4 The interaction between freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief

Like freedom of religion or belief, the right to freedom of opinion and expression means that individuals have the right to acquire new knowledge and develop their own opinions, and to have, change or freely communicate their own convictions. This is described in detail in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Strategy for promoting freedom of expression in foreign and development policy (2021).

Freedom of expression plays an essential part of the right to freedom of religion or belief. Wearing a particular item of clothing or following special dietary rules may be an important expression of an individual’s religion or belief (see Chapter 2 for examples from Norway). Freedom of expression is thus a vital component and pre-requisite of the individual’s right to freely exercise their religion or belief in all practical aspects of their daily lives. Although the focus of these two rights can differ, both protect the integrity of the individual person and their right to form their own opinions and convictions.

Freedom of expression also encompasses the right of individuals to manifest their religion or beliefs, including preaching, which is imperative in many religious and belief communities. At the same time, freedom of expression includes the right to criticise other people’s religions or beliefs. However, this right may be restricted under certain circumstances, for example to protect the rights and freedoms of others, and to prevent hate speech.

Freedom of expression is enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that:

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
1. For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
2. For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Blasphemy and apostasy

Freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression have been pitted against one another at times. During the period 1999–2010, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation proposed various resolutions in the UN on combating defamation of religions.

The clash between freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression reached its climax during the controversy over the Danish cartoons featuring the Prophet Muhammad in 2005–2006. The resolutions called for legal protection against defamation of religions, and Islam in particular. This was inconsistent with the premise of both freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression.

In 2011, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution on combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatisation of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief (HRC res. 16/18).

As part of the follow up to this resolution, a mechanism was created to facilitate the discussion of complex cultural, religious, political, and legal issues through a series of expert-level intergovernmental meetings. This is known as the Istanbul Process.

The Istanbul Process encourages the implementation of HRC res. 16/18, but it is clear from the meetings that there is considerable disagreement. The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief has also pointed to the importance of linking implementation of the resolution to other relevant frameworks, such as the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. The Rabat Plan of Action provides countries with guidance on how to weigh considerations relating to the right to freedom of expression (Article 19) against the prohibition against certain forms of hate speech (Article 20) in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

During the period 2011–2012, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights initiated a series of expert workshops to promote international debate on hatred towards religious groups. This resulted in the adoption of the Rabat Plan of Action. While the plan of action recognises the right of countries to restrict freedom of speech and introduce legislation prohibiting incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence, it emphasises that the threshold for such restrictions must be high and proposes a six-part threshold test for contextual evaluations. Further, the Plan of Action advocates the use of non-restrictive measures to counter intolerance, stigmatisation and hatred. These could include cross-cultural dialogue and education to promote tolerance and diversity, as well as measures and policies that promote and protect the freedom of expression of minorities and indigenous peoples.

Discussions about blasphemy and blasphemy laws are still relevant and show the juxtaposition of freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression by religious actors. In discussions relating to criticism of religion perceived to be blasphemous, it is often assumed that the two rights reflect different interests. Whereas freedom of expression is often presented as the epitome of liberal freedoms because it allows space for political provocation, artistic experimentation and religious criticism, it is widely believed that freedom of religion or belief restricts precisely this space. Freedom of religion or belief is thus perceived to be a ‘less liberal’ right.

Laws prohibiting apostasy (renunciation of a religion) still apply in many countries and may impose severe penalties. This is incompatible with the right to freedom of religion or belief, which safeguards the individual’s right to choose or change their religion or belief.

Also, laws prohibiting blasphemy restrict the right to freedom of expression. While arguments about the need to protect religious communities are often used to justify these laws, they are in practice often a means of stifling criticism of existing power structures. There are several examples of blasphemy laws being used as a basis for accusations against religious minorities or dissidents, including non-believers. Multiple Muslim countries have defended blasphemy laws citing the argument that they are based on sharia law and are intended to protect Islam as a religion. But such laws can also be used to quell debate and persecute religious and belief minorities both within and outside of Islam.

Hate speech against minorities

Promoting the positive synergies between freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression does not diminish the need to address potential dilemmas. Hate speech and incitement to hate crimes are often specifically targeted towards minorities, including religious minorities. Speech can be harmful even if it is not defined as illegal. Hate speech can create a climate of fear, discouraging minorities from participating in the public debate. It may also serve to sow or reinforce division between groups in society. Social media has a become a tool for spreading hate speech, magnifying the impacts of hate speech on individuals, groups and society as a whole.

In 2019, as part of an effort to combat growing xenophobia and racism in many countries, the UN Secretary-General launched the UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech. The UN defines hate speech as, “any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.”

The UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech is guided by four key principles:

1. The strategy and its implementation is to be in line with the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The UN supports more speech, not less, as the key means to address hate speech;
2. Tackling hate speech is the responsibility of all – governments, societies, the private sector, starting with individual women and men. All are responsible, all must act;
3. In the digital age, the UN should support a new generation of digital citizens, empowered to recognise, reject and stand up to hate speech;
4. We need to know more to act effectively – this calls for coordinated data collection and research, including on the root causes, drivers and conditions conducive to hate speech.

