Part three of Security,Human Rights and Religion. I think one can safely assume that most adults in the UK are aware of the expression Human Rights, and are broadly aware that most of these rights have been clarified within the European Union and also, more particularly, in the UK.
Article 9 is concerned with "Freedom of thought, conscience and religion". This has been explained as protecting peoples' rights in relation to a broad range of views, beliefs, thoughts and "positions of conscience" as well as to their faith in a particular religion.
However it just so happens that Article 9 is one of four articles in which the rights are qualified, that takes my argument into the domain of lawyers and judges, neither of which I am qualified in but, while wishing that "things" would be better if their meaning was crystal clear I will push on.
"The State is never permitted to interfere with a person's right to hold a particular belief". My comments follow, a person can think anything they like, end of story! However with the advances in the knowledge of genes and brain surgery it could be nice to know that the State cannot interfere with the way a person thinks!
Then along come several qualifications, I quote: "It [the State] can only restrict their right to manifest a belief [for example, worshipping, teaching, practising and observing their belief either in public or in private]". My comment, there is plenty of grist for the mill there as lawyers and judges seek to establish case law in respect of article 9, particularly when the qualifications concerning public safety, public order, health, morals and the rights and freedom of others are thrown into the mix.
To be continued in Part four of "Security, Human Rights and Religion"
Frederick W Gilling 07 September 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment