Print
See related documents
Committee Opinion | Doc. 13871 | 17 September 2015
Freedom of religion and living together in a democratic society
Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development
A. Conclusions of the committee
(open)1. The Committee on Social Affairs,
Health and Sustainable Development welcomes the fact that the draft resolution
prepared by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media
builds on earlier texts adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly, in
particular on children’s right to physical integrity. The new text points
out, inter alia, that all
churches and religious communities have a responsibility to respect
human dignity and the fundamental rights protected by our democratic
constitutions, and that these values and principles are non-negotiable
and must prevail over any social or religious norms.
2. From the Social Affairs Committee's viewpoint, however, and
in the light of the recommendations made in, the text should be
clarified and strengthened to take better account of the European
Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5).
3. The Social Affairs Committee would therefore like to propose
a few amendments to the text submitted by the Committee on Culture,
Science, Education and Media for debate.
B. Proposed amendments to the draft resolution
(open)Amendment A (to the draft resolution)
At the end of paragraph 4, replace the words “but any restriction not necessary in a democratic society should be avoided” with:
“in conformity with Article 9.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to freedom of religion can only be submitted to those limitations which, as prescribed by law, constitute necessary measures, in a democratic society, in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
Amendment B (to the draft resolution)
In paragraph 7, after the word “circumcision”, insert the words “of young boys”.
Amendment C (to the draft resolution)
In paragraph 9, first sentence, after the word “circumcision”, insert the words “of young boys”.
Amendment D (to the draft resolution)
in paragraph 13.4, at the end of the last sentence, add the words “including within the religious communities themselves”.
C. Explanatory memorandum by Ms Maury Pasquier, rapporteur for opinion
(open)1. The report prepared by the
Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media follows on from on children’s right to physical integrity” and the work
on freedom of religion and religious practices which was carried
out later in response to this initial text. Most commendably, the
new text points out that all churches and religious communities
have a responsibility to respect human dignity and the fundamental
rights protected by our democratic constitutions, and that these
values and principles are non-negotiable and must prevail over any
social or religious norms. The text also calls on all the stakeholders
to engage in dialogue.
2. Despite these initial, very clear observations, however, the
draft resolution becomes more vague in paragraph 4, stating that
any restriction “not necessary” should be avoided, something which
strikes me as rather obvious, without making it clear at what point
a restriction should be considered “not necessary” (for example,
by stipulating that there must be no risk to vulnerable groups,
such as children). In order to stay closer to paragraph 9.2 of the
European Convention on Human Rights (on which the draft resolution
draws in this paragraph 4, with its reference to necessary restrictions) 
and to employ positive, more robust
language, the wording of the paragraph should be changed as suggested
in amendment A.
and to employ positive, more robust
language, the wording of the paragraph should be changed as suggested
in amendment A. 3. In referring to certain controversial religious practices,
a reference to “young boys” should be added after the word “circumcision”
in paragraphs 7 and 9, as proposed in amendments
B and C respectively. The procedures performed on young
children pose a short- and long-term risk to their health, whereas,
in certain circumstances, circumcision performed on adult (and sexually
active) males has sometimes been found to be beneficial, including
even by studies carried out by the World Health Organization (WHO).
It is important to make it clear, therefore, that it is above all
the circumcision of young boys that is controversial. On a positive note,
paragraph 9 of the resolution proposed by the Culture Committee
goes further than in calling for parents to be duly informed of “any potential
medical risk or possible contraindications”, something that probably
does not always happen at present (judging from personal experience
in my long career as a midwife in Switzerland).
4. As regards paragraph 13.4, this is naturally to be welcomed,
particularly if it also refers to developing critical thinking within
religions themselves, in other words, the fact that in a democratic
society everyone should have the right and the ability (through
their education, for example) to question the rituals of their own religious
community and the way those rituals are applied (to their own children
for example, where the circumcision of young boys is concerned).
This last suggestion is set out in amendment
D above.
5. Lastly, while I welcome the continuity of the Parliamentary
Assembly’s work in the field of religious practices involving various
groups and religious communities, I would like to draw attention
to one section of the explanatory memorandum prepared by my colleague
Mr Huseynov, which seems to me to indicate a misunderstanding in
relation to the Assembly’s previous text.
6. In paragraph 37 of the explanatory report, Mr Huseynov states
that was potentially misleading in listing circumcision of
young boys alongside other more harmful procedures. I would point
out that the previous resolution merely observes, in a general manner,
that it is concerned about violations of children’s integrity. The
resolution does, however, make a distinction in terms of the seriousness
and the consequences of various procedures, deeming, for example,
female genital mutilation and early childhood medical interventions
in the case of intersex children to be the most harmful.
7. As my colleague himself points out, the Assembly “never intended
to equate” the circumcision of young boys with such practices. In
my view, however, in adopting , the Assembly clearly believed that the circumcision of
young boys did amount to a violation of children’s physical integrity,
albeit a less serious one than other practices.
8. I do nevertheless sense the desire on the part of the rapporteur
and the Culture Committee to produce a balanced text and to adopt
a positive approach based on awareness raising, education and dialogue,
an approach I wholly endorse and one to which I would urge the Social
Affairs Committee to remain faithful.