Freedom of Religion and Discrimination - Two Important UK Cases

2010

A number of recent cases in Australia and overseas have highlighted an emerging tension between the human right of freedom of religion and belief, and the human right to be free from discrimination. This has manifested in conflicts between religious freedom and antidiscrimination law, particularly in relation to sexual orientation and same-sex marriage.

2014

Religious discrimination is institutionalized in the United Kingdom. 1 The Church of England occupies a privileged space in the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements. The Queen, as a constitutional monarch, holds the title "defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England." 2 Twenty-six Bishops of the Church of England 3 sit in the legislature's upper house, the House of Lords. 4 The position of these "Lords * Barrister, Matrix Chambers, Griffin Building, Gray's Inn, London, United Kingdom WC1R 5LN, +44 (0)20 7404 3447, karonmonaghan@ matrixlaw.co.uk. Author of KARON MONAGHAN QC, MONAGHAN ON EQUALITY LAW (2d ed. 2013). 1 New constitutional settlements with Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland have devolved specified matters to regional assemblies but Parliament retains responsibility for certain matters and the fundamental constitutional arrangements remain in place (subject to referenda in the case of Scotland and Northern Ireland).

For centuries, religious liberty in Britain existed as a broad-ranging but principally negative freedom at common law. Individuals were permitted to do as they pleased in matters of faith, unless the law stated otherwise. 1 Religious liberty, thus conceived, was more passive toleration of religion than any active promotion of religious freedom as a fundamental right. All that changed on October 2, 2000 when the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”)–the United Kingdom's de facto Bill of Rights–came into full force...

2016

This article considers the reconciliation of two fundamental human rights, freedom of religion and the right to equality/freedom from discrimination. The immediate focus was the recent Victorian decision in Cobaw in which a gay youth support group sought to lease premises owned by a religious body, permitting a broader discussion of the existing exemptions in anti-discrimination for religious bodies, and the broader question of the extent to which legislation can legitimately regulate religious activity.

Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, 2016

Introduction-Freedom of Religion as a Protected Right The right to freedom of religion, while having its origins in various sources including the Magna Carta, 2 is a right protected today by all major international human rights instruments (Universal Declaration of Human Rights (art 18); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (art 18); European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (art 9)). Whatever definition is adopted of the term "religion", most people recognise that religion is a matter of "ultimate concern", something that shapes a person's values, their understanding of the meaning of life and how they ought to behave. Any right to freedom of religion must include, as a minimum, the right to hold a particular religion or to change one's religion. It is widely accepted that protection of religious freedom must also go beyond the protection of this internal aspect of the right to freedom of religion, and extend to the right to externally "manifest" religious beliefs in public gatherings, and the freedom to adhere to and observe one's religious beliefs in both "religious" and "non-religious" settings.

In relation to religious rights, a distinction can often be drawn between the question of interference and the question of justification. This is true of both Article 9 of the ECHR and indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010: 2 whilst Article 9(1) is concerned with whether there has been an interference with the right to manifest religion or, Article 9(2) is concerned with whether that interference was justified; similarly, once it has been established that the claimant has suffered a disadvantage, it is a defence to claims of indirect discrimination if the actions were justified.

2011