Print
See related documents
A. Draft resolution
(open)
B. Draft recommendation
(open)
Report | Doc. 14260 | 31 January 2017
The protection of the rights of parents and children belonging to religious minorities
Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination
Summary
The European population is increasingly diverse, which is reflected in the variety of religious communities. However, people belonging to religious minorities may face an increased risk of marginalisation or unjustified limitations on freedom of religion. Peaceful coexistence between people of different religious and ethnic affiliations requires consistent enforcement of the fundamental rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. In this field, this applies in particular to the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the right of parents to provide their children with an education in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions. The fundamental right of children to education in a critical and pluralistic manner should also be taken into account.
Council of Europe member States should protect these rights by promoting reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs of all, within the limits defined by legislation and provided that this is not detrimental to the rights of others; they should ban discriminatory distinctions between majority and minority religious beliefs, and ensure that children may be exempted from compulsory religious education programmes that are in conflict with their moral or religious beliefs.
A. Draft resolution 
(open)1. The Parliamentary Assembly
notes that the population of the member States of the Council of
Europe is more ethnically, culturally and religiously diverse than
ever before. The landscape of religious communities in Europe is
complex and evolving, with traditional beliefs spreading beyond
their historical territory and new denominations emerging. Such
an environment has the potential to render families belonging to
religious minorities ostracised for their views and values in contexts
where there is a dominant majority that holds conflicting views.
2. In this context, the Assembly recalls its staunch commitment
to supporting peaceful coexistence between people of different religious
and ethnic affiliations, and striving for a tolerant, respectful
and democratic community for all, as outlined in the adoption of
several Assembly texts, including: Resolution 1904 (2012) on the right to freedom of choice in education in Europe; Resolution 1928 (2013) on safeguarding human rights in relation to religion
and belief and protecting religious communities from violence; Resolution 2036 (2015) on tackling intolerance and discrimination in Europe
with a special focus on Christians and Resolution 2076 (2015) on freedom of religion and living together in a democratic
society.
3. The Assembly underlines its commitment to protecting the fundamental
rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS
No. 5, “the Convention”), in particular the right to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion under Article 9, and the right
of parents to provide their children with an education in conformity
with their own religious and philosophical convictions under Article
2 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention (ETS No. 9). The Assembly reiterates
the fundamental right of children to education in a critical and pluralistic
manner in accordance with the Convention, its protocols and the
case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
4. The Assembly considers that particular difficulties can arise
with regard to respecting the beliefs and convictions of minority
religious communities in the context of the registration of religious
organisations, State-provided education and social services. The
Assembly considers that it is not the role of member States to regulate
or validate the beliefs and world views of its population, but to
accommodate different perspectives and convictions, and allow individuals
to thrive together within the boundaries of public order, health
and morals. It considers that the genuine recognition of, and respect
for, diversity and the dynamics of cultural traditions and identities
and religious convictions are essential in order to achieve social
cohesion.
5. The Assembly therefore calls on all member States of the Council
of Europe to protect the rights of parents and children belonging
to religious minorities by taking practical steps, legislative or
otherwise, to:
5.1. affirm the right
to freedom of thought, conscience and religion for all individuals,
including the right not to adhere to any religion, and protect the
right of all not to be compelled to perform actions that go against
their deeply held moral or religious beliefs, while ensuring that
access to services lawfully provided is maintained and the right
of others to be free from discrimination is protected;
5.2. promote reasonable accommodation of the deeply held moral
or religious beliefs of all individuals in cases of serious conflict
to enable citizens to freely manifest their religion or belief in
private or in public, within the limits defined by legislation and
provided that this is not detrimental to the rights of others;
5.3. repeal any law or rule which establishes a discriminatory
distinction between religious minorities and majority beliefs;
5.4. ensure easy-to-implement options for children or parents
to obtain exemptions from compulsory State religious education programmes
that are in conflict with their deeply held moral or religious beliefs; such
options may include non-confessional teaching of religion, providing
information on a plurality of religions, and ethics programmes.
B. Draft recommendation
(open)1. The Parliamentary Assembly,
referring to its Resolution... (2017) on the protection of the rights
of parents and children belonging to religious minorities, recommends
that the Committee of Ministers:
1.1. transmit
the said resolution to the governments of member States;
1.2. draw up guidelines on how member States should make effective
reasonable accommodation of deeply held moral or religious beliefs
of individuals, while ensuring respect for the rights of others.
C. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Valeriu Ghiletchi, rapporteur
(open)1. Introduction
1. The Committee on Equality and
Non-Discrimination appointed me as rapporteur on “The protection
of the rights of parents and children belonging to religious minorities”
on 3 December 2014. I presented a preliminary draft report in April
2016 and a draft report in June 2016.
2. During the June 2016 part-session, the committee rejected
the first drafts of the resolution and the recommendation I had
proposed on the basis of my initial report. This was, of course,
a great disappointment to me personally as the efforts I had put
into writing the report were all in the interests of securing the
rights of parents and children of religious minorities, but I respect
the decision of the committee in rejecting my proposals.
3. I have taken time to consider the criticisms that were raised
by the committee and have now decided to focus my report on subject
matter that we are all in agreement with when it comes to ensuring
equality and non-discrimination for all citizens across the member
States of the Council of Europe.
4. The area of concern that I had originally highlighted in the
motion for the resolution was the restrictions of the rights
of parents to raise their children in conformity with their own
religious and philosophical convictions. This right is explicitly
secured under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention
on Human Rights (ETS No. 9), which is also supplemented by Article
9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5) on freedom
of thought, conscience and religion.
was the restrictions of the rights
of parents to raise their children in conformity with their own
religious and philosophical convictions. This right is explicitly
secured under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention
on Human Rights (ETS No. 9), which is also supplemented by Article
9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5) on freedom
of thought, conscience and religion.5. This same right is also enshrined in Article 18.4 of the United
Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which
states: “The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to
have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal
guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children
in conformity with their own convictions.”
6. Instances where parents experience the denial of this right
are indicative of an environment where there is a lack of tolerance,
respect and plurality. We must take steps to address this root concern
if we are genuinely seeking to champion equality and non-discrimination
for all of our citizens, and especially those belonging to minority
groups across the member States.
7. Therefore, the remainder of this report is based on the previous
texts adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly that have established
the Assembly’s acquis on this
topic and laid the groundwork for this report. It will also highlight
specific situations (including cases from the European Court of
Human Rights (“the Court”) that have come to my attention, which
provide insight into where the rights of parents and children belonging to
religious minorities are at the most risk of being violated. It
will conclude by proposing action to be taken by the Parliamentary
Assembly and the Committee of Ministers to address these concerns,
which builds on the firm consensus that already exists within the
Assembly.
2. Previous consideration of religious minorities by the Parliamentary Assembly
8. The issue of the rights of
religious minorities has been addressed by the Assembly on a number
of occasions, and a number of adopted texts tackle discrimination
against religious minorities from various angles. One of the prevailing
themes that emerge from these documents is that member States should
seek to provide “reasonable accommodation” to parents of religious
minorities in order to give them the freedom to raise their children
in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.
This concept is important because it is a practical and effective
means of protecting the right of citizens not to be compelled to
perform actions that go against their deeply held moral or religious
beliefs.
9. In Resolution 2076
(2015) on freedom of religion and living together in a democratic
society, the Assembly stated: “Legislatures and governments must
take account of the fact that political decisions taken in the name
of the ‘neutrality of the State’ may, in practice, give rise to
disguised discrimination against minority religions, which is incompatible
with the right to freedom of religion and the principle of secularity.”
The Assembly added: “while it is aware that States Parties to the
European Convention on Human Rights have a wide margin of discretion
in this field, the Assembly invites States to seek ‘reasonable accommodations’
with a view to guaranteeing equality that is effective, and not
merely formal, in the right to freedom of religion”, and recommended
that member States “promote the social integration of religious
minorities and act at an early stage against those social, economic
and political inequalities which affect those minorities, and resist
their marginalisation and the instigation of hatred against them”.
10. In Resolution 2036
(2015) on tackling intolerance and discrimination in Europe
with a special focus on Christians, the Assembly noted that: “The
reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs and practices constitutes
a pragmatic means of ensuring the effective and full enjoyment of
freedom of religion. When it is applied in a spirit of tolerance,
this concept allows all religious groups to live in harmony in the
respect and acceptance of their diversity.” The Assembly went on
to call on member States to “promote reasonable accommodation …
so as to … respect the right of parents to provide their children
with an education in conformity with their religious or philosophical
convictions, while guaranteeing the fundamental right of children to
education in a critical and pluralistic manner in accordance with
the European Convention on Human Rights, its protocols and the case
law of the European Court of Human Rights”.
