The protection of religious freedom as well as religious tolerance is a key challenge to the human rights regime, both in EU Member States and globally. In the same period as the EU in its external actions demonstrated high aspirations at the level of policy making in the area of freedom of religion or belief, the EU Member States experienced serious threats to freedom of religion or belief and to tolerance towards cultural and religious diversity. The FRA carried out surveys related to religious and cultural minorities, for instance a survey on anti-Semitism in EU Member States, which showed that many Jews experienced an increased anti-Semitism. Around the same time, the Council of European Churches put pressure on the EU to monitor religious freedom within the EU, requesting more analyses on discrimination because of religion in Member States and applicant countries.
The detailed policies on freedom of religion or belief in the EU’s external policies compared with the detached role of the EU in the practice of religious freedom in Member States, and combined with indications of serious problems with discrimination based on religious or ethnic ground, have given rise to charges of incoherence in the EU’s internal and external policies. This also applies to the position of the EU on the role of the state vis-à-vis religious minorities.
Does incoherence between internal and external actions matter? Many experts think it does. An example is the question of impartiality vis-à-vis religion. The Guidelines on Freedom of Religion or Belief state that ‘the EU does not consider the merits of the different religions or beliefs, or the lack thereof, but ensures the right to believe or not to believe is upheld. The EU is impartial and is not aligned with any specific religion or belief’ (Council of the European Union, 2013, para. 7). At the same time, the EU does not insist on State neutrality of EU Member States. Such apparent inconsistencies have fuelled charges of incoherence between the EU’s external and internal policies. As expressed by the scholar Marco Ventura:
Without a European consistency in religious laws and policies, Europe lacks the credibility and authority to denounce and counter violations in other parts of the world. No consistency is possible in this field, without a basic reflection on the role of the State. This is why the 2013 EU Guidelines on the promotion of freedom of religion or belief could not avoid starting from an extremely strong assertion of the European Union as ‘impartial’ and ‘not aligned with any specific religion or belief’. Europeans should address their own internal failures and seek consistency in European religious laws and policies, in order to be a legitimate and a credible international promoter of freedom of religion and belief (Ventura, 2013, p. 35).
At the level of policy makers, there is also a sense that incoherence between internal policies and external actions matters. Illustrative is the ‘European Parliament Resolution on EU foreign policy in a world of cultural and religious differences’ of 2014, which explicitly addresses the problem of coherence and consistency in internal and external policies:
Considers that the effectiveness of EU action rests on its exemplariness and consistency between internal practice and external action;
Calls on all Member States to repeal any existing laws which contradict the fundamental freedom of religion and conscience and freedom of expression (European Parliament, 2014, section 26-27).
Problems of consistence also occurs at the level of Member States’ bilateral interaction with third countries: EU Member States do not systematically deal with the freedom of religion or, more specifically, protection of religious minorities in in their bilateral relations with third States.
In the field of religion and human rights, the EU thus demonstrates high aspirations at the policy level in external actions, whilst keeping a low profile vis-à-vis EU Member States’ internal affairs. In order to achieve a higher level of coherence, policy makers must reflect upon a central question: is the solution to lower the aspirations in the external actions or to increase the aspirations in the internal actions?
I. Conclusions
The chapter has focused on how religious, historical, cultural and political factors have influenced the ways in which the EU promotes the protection of religious minorities and their right to enjoy freedom of religion as well as other rights. Religiously related acts of radicalism, hate crime and extremism were also included.
The chapter started with a discussion of conceptual issues of particular significance to EU policies concerning religious minorities, especially secularism and the EU.
The chapter proceeded to set the scene by means of a describing religious minorities under pressure in global context as well as within EU Member States. Different cultural, religious and historical factors have influenced the position of religious minorities within the EU, whose Member States have different ways of organising religion and the relationship between State and religion. This is the case even more so in third countries, where the relationship between State and religion varies enormously, a large number of third countries having a strong interlinkage between one particular religion and the State.
This poses particular difficulties to religious minorities. Thus, differences in the ways in which religious minorities are under pressure in EU Member States and third countries are significant.