The plan incorporates 13 key commitments.

The Council of Europe also works to combat hate speech. Their efforts are based on several recommendations from the Committee of Ministers to the member states, including Recommendation on hate speech (1997) and Recommendation on blasphemy, religious insults and hate speech against persons on grounds of their religion (2007). Recommendation on combating hate speech (2022) establishes the first and to date only international intergovernmental definition of hate speech where hate speech based on affiliation or perceived affiliation with a religion or religious group is included in the definition.

The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) monitors implementation of ECRI recommendations in Council of Europe member states. This includes ECRI General Policy Recommendation No. 1 on combating racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and intolerance, No. 5 on preventing and combating anti-Muslim racism and discrimination, No. 9 on preventing and combating Antisemitism, and No. 15 on Combating Hate Speech. Norway’s national strategies are in line with the ECRI’s recommendations.

In a number of countries and regions, the right to freedom of religion or belief is under great pressure. The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief has urged national authorities to introduce all necessary measures to combat discrimination and prohibit all expressions of hatred that constitute incitement to violence. Under certain circumstances, countries may place limitations on freedom of expression. The purpose should never be to protect the religion itself.

As in the case of freedom of religion or belief, any such limitations on freedom of expression must be prescribed by law, serve a legitimate purpose and be necessary to protect public order, health or morals, national security or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

The exercise of the right to freedom of expression may be subject to certain restrictions, as set out in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Such restrictions must be prescribed by law and must be necessary to ensure: 3.a) respect for the rights or reputations of others; and 3.b) protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. In addition to this, under Article 20: 1) any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law; and 2) any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

For Norway, it is important to stress that freedom of expression is a human right and a building block of any democracy. Respect for freedom of expression remains essential even in situations where there is contention regarding the statements put forward. It is also important to emphasise that freedom of religion or belief is a human right that cannot be fully realised without freedom of expression, and vice versa. Like most countries, Norway has laws that prohibit hate speech or incitement to violence, and that thus curtail freedom of expression. The prohibition against discriminatory or hateful statements in section 185 of the Norwegian Penal Code is intended to protect both minorities and society as a whole from the antagonism that can arise if hate speech against minorities is allowed to spread. Such statements are punishable by law if they are made in public or in the presence of others.

What is the role of the Foreign Service?

• Have a good understanding of Norwegian positions on freedom of expression, freedom of religion or belief, and blasphemy, as well as the Government’s Action Plans on Gender and Sexual Diversity, Racism and Discrimination on the Grounds of Ethnicity and Religion, Anti-Semitism, and Discrimination and Hatred Towards Muslims.
• Make active use of the Norwegian Strategy for promoting freedom of expression in foreign and development policy to promote human rights and democracy.
• Determine whether countries have repealed legislation that prohibits apostasy and blasphemy, or in some other way restricts the right to change one’s religion. If countries have criminalised blasphemy or in some other way prohibited it in legislation, this is incompatible with the right to freedom of expression.
• Follow individual cases in which defenders of the right to freedom of religion or belief have come under pressure. In cases of a sensitive nature, it can be useful to coordinate closely with like-minded countries. If helpful for the case, consider issuing a démarche together with other countries. Attending court hearings can also be considered. It sends a message to the authorities and is often greatly appreciated by the families of those concerned.
• Be in contact with international organisations that Norway supports and that carry out activities at country level, and support measures promoting freedom of religion or belief, including interreligious dialogue, tolerance, anti-discrimination and respect for human rights, in line with these guidelines.
• Be in contact with the UN at country level on implementation of the UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech.
• Support activities and events in connection with the UN’s International Day Commemorating Victims of Violence Based on Religion or Belief, held annually on August 22.

Dealing with incidents such as the publication of cartoons of religious figures, Quran burning, etc.

• Freedom of expression is a human right and a cornerstone of any democracy. It is enshrined in the Norwegian Constitution. The Norwegian Government will defend the right to freedom of expression, even when it does not agree with the statement being put forward.
• The right to freedom of expression is fundamental, but it is not absolute. Restrictions on freedom of expression must be prescribed by law and involve the protection of other people’s rights and reputations, the protection of confidential information, national security, territorial integrity, public safety and order, and the protection of public health and morals.
• Freedom of religion or belief is also a constitutional human right in Norway. Freedom of religion or belief cannot be fully realised without freedom of expression. Likewise, realisation of freedom of expression hinges on freedom of religion or belief. Freedom of expression is vital to ensuring an open and constructive dialogue about religion and belief, and without freedom of expression, it is not possible to safeguard the right of individuals to practise their religion or belief.
• In Norway, all people have the right to freedom of expression and the right to practise their religion or belief without harassment.
• The Norwegian Government will intensify efforts to combat online harassment and draw up a new action plan to combat racism, extremism and radicalisation. The Government has also appointed a committee to enhance knowledge about radicalisation and extremism.