11. In Resolution 1928
(2013) on safeguarding human rights in relation to religion
and belief, and protecting religious communities from violence,
the Assembly again called on member States to, “while guaranteeing
the fundamental right of children to education in an objective,
critical and pluralistic manner, respect the right of parents to
ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own
religious and philosophical convictions” (paragraph 9.11).
12. In Resolution 1992
(2014) on the protection of minors against excesses of sects
the Assembly noted that, “in conformity with Resolution 1530 (2007), the protection of minors, parental rights and freedom
of religion or belief are to be promoted in any context, whether
public (including public schools, hospitals, etc.) or private (including
private education systems, the family, sport and other recreational
activities, religious activities, etc.)”. The Assembly added that
it did not “believe that there [were] any grounds for discriminating between
established and other religions, including minority religions and
faiths”.
13. It is therefore abundantly clear that, over the years, this
Assembly has been a vocal advocate for the rights of parents and
children of religious minorities to live freely in conformity with
their religious convictions, and has called on member States to
ensure that these communities are treated with the greatest respect
and tolerance. This is entirely consistent with this committee’s
aim of promoting equality and non-discrimination of the minorities
in society.
3. Evidence of parents and children of religious minorities facing discrimination
14. Despite this Assembly’s consistent
and unquestionable support for the rights of religious minorities
in society, today’s Europe is not immune from the risk of violations
or unjustified limitations on freedom of thought, conscience and
religion. Unfortunately, discrimination on grounds of religion is
increasing. Europeans are aware of this trend: according to a Eurobarometer
survey published in September 2015, “Social acceptance and discrimination
on the grounds of religion and ethnicity”, 50%
of respondents believe that discrimination based on religion or
belief is widespread, up from 39% in 2012. This applies to various
degrees of discrimination in the workplace (33% believe that expression
of religious belief is a disadvantage in a recruitment procedure,
up from 23% in 2012), acceptance in political positions, and acceptance
in social circles (an alarming 30% of respondents state that they
would feel uncomfortable if their adult child was in a relationship
with a Muslim).
50%
of respondents believe that discrimination based on religion or
belief is widespread, up from 39% in 2012. This applies to various
degrees of discrimination in the workplace (33% believe that expression
of religious belief is a disadvantage in a recruitment procedure,
up from 23% in 2012), acceptance in political positions, and acceptance
in social circles (an alarming 30% of respondents state that they
would feel uncomfortable if their adult child was in a relationship
with a Muslim).15. This survey also shows that the European public strongly supports
measures to combat ethnic and religious discrimination, such as
training on diversity in the workplace and monitoring of recruitment
procedures (respectively 80% and 77% of respondents are in favour). The
survey was conducted among citizens of the 28 European Union member
States. Needless to say, extending the research to the other Council
of Europe member States would be relevant and useful.
The
survey was conducted among citizens of the 28 European Union member
States. Needless to say, extending the research to the other Council
of Europe member States would be relevant and useful.16. Further evidence of the trend towards unjustified discrimination
on grounds of religious belief is evidenced by recent decisions
of the European Court of Human Rights. For example, in the judgment
in Dimitrova v. Bulgaria, the Court found
that Bulgaria had violated Article 9 of the Convention on freedom
of thought, conscience and religion. The case concerned measures
taken by the police against Ms Dimitrova on account of her activities
in a religious organisation, and the civil proceedings for damages
she had brought as a consequence. Ms Dimitrova was a member of an
international religious organisation called Word of Life, a Christian
bible-based association, whose previous status as a non-profit organisation
in Bulgaria was revoked in 1994. Following a complaint that the
organisation had a “negative psychological influence” on its followers, the
prosecuting authorities of Bulgaria ordered restrictions on the
rights of its members to assemble and promote their beliefs. The
Court determined that the facts of the case disclosed an interference
with the applicant’s rights under Article 9, since the police action
was taken in direct response to the applicant’s manifestation of
her religious belief and was intended to discourage her from worshipping
and observing her religion in community with other adherents.
