This 2-part interview was filmed just blocks from where hostages were freed by a commando unit. They were allegedly held by Man Haron Monis, a self-styled Muslim cleric was born in Iran and sought political asylum in Australia in 1996. He was well known to the Australian police and is currently on bail for being an accessory to the murder of his ex-wife.
Sec. Kerry with Rabbi Saperstein
Conversely, the lack of religious freedom leads to increased hostilities and constrained liberties sometimes shocking to the human conscience. For example … [read the entire article at Deseret News]
On the occasion of Human Rights Day 2014 (Dec. 10), the Religious Freedom & Business Foundation (RFBF) is pleased to release the first in a series of articles by RFBF Research Fellow Rebeca Vázquez Gómez studying the balance between workers’ religious freedom and company’s interests at the European Court of Human Rights.
Instead of promoting reasonable accommodations of religious freedom at the workplace, the Court strongly protects the employer and challenges the employees to choose between resigning or waive the exercise of their beliefs. A number of the difficulties employees face in exercising their right to religious freedom in the workplace arise when the work schedule established by the employer creates an obstacle for the employee to observe his or her religious duties of rest or prayer on specific days or hours.
The Court acts as the “guardian” of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), passed by the Council of Europe in 1950 to promote and protect these rights in all its member states. Article 9 of the Convention protects religious freedom, referring to its content in paragraph 1 and its limits in paragraph 2:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Religious freedom involves the right to have a religion or beliefs and the right to express them. The internal liberty is absolute but its external manifestation is subject to some limits that must meet nevertheless certain requirements: they must be set by law and necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or to guarantee the rights and freedoms of others. The role of the ECtHR is a three-step check:
· A sincere religious practice is being exercised (step 1),
· That exercise has been restricted (step 2), and
· That restriction is legally justified, that is, it fulfills the terms of Article 9.2 ECHR (step 3).
In court cases involving Jews, Christians and Muslims, the Court, and the European Commission of Human Rights (ECmHR) that, until 1998, examined the admissibility of applications submitted to the ECtHR, has consistently ruled in favor of the employer versus the employee seeking to practice his or her faith. Five cases show these difficulties:
In the first case, X. v. the United Kingdom (Commission decision of 12 March 1981), a Muslim primary school teacher at the London education system asked for permission to be absent for about 45 minutes on Fridays, in order to pray at a mosque. The headmaster allowed the absence, however the headmasters at the next schools he works at do not do the same. They iIn fact, the Education Authority finally forced him to resign. The ECmHR held that there had not been interference with the teacher’s religious freedom because he “remained free to resign if and when he found that his teaching obligations conflicted with his religious duties” (par. 14).
In Konttinen v. Finland (Commission decision of 3 December 1996), the claimant is a Seventh-day Adventist Church State Railways’ employee. Per his faith, he can’t work on the Sabbath, Saturday, which begins at sunset on Friday. And so, he left work early 5 times a year when the sun set before his shift ended. The company fired him. The ECmHR held that “…having found his working hours to conflict with his religious convictions, the applicant was free to relinquish his post”, adding that he “…was not dismissed because of his religious convictions but for having refused to respect his working hours” (point of law 2, par. 12).
In the third case, Stedman v. the United Kingdom (Commission decision of 9 April 1997), a travel agency’s assistant manager was required to work on Sundays. After some months, she refused to continue working on Sundays because, as a Christian, it’s a day dedicated to non-commercial, family and religious activities. As a consequence, she was dismissed. The ECmHR reiterated that she was free to resign and she “…was dismissed for failing to agree to work certain hours rather than her religious beliefs as such…” (point of law 1, par. 5).
In Kosteski v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (judgment of 13 April 2006), the plaintiff worked for the electricity public company of Macedonia. He was absent from work on two Muslim holidays. The company fined him, as he didn’t prove his Muslim faith. The ECtHR supported the employer’s arguments (par. 39), and so did not consider the viability of an accommodation of his religious needs.
In the most recent case, Francesco Sessa v. Italy (judgment of 3 April 2012), concerning a Jewish lawyer, who was the counsel for a plaintiff in a criminal proceeding, the judge set the a hearing on a day coinciding with a Jewish holiday, and rejected his application for a later date, asserting that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the counsel’s presence was optional. The ECtHR held that there was no interference with the right to religious freedom because the lawyer “…could have arranged to be replaced at the hearing in question…”. And, added, in any case, an interference would be justified on the protection of the public’s right to the proper administration of justice (par. 38).
Three of the seven ECtHR’s judges disagreed. In their dissent, they argued that the Code of Criminal Procedure gives the plaintiff the option to attend the hearing and only the plaintiff can decide whether to take advantage of it. And, a reasonable accommodation of religious freedom was possible without compromising the proper administration of justice: the plaintiff had addressed his need well in advance (par. 10). Because the authorities neither tried that adjustment nor proved its potential damage, there was a violation of religious freedom (par. 15).
As evidenced by these decisions, there is an apparent indifference by the ECtHR toward workers’ religious freedom. The Court supports the employers who do not accommodate the religious needs of their workers, even when an adjustment was not economically disadvantageous. The Court has declared that there was no interference with religious freedom exercise because the employees were “free to resign” (or they could be replaced -in Sessa– or didn’t even show enough evidence of being manifesting their faith -in Kosteski-). Since the ECtHR rejected that, according to Article 9.2 ECHR, there was a limitation (step 2), it does not even enter to value whether it was justified (step 3).
It appears more appropriate to study each situation individually and admit that if the employee’s religious expression conflicts with the work schedule, there is a restriction on his or her right to religious liberty (step 2). Then, it should be checked if this restriction has a legal basis and is really necessary (proportionate) to protect any of the legal interests mentioned in Article 9.2 ECHR – public safety, health, morals or order, or rights and freedoms of others – (step 3). With regards to labor, the most likely impact would be the entrepreneurial freedom – for private companies – or the interest of the general population – in the public sector. It would be about finding balance between the two positions. The ECtHR has followed this reasoning regarding other protected rights for a long time, and yet has failed to do so with respect to religious freedom seeming to have no validity in the workplace, as we have just seen.
Nevertheless, a change of approach is detected in the ECtHR case law. In the last two cases, the Court has at least accepted the appeal and ruled on the merits. And in Sessa v. Italy, the three dissenting judges were in favor of an adequate analysis of this kind of issue and a reasonable accommodation of religious freedom at the workplace. As we observed in a subsequent deceision about religious symbols, this progress continues in Eweida and others v. the United Kingdom of 15 January 2013, which could confirm that the ECtHR’s previous indifference toward employees’ religious freedom may be changing.
|
Rather than religious freedom being in contradiction with other basic human rights, Grim describes how they all advance or decline together.
This is part of wider press coverage during the recent G20 Summit. Stay tuned for Part II, next week. |
|
NEWS
More links to come as they become available on line.
DISCUSSION
EVENT: Wednesday, December 10, 2014, from 2 to 4 p.m., in the Bahá’í International Community United Nations Office, located at 866 UN Plaza (Suite 120), New York, NY 10017. To RSVP, please email unforb@gmail.com
To consider and address these questions, the United Nations NGO Committee on Freedom of Religion or Belief in New York will host a panel discussion on Wednesday, December 10, 2014 featuring Dr. Brian Grim, president of the Religious Freedom & Business Foundation, with responses from Prof. Silvio Ferrari, an expert on freedom of religion and the law, and Jeffrey French, an expert in the peacemaking potential of business.
Each speaker will provide brief remarks, leading into a discussion moderated by Michael De Dora, president of the NGO Committee on Freedom of Religion or Belief.
More information on the speakers:
Some of the most important arguments for religious freedom come from the work of scholar Brian Grim and his collaborators. Grim teamed up with sociologist Roger Finke to write The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century. One of the most interesting arguments there is that religious freedom is correlated with a whole range of other good things. They make a strong argument, for instance, that the restriction of religious freedom is correlated with violence.
Now, Grim is making the case that religious freedom is good for business — and hence for economic growth, which in turns encourages stability and peace in a virtuous cycle. He has founded the Religious Freedom & Business Foundation to promote the idea. Explore the links here to see what he is up to.
In a recent article in the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, Brian Grim, Greg Clark, and Robert Edward Snyder published their findings that “religious freedom contributes to better economic and business outcomes and that advances in religious freedom are in the self-interest of businesses, government, and societies by contributing to successful and sustainable enterprises that benefit societies and individuals.” Grim et al. demonstrate a strong connection between religious freedom and economic growth. This raises another question: does religious freedom also correlate with economic liberty?
In this essay, I compare data from the Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal’s 2014 Index of Economic Freedom with the Pew 2012 Government Restrictions on Religion Index and the 2012 Social Hostilities Toward Religion Index … read the entire article.
Annicchino & Pope Francis
Pope Francis will visit the seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, on Tuesday, a one-day visit that will include an address to the parliament as well as the Council of Europe.
But with this visit, is the Church interfering in the political life of States — and the European Union — or is the Pope’s visit an opportunity for encounter and dialogue?
German Cardinal Reinhard Marx, president of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community (COMECE), has underlined that Pope Francis, through his visit to the European Parliament, “is signaling his support and encouragement of the pursuit of the integration and unity of Europe.” The dialogue between religious confessions and regarding religious liberty play an important role in this process.
