The International Center for Law and Religion Studies at Brigham Young University in Utah played host once again to its International Law and Religion Symposium on 6–8 October 2013. This was the twentieth such gathering and the mood was distinctly celebratory, reflected in busy leisure activities alongside the scholarly programme. As has become customary, delegates came from all corners of the globe, allowing contributions from nations whose scholars rarely have the opportunity to participate in international dialogue on the important issue of religion and human rights. There was simultaneous translation for a greater number of languages than at the United Nations. This ‘tower of Babel’ may have placed additional logistical burdens on the organisers but the programme was thoughtfully conceived and seamlessly executed by a team fronted by Professor Elizabeth Clarke.
The theme of the symposium was ‘Religion and human rights’, chosen partly in acknowledgment of the 1700th anniversary of the proclamation of the Edict of Milan, by which Roman emperors of the East and the West effectively granted religious freedom throughout the Roman Empire. Constantine I and his brother-in-law Lincinus met in Milan in 313 ad and collaborated in creating a letter to the defeated Maximin:
We thought it fit to commend these things most fully to your care that you may know that we have given to those Christians free and unrestricted opportunity of religious worship. When you see that this has been granted to them by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made that we may not seem to detract from any dignity or any religion.
Of particular significance were the two keynote addresses delivered at the opening evening. Judge Françoise Tulkens, the Belgian appointee in the European Court of Human Rights from 1998 until her retirement in 2012, spoke with disarming candour of the development of Article 9 jurisprudence in Strasbourg and the Court's attempts to deal fairly with conflicting rights. She indicated that the Court should consistently lean in favour of maximising the content of all rights, rather than sacrificing one right in favour of another. Similarly, Malcolm Evans, Professor of Public International Law at the University of Bristol Law School and Chair of the United Nations Sub-Committee for the Prevention of Torture, spoke of the fact that Article 9 inevitably overlaps with other rights such as freedom of association and freedom of expression. The overarching concept was one of dignity and respect, which, he suggested, is a more appropriate formulation of the approach generally referred to a ‘reasonable accommodation’.
The subsequent two days were spent pursuing these themes through a series of plenary sessions and regional presentations addressing national issues from countries as diverse as Ethiopia, Guyana, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Laos, Macedonia, Mongolia, Nepal and Vietnam. The shared stories revealed common themes, but tackled in a variety of ways depending upon the cultural and historic traditions of the country in question. Freedom of religion is secured in a number of different manners, and anti-discrimination provisions come in various forms but their broad aims are identical.
Several sessions were given over to judicial considerations in which judges from both common law jurisdictions and otherwise shared their experience of adjudicating upon cases with a religious dimension. Each made plain that they left their personal beliefs at the door of the courtroom and determined disputes with a religious or moral dimension with total independence and impartiality.
It was the United States president George Washington who observed that ‘the conscientious scruples of all [people] should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness; and it is my wish and desire that the laws may always be accommodated to them’. What this symposium demonstrated is that the manner in which law can yield so as to accommodate the consciences of religious adherents depends upon a number of factors, but with goodwill and a generosity of spirit, a proper adjustment can usually be made. This ‘practical concordance’ may not be easy to achieve judicially: both religionists and secularists have unreal expectations of judges. But extra-judicial solutions, through mediation and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) need greater attention, as well as addressing the growing religious illiteracy of the state.
There are clear arguments, both conceptually and practically, as to why freedom of religion ought not to be collapsed into freedom of expression and freedom of association. This symposium left delegates in no doubt as to the value of freedom of religious as a distinct human right.
