion or other belief. 2. For the purposes of the present Declaration, the expression "intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief" means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis. Discrimination based on religion or belief is prohibited in various other global and regional human rights instruments.[1] The CESCR has held that the prohibition of discrimination based on religion or belief covers the profession of religion or belief of one’s choice (including the non-profession of any religion or belief), that may be publicly or privately manifested in worship, observance, practice and teaching. For instance, discrimination arises when persons belonging to a religious minority are denied equal access to universities, employment, or health services on the basis of their religion.[2] Reasonable and objective grounds must be provided for a distinction on the basis of religion or belief to be fair. Distinction based on religion or belief which may constitute discrimination includes inter alia
prohibition on practicing or teaching certain religions;[3]
registration requirements which limit a religious organization's possibility to operate;[4]
limitations with regard to worship and observance (for example prohibition of religious attire).[5]
(See *manifest one’s religion or belief in teaching practice, worship and observance*). In Joseph v Sri Lanka, the registration of a Catholic religious order was refused by the authorities. The HRC held:[6] In the present case, the authors have supplied an extensive list of other religious bodies which have been provided incorporated status, with objects of the same kind as the authors' Order. The State party has provided no reasons why the authors' Order is differently situated, or otherwise why reasonable and objective grounds exist for distinguishing their claim. Bhinder v Canada dealt with a Sikh employee of the Canadian National Railway Company whose religion required him to wear a turban. The coach yard in which he worked was declared at a certain point to be a ‘hard hat area’. The HRC found that the ‘the wearing of hard hats is to be regarded as reasonable and directed towards objective purposes that are compatible with the Covenant‘ and that prohibition of discrimination based on religion or belief had therefore not been violated.[7] If funding is provided by the government to non-secular schools all religions must benefit from such funding. In Waldman v Canada, the HRC held that the fact that Ontario funded only Catholic schools and not other non-secular schools was a violation of the prohibition of discrimination based on religion or belief as set out in article 26 of the ICCPR. The applicant’s children were enrolled in a private Jewish school. His complaint was that Canada was fulfilling its obligations to minorities in a discriminatory manner in favouring Catholic schools over other non-secular schools.[8]
[1]UDHR art 2; ICESCR art 2; ICCPR arts 2, 26; CRC art 2(1); ACHPR art 2; ACRWC art 3; ACHR 1, ACHR Protocol on ESCR art 3; ECHR art 14. [2]CESCR General Comment 20 para 22. [3]Joseph v Sri Lanka communication 1249/2004 (HRC 2005). See also Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia v Moldova application 45701/99 (ECtHR 2001); Free Legal Assistance Group and Others v Zaire (ACHPR 1995). [4] Statement of Heiner Bielefeldt, Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, UNGA, 21 October 2010, 3-4. Canea Catholic Church v Greece application 25528/94 (ECtHR 1997). [5] Eg Bhinder v Canada communication 208/1996 (HRC 1989), Sahin v Turkey application 30943/96 (ECtHR (GC) 2003), [6]Joseph v Sri Lanka para 7.4. [7]Bhinder v Canada communication 208/1996 (HRC 1989) para 6.2. [8]Waldman v Canada communication 694/1996 (HRC 1999). See also the report of Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, A/HRC/16/53, para 54.
Condensed:
Discrimination based on religion or belief is any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis. Reasonable and objective grounds must be provided for a distinction on the basis of religion or belief to be fair. Distinction based on religion or belief which may constitute discrimination includes inter alia prohibition on practicing or teaching certain religions or beliefs; registration requirements which limit a religious organizations possibility to operate; and limitations with regard to worship and observance (for example prohibition of religious attire).
Comprehensive:
Article 2 of the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief provides:
1. No one shall be subject to discrimination by any State, institution, group of persons, or person on the grounds of religion or other belief.
2. For the purposes of the present Declaration, the expression "intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief" means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis.
Discrimination based on religion or belief is prohibited in various other global and regional human rights instruments.[1]
The CESCR has held that the prohibition of discrimination based on religion or belief
covers the profession of religion or belief of one’s choice (including the non-profession of any religion or belief), that may be publicly or privately manifested in worship, observance, practice and teaching. For instance, discrimination arises when persons belonging to a religious minority are denied equal access to universities, employment, or health services on the basis of their religion.[2]
Reasonable and objective grounds must be provided for a distinction on the basis of religion or belief to be fair. Distinction based on religion or belief which may constitute discrimination includes inter alia
- prohibition on practicing or teaching certain religions;[3]
- registration requirements which limit a religious organization's possibility to operate;[4]
- limitations with regard to worship and observance (for example prohibition of religious attire).[5]
(See *manifest one’s religion or belief in teaching practice, worship and observance*).In Joseph v Sri Lanka, the registration of a Catholic religious order was refused by the authorities. The HRC held:[6]
In the present case, the authors have supplied an extensive list of other religious bodies which have been provided incorporated status, with objects of the same kind as the authors' Order. The State party has provided no reasons why the authors' Order is differently situated, or otherwise why reasonable and objective grounds exist for distinguishing their claim.
Bhinder v Canada dealt with a Sikh employee of the Canadian National Railway Company whose religion required him to wear a turban. The coach yard in which he worked was declared at a certain point to be a ‘hard hat area’. The HRC found that the ‘the wearing of hard hats is to be regarded as reasonable and directed towards objective purposes that are compatible with the Covenant‘ and that prohibition of discrimination based on religion or belief had therefore not been violated.[7]
If funding is provided by the government to non-secular schools all religions must benefit from such funding. In Waldman v Canada, the HRC held that the fact that Ontario funded only Catholic schools and not other non-secular schools was a violation of the prohibition of discrimination based on religion or belief as set out in article 26 of the ICCPR. The applicant’s children were enrolled in a private Jewish school. His complaint was that Canada was fulfilling its obligations to minorities in a discriminatory manner in favouring Catholic schools over other non-secular schools.[8]
[1]UDHR art 2; ICESCR art 2; ICCPR arts 2, 26; CRC art 2(1); ACHPR art 2; ACRWC art 3; ACHR 1, ACHR Protocol on ESCR art 3; ECHR art 14.
[2]CESCR General Comment 20 para 22.
[3]Joseph v Sri Lanka communication 1249/2004 (HRC 2005). See also Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia v Moldova application 45701/99 (ECtHR 2001); Free Legal Assistance Group and Others v Zaire (ACHPR 1995).
[4] Statement of Heiner Bielefeldt, Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, UNGA, 21 October 2010, 3-4. Canea Catholic Church v Greece application 25528/94 (ECtHR 1997).
[5] Eg Bhinder v Canada communication 208/1996 (HRC 1989), Sahin v Turkey application 30943/96 (ECtHR (GC) 2003),
[6]Joseph v Sri Lanka para 7.4.
[7]Bhinder v Canada communication 208/1996 (HRC 1989) para 6.2.
[8]Waldman v Canada communication 694/1996 (HRC 1999). See also the report of Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, A/HRC/16/53, para 54.