Aleteia asked Dr. Pasquale Annicchino to help us understand several aspects of EU policy related to religious freedom, and the impact of the Pope’s visit may have for this important Institution.
|
PRESS RELEASE: Media coverage of religious freedom & business during the G20 Summit in Brisbane, Australia. NEW: Brian Grim interviewed on his book with Roger Finke, The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution & Conflict in the 21st Century (Cambridge University Press) |
|
RADIO
NEWS
More links to come as they become available on line.
DISCUSSION
Letter from the PresidentDear Friends and Colleagues,
“Thrilling” isn’t usually associated with religious freedom. Yet, thrilling best describes the response of major international organizations and business, government and religious leaders to good business playing an instrumental role in supporting interfaith understanding, peace and religious freedom.
Of course, much work needs to be done, but this new traction suggests that responsible business has the power not only to create a global future of innovative and sustainable economies but also a future where religious freedom and diversity are respected.
Please join me on this amazing journey described below. And, if you’re able, join me at the UN in New York on December 10, where I’ll give a further update!
Brian Grim
President
Religious Freedom & Business Foundation
PS: If you’d like weekly updates, you can sign up here.
G20, Brisbane
G20 Interfaith SummitI am currently on a four-city speaking and media tour of Australia in conjunction with the G20 meetings underway today in Brisbane where world leaders are discussing new approaches to ensure economic growth is sustained in the years ahead that lifts people out of poverty.
On Australian national and local radio I’ve been discussing how religious freedom is an essential component of sustainable economic growth, because when citizens of all faiths are active members of a society and draw inspiration from their faith, innovation and motivation increases exponentially.
Last night, as part of the “Important Conversations” series, I discussed my recent blog at the World Economic Forum (see below) on how business impact investment among religiously persecuted groups, such as Christians in the Middle East or Dalits in Nepal and Pakistan, not only empowers these marginalized groups, but also removes space that otherwise might be controlled by terrorist movements, such as ISIS.
On Monday, I’ll be speaking at the G20 Interfaith Summit that brings together some of the best minds from around the world to discuss how faith matters in creating economies that are sustainable and ethical. This inaugural event aims to annually accompany the G20 Leaders Summit. Next year’s G20 summit is in Turkey.
Later next week, I’ll speak to the Trustees Meeting of the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia (CEDA), then to students and faculty at Notre Dame Law School (Sydney) and Adelaide University Law School.
In each of these, I’ll discuss the empirical research showing that freedom of religion or belief, when protected by governments and respected by citizens, results not only in less conflict and violence but also in better social and economic outcomes, including better lives for women. A corollary to this is that business respect for and encouragement of interfaith understanding pays dividends in peace and stability as well as provides benefits to the bottom line.
World Economic Forum
UN’s Ban-Ki-moon
United Nations Business for Peace & New YorkIn follow-up to a series of successful partnering events with the UN Global Compact’s Business for Peace initiative, including a global webinar and a publication launched together with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, I’ll be speaking on the economic and business case for religious freedom, hosted by the freedom of religion or belief NGO committee at the United Nations in New York on Dec. 10 at 2PM at 866 UN Plaza (Suite 120).
Jeffrey French of Business for Peace, and Prof. Silvio Ferrari of Milan and Princeton Universities will comment on my presentation. For more information on this event, contact:
Michael De Dora
President www.unfrb.org
NGO Committee on Freedom of Religion or Belief
Email: unforb@gmail.com
To learn more and/or get involved with the RFBF, see:
Grim at WEF, Dubai
Established in 2008, the Network of Global Agenda Councils is an invitation-only knowledge network – considered the world’s largest thinktank – that serves as an international brain trust to the World Economic Forum and the world at large.
The Network gives its Members a unique platform to support the Forum’s vision to better understand and catalyze global, regional and industry transformation. The Role of Religion Council is meeting to plan for a global strategy on how business can better navigate religious issues as well as be a positive force for supporting interfaith dialogue and peace.
Grim also participated in a private Global Citizenship dinner with former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and WEF Founder and Executive Chairman, Klaus Schwab (see pictures). Also attending were former President of Ghana, John Kufuor, former president of the American Bar Association, Laurel Bellows, Catholic Cardinal John Onaiyekan of Nigeria, and Sojourner’s President and Founder Jim Wallis.
Brown & Schwab
|
Kufuor
|
Bellows
|
Onaiyekan & Wallis
|
Grim is discussing his research that empirically shows that freedom of religion or belief, when protected by governments and respected by citizens, results not only in less conflict and violence but also in better social and economic outcomes, including better lives for women. He is also discussing his new research on how business respect for and encouragement of interfaith understanding pays dividends in peace and stability as well as provides benefits to the bottom line.
Thank you for your support!
