%20(2).png)
The ‘awkward but necessary bedfellows’- religion and human rights - have historically had an uncomfortable relationship with one another. From the point of view of religion, human rights have proven restrictive through cases such as S.A.S. v France where the ‘Burqa ban’ in France was not considered a violation of the claimant’s rights. And for human rights, there are countless examples of where proponents of women’s rights and LGBT rights have declared religion an obstacle to their goals. Is it possible to reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable? This blog will take the stance of relationship counsellor: highlighting the main tensions in this relationship, before carving a path for a partnership (of sorts) which will harness the best of both parties. Because, realistically, neither human rights nor religion are disappearing any time soon, reconciliation must be the only way forward. Following the theme of a marital dispute, we will assess each party’s (assumed) grievances in turn before finding a mutually beneficial solution.
Partner 1: Religion
As has been mentioned, human rights instruments have been used in a way that has appeared to restrict individuals from exercising their religion as freely as they might wish. The famous case S.A.S. v France is probably the best example of this. The applicant in this case was a French woman who wore the face veil, and argued against the ban on ‘concealing one’s face in public places.’ The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judged that her rights had not been violated. One of the reasons put forward for this was that the ban pursued the aim of “vivre ensemble” (living together). The flimsiness of the notion of ‘living together’ is only one contention to be had with this judgment. Another was the strong presence of Islamophobic marks made in the public sphere in the debates preceding the introduction of the law. The Court noted the presence of such rhetoric in their judgment, and it is disheartening that it did not appear to influence their judgment. This case is among others that represent a conflict between human rights and expression of religion; and where the former has been used to limit and control the latter.
Partner 2: Human Rights
There are many examples that could be used in this section, but for the sake of consistency women’s rights will be discussed. This is because women’s rights are traditionally used when discussing issues such as the Burka ban outlined above. There are varying manifestations of patriarchy that have been put forward as present in most religions, for example; in traditional Catholicism, women’s reproductive rights are restricted; in some sects of Judaism, women are not permitted to divorce their husbands; and orthodox Islamic practices restrict the rights of women to carry out activities such as working. It has been suggested that this is merely a reflection of wider society; and religions have tended to maintain the status quo and thus embed these inequalities further. Regardless, however, of the route, it is clear that the concept of religion is no stranger to allegations of sexism.
Moving forward
In creating a path between these two arguments, the writer is in no way invalidating points on either side of this debate. But by allowing these two positions to sit – stalemate – opposed to each other, we are hindering any chances of progression.
As a rebuttal to the polarised view of human rights and religion, we only need to look at some of the most prominent contributors to the human rights movement in history: Martin Luther King from the US, Shirin Ebadi from Iran, Mahatma Gandhi from India. What all these figures have in common is that they were all people of faith. Clearly they did not feel the need to choose between human rights or religion.
Human rights organisations have historically separated themselves from religion, to ensure that none of the above criticisms of religion can also be levied at themselves. But by presenting themselves in this secular and legalistic manner what they have done is created a void between themselves and all those who have chosen a life of faith. In order to carry out progressive social change, we need to mobilise the masses. By disenfranchising the masses, and the victims of human rights victims themselves, the human rights movement is distancing itself from a powerful force. We have all seen recently how dangerous it is to dismiss the voice of the ‘other’, instead of engaging with it and understanding its routes. By no means is this a suggestion that we ought to turn a blind eye to the many human rights abuses that are carried out in the name of religion. It is instead a call to recognise the potential of a valuable and important alliance.
While human rights advocates talk about the inherent dignity in each of us, religious leaders speak of the power and love of God within us. What these notions both share is the desire to promote, protect, and help all humans for the sake of a common thread within us. Whichever semantics we choose to adopt – can we not agree that there is something which connects all human beings with one another; be it God, dignity, or humanity?