the Court found
that Bulgaria had violated Article 9 of the Convention on freedom
of thought, conscience and religion. The case concerned measures
taken by the police against Ms Dimitrova on account of her activities
in a religious organisation, and the civil proceedings for damages
she had brought as a consequence. Ms Dimitrova was a member of an
international religious organisation called Word of Life, a Christian
bible-based association, whose previous status as a non-profit organisation
in Bulgaria was revoked in 1994. Following a complaint that the
organisation had a “negative psychological influence” on its followers, the
prosecuting authorities of Bulgaria ordered restrictions on the
rights of its members to assemble and promote their beliefs. The
Court determined that the facts of the case disclosed an interference
with the applicant’s rights under Article 9, since the police action
was taken in direct response to the applicant’s manifestation of
her religious belief and was intended to discourage her from worshipping
and observing her religion in community with other adherents.17. Focusing directly on the parents’ ability to raise their children
in accordance with their beliefs, in the judgment in Mansur Yalçin and others v. Turkey, the European Court
of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation
of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) to the Convention.
In this case, the applicants, who were adherents of the Alevi faith,
an unorthodox minority branch of Islam, complained that the content
of the compulsory classes in religion and ethics in schools was
based on the Sunni understanding of Islam. The court observed in
particular that in the field of religious instruction, the Turkish
education system was still inadequately equipped to ensure respect
for parents’ convictions.
the European Court
of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation
of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) to the Convention.
In this case, the applicants, who were adherents of the Alevi faith,
an unorthodox minority branch of Islam, complained that the content
of the compulsory classes in religion and ethics in schools was
based on the Sunni understanding of Islam. The court observed in
particular that in the field of religious instruction, the Turkish
education system was still inadequately equipped to ensure respect
for parents’ convictions.18. Despite the judgment in Mansur
Yalçin, the Court recently found that Turkey had violated
Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article
9 of the Convention in respect of the Alevi community in the judgment
in İzzettin Doğan and Others v. Turkey. At paragraph 178,
the Court stated: “[B]y failing to take any account of the specific
needs of the Alevi community, the respondent State has considerably
restricted the reach of pluralism, in so far as its attitude is
irreconcilable with its duty to maintain the true religious pluralism
that characterises a democratic society, while remaining neutral
and impartial on the basis of objective criteria. In that connection
the Court observes that pluralism is also built on the genuine recognition of,
and respect for, diversity and the dynamics of cultural traditions
and identities and religious convictions. The harmonious interaction
of persons and groups with varied identities is essential for achieving
social cohesion.”
At paragraph 178,
the Court stated: “[B]y failing to take any account of the specific
needs of the Alevi community, the respondent State has considerably
restricted the reach of pluralism, in so far as its attitude is
irreconcilable with its duty to maintain the true religious pluralism
that characterises a democratic society, while remaining neutral
and impartial on the basis of objective criteria. In that connection
the Court observes that pluralism is also built on the genuine recognition of,
and respect for, diversity and the dynamics of cultural traditions
and identities and religious convictions. The harmonious interaction
of persons and groups with varied identities is essential for achieving
social cohesion.”19. In Vojnity v. Hungary, the Court concluded
that there was no reasonable proportionality between the total denial
of the applicant’s right to have access to his child and the aim
pursued: the protection of the best interests of the child. The
Court found that the applicant’s religious convictions had had a
direct bearing on the outcome of the matter at issue. Consequently,
there had been a difference of treatment between the applicant and
other parents in an analogous situation, which consisted of reproaching
the applicant for his strong religious convictions. At paragraph
37, the Court also recalled that: “[T]he rights to respect for family
life and religious freedom as enshrined in Articles 8 and 9 of the
Convention, together with the right to respect for parents’ philosophical
and religious convictions in education, as provided in Article 2
of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, convey on parents the right
to communicate and promote their religious convictions in the bringing up
of their children.”
the Court concluded
that there was no reasonable proportionality between the total denial
of the applicant’s right to have access to his child and the aim
pursued: the protection of the best interests of the child. The
Court found that the applicant’s religious convictions had had a
direct bearing on the outcome of the matter at issue. Consequently,
there had been a difference of treatment between the applicant and
other parents in an analogous situation, which consisted of reproaching
the applicant for his strong religious convictions. At paragraph
37, the Court also recalled that: “[T]he rights to respect for family
life and religious freedom as enshrined in Articles 8 and 9 of the
Convention, together with the right to respect for parents’ philosophical
and religious convictions in education, as provided in Article 2
of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, convey on parents the right
to communicate and promote their religious convictions in the bringing up
of their children.”20. With regard to the education of children in public schools,
this is the area where the rights of parents under Article 2 of
Protocol No. 1 are most at risk of being violated. The United Nations
Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief, Mr Heiner
Bielefeldt, specifically noted that the environment in schools may present
particular challenges for families from religious minorities. In
his Interim report of 2015, Mr Bielefeldt stated: “Another field
requiring attention in that regard is education in school. Pressure
exercised on children in schools, for instance with the purpose
of alienating them from their religion or beliefs, may again simultaneously
violate the rights of the child and the rights of his or her parents.
In many such cases, the rights of persons belonging to religious
minorities may additionally be at stake.”
21. Finally, I have become aware of a number of cases across Europe
where children from minority religious communities have been taken
into the custody of the State in the context of child protection
proceedings. While I do not propose to discuss the particular circumstances
of these cases, as many are still the subject of judicial proceedings,
it is important to scrutinise the possibility of religious discrimination
as a motivating factor in any child protection proceedings against
minority religious communities.
22. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights under
Article 8 (respect for private and family life) in the area of parental
rights rests on the clear assumption, grounded in the Convention
and in international law, that a child should grow up in an environment
in which his or her family ties are maintained. The Court has placed
a clear burden on the State to rebut the powerful presumption that
a child should be either in the custody of his parents or, having
demonstrated the necessity of doing otherwise, at least permitted
to maintain contact with them. In Olsson
v. Sweden (No. 1), the Court held (paragraph
72) that: “It is an interference of a very serious order to split
up a family. Such a step must be supported by sufficiently sound
and weighty considerations in the interests of the child ... it
is not enough that the child would be better off if placed in care.”
the Court held (paragraph
72) that: “It is an interference of a very serious order to split
up a family. Such a step must be supported by sufficiently sound
and weighty considerations in the interests of the child ... it
is not enough that the child would be better off if placed in care.”23. On 19 April 2016, Nils Muižnieks, the Council of Europe Commissioner
for Human Rights, told the Parliamentary Assembly, in response to
my question regarding a particular child custody case in Norway,
that the best interest of the child is almost always to be with
the parents and “only in extreme and exceptional cases, where the
child can come to serious harm because of the parents’ behaviour,
should a child be taken away temporarily from the parents”.
24. As previously quoted, the European Court of Human Rights recognised
in the judgment in İzzettin Doğan and
others v. Turkey, that pluralism is also built on genuine
recognition of, and respect for, diversity and the dynamics of cultural
traditions and identities and religious beliefs. The Court then
noted that the harmonious interaction of persons and groups with
varied identities was essential for achieving social cohesion. I
believe that systems that impose a singular “correct” viewpoint
on sensitive and controversial issues are totalitarian in nature
and have no place in a modern democracy. Therefore, the Assembly
must affirm the rights of parents and children of religious minorities
to live in social environments that respect and support their way
of life as far as possible.
4. Conclusions and recommendations
25. The European public is more
ethnically, culturally and religiously diverse than ever before.
This also means that the possibility of discrimination against minority
communities is more likely than ever.
26. In this report, I have highlighted only some of the evidence
that exists to show that there are increasing restrictions on the
rights of parents to raise their children in conformity with their
own religious and philosophical convictions. There is no doubt that
there are many more instances that have not come to light due to
the fact that minority communities are usually the least represented
and have the smallest voice in society. It is therefore all the
more important to address this issue in light of the evidence that
is currently available.
27. As members of the Parliamentary Assembly, it is our duty to
give these under-represented families a voice that demands their
rights are respected, and to call on member States to afford parents
the respect, tolerance and dignity they are due in the weighty task
of raising of their children. I believe that the members of the
committee are all in agreement when it comes to this very important
principle.
28. In conclusion, I propose that the Assembly takes note of the
consensus that has been established in the passing of the numerous
Assembly texts highlighted in this report, and proceeds to take
further constructive steps to address the outstanding concerns that
I have raised; recommending that:
- member States ensure that they do not violate the rights of parents to raise their children in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions;
- member States look to introduce the concept of “reasonable accommodation” to ensure a fair balancing process when dealing with the requests of minority parents;
- the Committee of Ministers investigate how, and to what extent, parents of religious minority communities experience barriers to raising their children in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions;
- the Committee of Ministers draw up guidelines on how to make reasonable accommodations for parents and children belonging to religious minorities.