After a sketch of the international human rights instruments covering the protection of religious minorities, the EU instruments concerning internal actions were outlined, followed by a discussion of the scope and efficiency of these instruments in meeting the challenges posed in relation to religious minorities in EU Member States. Generally speaking, the EU steers away from a common line on religious affairs in the Member States, which have a variety of ways in which to organise their religious affairs and the relationship between State and religion. Hence, religious minorities too are organised vis-à-vis the State in different ways across Europe, and the way in which freedom of religion is interpreted varies also. At the level of law, the EU Member States have not succeeded in agreeing to a directive covering anti-discrimination vis-à-vis religion outside the workplace. A survey on what this has meant to the promotion of equality for, amongst others, religious minorities, has shown that there is a wide variety across the Member States. FRA reports demonstrate that freedom of religion is insufficiently
Calls on all Member States to repeal any existing laws which contradict the fundamental freedom of religion and conscience and freedom of expression (European Parliament, 2014, section 26-27).
Problems of consistence also occurs at the level of Member States’ bilateral interaction with third countries: EU Member States do not systematically deal with the freedom of religion or, more specifically, protection of religious minorities in in their bilateral relations with third States.
In the field of religion and human rights, the EU thus demonstrates high aspirations at the policy level in external actions, whilst keeping a low profile vis-à-vis EU Member States’ internal affairs. In order to achieve a higher level of coherence, policy makers must reflect upon a central question: is the solution to lower the aspirations in the external actions or to increase the aspirations in the internal actions?
I. Conclusions
The chapter has focused on how religious, historical, cultural and political factors have influenced the ways in which the EU promotes the protection of religious minorities and their right to enjoy freedom of religion as well as other rights. Religiously related acts of radicalism, hate crime and extremism were also included.
The chapter started with a discussion of conceptual issues of particular significance to EU policies concerning religious minorities, especially secularism and the EU.
The chapter proceeded to set the scene by means of a describing religious minorities under pressure in global context as well as within EU Member States. Different cultural, religious and historical factors have influenced the position of religious minorities within the EU, whose Member States have different ways of organising religion and the relationship between State and religion. This is the case even more so in third countries, where the relationship between State and religion varies enormously, a large number of third countries having a strong interlinkage between one particular religion and the State.
This poses particular difficulties to religious minorities. Thus, differences in the ways in which religious minorities are under pressure in EU Member States and third countries are significant.
After a sketch of the international human rights instruments covering the protection of religious minorities, the EU instruments concerning internal actions were outlined, followed by a discussion of the scope and efficiency of these instruments in meeting the challenges posed in relation to religious minorities in EU Member States. Generally speaking, the EU steers away from a common line on religious affairs in the Member States, which have a variety of ways in which to organise their religious affairs and the relationship between State and religion. Hence, religious minorities too are organised vis-à-vis the State in different ways across Europe, and the way in which freedom of religion is interpreted varies also. At the level of law, the EU Member States have not succeeded in agreeing to a directive covering anti-discrimination vis-à-vis religion outside the workplace. A survey on what this has meant to the promotion of equality for, amongst others, religious minorities, has shown that there is a wide variety across the Member States. FRA reports demonstrate that freedom of religion is insufficiently protected within the EU and that, for instance, Jewish minorities across Europe perceived a highly increased level of anti-Semitism.
The chapter subsequently analysed EU instruments relating to external actions, looking also in this section at the scope and efficiency of the instruments in dealing with the issues concerning religious minorities. The EU, in its external actions, has a progressive and comprehensive interpretation of freedom of religion or belief and of the protection of religious minorities. Similarly, there is a pronounced understanding of the different rights that come into play in the context of culture and religion for different groups of individuals. Overall, the EU demonstrates a strong commitment to promote the protection of the rights of religious minorities. However, there are several delimitations to the EU’s policies in this area. First of all, the Guidelines for Freedom of Religion and other instruments are not binding, and second, the EU staff appears not always sufficiently equipped to deal with the highly complex interplay between state policies, religion and human rights. Both elements contribute to a lack of efficiency in the promotion of equal rights for religious minorities, a point which is even more pronounced because the EU Member States do not systematically deal with the protection of religious minorities in their bilateral relations with third States.
The chapter proceeded to square the EU external and internal actions, with a focus on the issue of coherence. The issue of incoherence is shown to affect the level of efficiency of the EU, both in internal and external endeavours to promote the protection of freedom of religion and the rights of religious minorities.