The Freedom of Thought Report 2019 Key Countries Edition A global report on the rights, legal status and discrimination against humanists, atheists and the non-religious The Freedom of Thought Report 2019 Key Countries Edition A global report on the rights, legal status and discrimination against humanists, atheists and the non-religious The Freedom of Thought Report 2019: A Global Report on the Rights, Legal Status and Discrimination Against Humanists, Atheists and the Non-religious, was created by Humanists International. Humanists International is the global representative body of the humanist movement, uniting a diversity of non- religious organisations and individuals. Its vision is for everyone to live a life of dignity in a world where universal human rights are respected and protected, and where states uphold secularism. Its mission is to build, support and represent the global humanist movement, defending human rights, particularly those of non-religious people, and promoting humanist values world-wide. If you have updates, additions or corrections for the report please email [email protected] or visit the website at fot.humanists.international To receive updates and news from Humanists International, or to join as a supporter, visit humanists.international Constitution & Government Education & Children’s Rights These maps depict the findings of the full Freedom of Thought Report which is available in a complete Online Edition at fot.humanists.international The maps correspond to each of the four thematic strands of the Report: Constitution & Government, Education & Children’s Rights, Society & Community, and Freedom of Expression & Advocacy of Humanist Values. Each map shows the highest severity level (see key, right) of any boundary condition applied in each thematic strand. 6 Freedom of Thought 2019 | Maps Society & Community Expression & Advocacy of Humanist Values Grave Violations Severe Discrimination Systemic Discrimination Mostly Satisfactory Free and Equal No Rating Maps | Freedom of Thought 2019 7 This map depicts the findings of the full Freedom of Thought Report Grave Violations which is available in a complete Online Edition at fot.humanists.international Severe Discrimination Systemic This map shows as a colour gradient the “summary score” for each country (the average of the worst severity level (see key, right) of any Discrimination boundary condition applied in each thematic strand. Mostly Satisfactory Free and Equal 8 Freedom of Thought 2019 | | Freedom of Thought 2019 9 Preface to the 2019 edition By Andrew Copson Laws against ‘apostasy’ and ‘blasphemy’ always violate the human rights to freedom of thought and freedom of expression. They also remain one of the most egregious forms of legal discrimination against the non-religious, as well as other religion or belief minorities, in that they are used most often against members of religion or belief groups outside the mainstream of a country. The ‘blasphemy’ cases that most often hit the headlines include artists and writers, protesters and activists, who through their creative or social work cause ‘offence’ to a mainstream religion. Sometimes the offence as such is somewhat intentional, as when a novelist plays with the bounds of faith, or an artist depicts some aspect of faith or criticism in a novel, or satirical mode. Other times, Andrew Copson is president of ‘blasphemy’ laws and taboos are used to intimidate or Humanists International prosecute people who express dissent against some aspect of mainstream religion, whether from ‘inside’ or ‘outside’ the tradition. This can mean that criticism of particular belies, practices, leaders or institutions is the mere expression of thoughts must be punishable by made taboo, even when there is a clear moral case for imprisonment or even death. debate, criticism, reform or justice. There is no trade-off here: it is not the case that we Every society contains people who in the exercise of need ‘blasphemy’ or ‘apostasy’ laws despite the huge their own judgement arrive at conclusions about the downsides. Laws against ‘blasphemy’ and ‘apostasy’ do broadly philosophical questions to which different not achieve some good, or protect persons from harm. religions purport to offer answers. In so doing, they Rather they prevent open discussion of ideas. And in may be turning away from particular beliefs; beliefs that particular, these laws usually actualize a particular were presumed of them, or impressed upon them by interpretation and ‘respect for’ conservatively-held family or society. Just for seeking their own answers, or beliefs, which of course are never shared by every single for expressing their own ideas, especially but not limited person in society, but are broadly shared among all the to when these ideas contradict a majority religion, then most radical or extremist believers. And yet ‘blasphemy’ laws against ‘blasphemy’ and ‘apostasy’ cast such people and ‘apostasy’ laws compel upon all members of society as heretics, infidels or dissidents. conformity with those beliefs. Sometimes they are told the very expression of their Defenders of ‘apostasy’ laws tend to rely most heavily change (or supposed change) in beliefs is a crime on a specifically religious defence and a circular bit of because it contradicts a religious prohibition against logic (the religion says that apostates must be shunned, ‘apostasy’, which of course is a peculiar circular logic punished or killed, therefore the law must enact this, and not something that should have any moral let alone and if people ‘belong to’ the religion then they must legal hold over a non-sharer of those beliefs. Or they are obey its strictures, including the stricture that they told that the expression of their ‘apostasy’ is a form of must not abandon it!). This is such a bad and slippery betrayal against consanguinity, treason against culture argument that there’s almost no way of grasping it, or country, which of course an overreaction in the suffice it to say that it flies in the face of all human extreme. Or they told that their ideas “shake the faith” of psychological experience, and undermines its own others, as if the fact of one’s own beliefs giving another premiss: the very existence of the law itself presupposes a pause for thought or a moment’s doubt is some great that obviously people’s minds do change and that crime, and belying also the fragility of any beliefs that given freedom of enquiry people will reach different need such coddling protection from the mere fact of conclusions about the various metaphysical, moral and disagreement, or that any of these things is so grave that historical questions that religions hope to address. 10 Freedom of Thought 2019 | Preface Defenders of ‘blasphemy’ laws may also make a human rights advocates, and this is followed by further narrowly religious case, such as that ‘blasphemy’ is an demands, in a cycle of increasing demands and the “offence against God”; though they often produce a religionification and hardening of laws. more secular argument around the deleterious effects on ‘society’ upon hearing criticism, ridicule, or insult As such, ‘blasphemy’ and ‘apostasy’ laws not only to beliefs that many members of society hold dear. violate the rights of the individual, it is not even true This argument at least deserves attention, though it that ‘society’ as a whole somehow benefits. On the is also easily dismissed. We all have a right to express contrary, time and time again, it is clear that where ourselves, criticism is a legitimate part of speech, more there are cultural taboos against sacrilege, non-belief, or than that it is often morally necessary, while there is religious conversion, to codify those taboos in law only no right not to hear general criticism, and while rights increases the confidence of religious radicals, diminishes protect people from discrimination and persecution by the space for both personal freedoms and civil society, other people and institutions, they don’t protect ideas and propagates ever more extreme beliefs, extreme from other ideas. taboos, and the primacy of religious beliefs, particularly conservative religious beliefs, over the welfare of One can always construct scenarios in which a everyone in society. particular expression both fits the general description of being ‘blasphemous’ and is employed in some manner that is actually hateful or discriminatory (for example, a criticism of a religious institution may be legitimate and protected when written in a book, but if shouted in the face of an arbitrary adherent it may well become harassment, intimidation, or incitement). But to the extent that it is necessary and desirable to curb behaviour that is genuinely hateful, laws can target incitement to hatred and violence per se, and are the stronger for doing so without employing the incommensurable, ambiguous, religious concept of ‘blasphemy’. ‘Blasphemy’ laws always overreach the legitimate purposes that can be satisfied by laws against incitement to hatred or violence. Given that the legal and human rights case against ‘apostasy’ and ‘blasphemy’ laws is strong, it’s also worth considering the extrajudicial impact of such laws. It is sometimes argued that such laws help to combat social ‘disharmony’ or extremism. However, as will be clear in the country chapters in this report, countries with the most severe and widely-enforced ‘blasphemy’ laws are usually those with the most religious tension and extremism. One could argue about cause and effect here: