Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Religious Freedom, Free Speech and Equality: Conflict or Cohesion?

  • Published:
Res Publica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There have recently been a number of high profile political incidents, and legal cases, that raise questions about hate speech. At the same time, the tensions, and perceived conflicts, between religion and sexuality have become controversial topics. This paper considers the relationship between religious freedom, free speech and equality through an analysis of recent case law in Great Britain, Canada and the United States. The paper starts with a discussion of how conflicts between these values arise in areas such as hate speech and explores the differences between the European and US approach to this issue. In Council of Europe member states there is an increasing use of the criminal law to regulate hate speech. This paper argues that criminalisation of hate speech poses a distinct risk to the values of free speech and proposes alternative non-legal responses such as a greater use of cultural policy. The paper also explores a range of cases where the religion and sexual orientation conflict has arisen in areas such as the workplace. An analysis of these cases suggests that although there is no perfect resolution of this issue, it is possible to develop a set of principles that encourage a balance between the values of religious freedom, free speech and equality even in difficult situations where there is a conflict between religion and sexuality. The paper concludes with some practical recommendations for managing the tensions or conflicts between religious freedom, free speech and equality in liberal democracies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. R v Secretary of State for Education and Employment ex parte Williamson [2005] H.R.L.R. 14 at para 16.

  2. See incident of ‘Gay Couple Turned Away from B and B by Christian Owners’, The Guardian/The Observer, Sunday 21 March, 2010.

  3. Same Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships, The New York Times, Wed 28 June, 2010.

  4. 561 U. S. (2010), U.S. Supreme Court.

  5. Ladele v Islington, [2009] EWCA Civ 1357.

  6. Macfarlane v Relate Avon Ltd, [2010] EWCA Civ B1.

  7. The case concerned racist statements made as part of a Danish Broadcasting Corporation television programme (Jersild v Denmark (A/298) (1995) 19 E. H. R. R. 1, ECHR).

  8. The case concerned the Austrian state’s confiscation of a film on the grounds that it would offend Catholic religious feeling (Otto-Preminger v Austria (1995) 19 E. H. R. R. 34).

  9. [2004] WL 741919 (QBD).

  10. [2004] EWHC 860 (Admin) at para 115 and 31.

  11. [2004] EWHC 860 at para 44.

  12. [2004] EWHC 860 at para 38-40.

  13. ET 2203694/2007 (unreported). ET Judgment of 3 July 2008 (copy of case with the author). The final decision of the Court of Appeal is reported at [2009] EWCA Civ 1357.

  14. See Darby v Sweden, 187 Eur. Ct. H. R. (Ser A) (1990). See the discussion by Carolyn Evans (2001) at p. 127. Another example of permissible ‘contracting out’ of the right to freedom of religion or belief is the case of the Muslim school teacher who was found to have limited his right to religious freedom when he accepted an employment contract which included set working hours which prevented him from taking time off for Friday prayers. See X v United Kingdom, App. No.8160/78, 22 Eur. Comm’n H. R. Dec. and Rep. 27 (1981).

  15. London Borough of Islington v Ladele (Liberty as Intervenor), Appeal No: UKEAT/0453/08/RN, Decision of 10 December 2008 (at para. 126).

  16. [2009] EWCA Civ 1357.

  17. ET 2203694/2007 (unreported). ET Judgment of 3 July 2008 (copy of case with the author), paras 27–28.

  18. London Borough of Islington v Ladele (Liberty as Intervenor), Appeal No: UKEAT/0453/08/RN, Decision of 10 December 2008 (at para 130)

  19. Trinity Western University v British Columbia College Teachers [2001] 1 SCR 772.

  20. Bob Jones University v US, 461 US 574 (2010).

  21. Boy Scouts of America v Dale 530 U.S. 640 (2000).

  22. Boy Scouts of America v Dale 530 U.S. 640 (2000).

  23. Boy Scouts of America v Dale 530 U.S. 640 (2000), at 676 and 686.

  24. Christian Legal Society v Martinez 561 U. S. (2010).

  25. James Meikle, Ex-archbishop attacks judges over gay counselling ruling, The Guardian, 29 April 2010.

  26. Leyla Sahin v Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, Decision of 10 November 2005, Application No. 44774/98, per Judge Tulkens, para 4.

References

  • ACAS. 2005. Research paper: Management handling of sexual orientation, religion and belief in the workplace. London: ACAS Publication Ref: 01/09.

  • Audi, Robert. 2000. Religious commitment and secular reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bader, Veit. 2007. Secularism or democracy? Associational governance of religious diversity. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamforth, Nicholas, Maleiha Malik, and Colm O’Cenneide. 2008. Discrimination law: theory and context. London: Sweet and Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cane, Peter, Carolyn Evans, and Zoe Robinson. 2008. Law and religion in theoretical and historical context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Carolyn. 2001. Freedom of religion under the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, Ivan. 2006. Extreme speech under international and regional human rights standards. In Extreme speech and democracy, ed. Ivan Hare, and James Weinstein, 62–80. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinze, Eric. 2006. Cumulative jurisprudence and hate speech: sexual orientation and analogies to disability, age and obesity. In Extreme speech and democracy, ed. Ivan Hare, and James Weinstein, 265–285. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koppelman, Andrew. 2006. You can’t hurry love: Why antidiscrimination protections for gay people should have religious exemptions. Brooklyn Law Review 72 (1): 125–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leigh, Ian. 2006. Homophobic speech, equality denial and religious expression. In Extreme speech and democracy, ed. Ivan Hare, and James Weinstein, 375–399. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCulloch, Diarmaid. 2004. Reformation: Europe’s house divided 1490–1700. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malik, Makeiha. 2006. Extreme speech and liberalism. In Extreme speech and democracy, ed. Ivan Hare, and James Weinstein, 96–120. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moens, Gabriel. 1989. The action-belief dichotomy and freedom of religion. Sydney Law Review 12 (1): 195–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, David A. J. 1999. Free speech and the politics of identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stonewall, 2007. Consultation response: Discrimination Law Review. London: Stonewall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stychin, Carl. 2009. Faith in the future: sexuality, religion and the public sphere. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 29 (4): 729–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, Pieter, and Godefridus J. H. van Hoof. 1984. Theory and practice of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maleiha Malik.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Malik, M. Religious Freedom, Free Speech and Equality: Conflict or Cohesion?. Res Publica 17, 21–40 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-011-9141-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-011-9141-7

Keywords

Navigation