Abstract

Abstract Despite the normative integration between freedom of religion or belief (FORB) and women’s equality, these synergies are difficult to discern and there is a common misperception that women’s rights to equality and FORB are clashing rights. This is compounded by the extensive religiously phrased reservations by states upon ratification of international treaties that amplify this misperception that FORB serves to restrict women’s rights to equality. The advocacy groups supporting these rights, and also their normative sources in international human rights law instruments, are largely distinct. However, general non-discrimination provisions do address both, and General Comment no. 28 captures both rights holistically. The correctives to these misperceptions lie in reflecting upon the universality, indivisibility, interdependence, and interrelatedness of all human rights norms. They also lie in the realization that FORB is a right like any other. FORB is neither a right of “religion” as such nor an instrument for support of religiously phrased reservations and limitations on women’s rights to equality. This is particularly the case with harmful practices, as elaborated in the joint general recommendation/General Comment no. 31 of the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and no. 18 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child however, the core principles also extend to other infringements of women’s rights to equality. It is essential to (re)vitalize the synergies between FORB and women’s equality in order to advance each of these rights, to be able to address overlapping rights concerns, and to adequately acknowledge intersectional claims. Furthermore, the relevant advocacy groups and human rights mechanisms need to give further attention to this as a priority matter.

Highlights

  • Observing the synergies between freedom of religion or belief (FORB) and women’s equality has not been made straightforward by the architecture of international human rights law

  • This serves to exacerbate theperception of a necessary and inevitable clash between women’s rights to equality and FORB. The juxtaposition of these two allegedly conflicting rights is conceptually untenable and counterproductive. It violates the universality of human rights in and of itself, since unless there is a holistic approach to human rights, its “indivisibility” and “interdependence” is denied

  • The normative standards upholding FORB are Article 18 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.[6]

Read more

Summary

International Human Rights Sources

International human rights provisions in hard law upholding FORB do not mention women’s equality. International human rights provisions in hard law protecting women’s equality (e.g., CEDAW) make no mention of FORB or even of religion. The normative standards upholding FORB are Article 18 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 18 of the ICCPR, and the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.[6] These provisions make no mention of women’s equality or even of non-discrimination on the basis of sex. The reservation from Algeria regarding Article 2, for example, states that the elimination of discrimination against women is subject to the condition that they do not conflict with provisions of the Family Code It does not, specify exactly what this implies for the rights upheld in CEDAW. FORB instruments would suggest ‘religion’ should be read as ‘religion or belief’ due to language of Article 18 of the ICCPR and expanded in General Comment 22 of the UN Human Rights Committee

UN Mechanisms
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call