Den absoluta religionsfriheten i RF - absolut redo för reform? En undersökning av om den positiva religionsfriheten borde bli en relativ rättighet
(2023) LAGF03 20231Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Denna uppsats behandlar frågan om religionsfriheten i 2 kap. 1 § första styck-et 6 regeringsformen (RF) borde omformuleras till en relativ rättighet. Den positiva religionsfriheten i RF är idag reglerad som en absolut rättighet, alltså en rättighet som inte får inskränkas, och beskrivs i lagtexten som frihet att ensam eller tillsammans med andra utöva sin religion. I förarbetena anges dock att religionsfriheten innebär ett förbud mot normgivning som negativt särbehandlar vissa former av religionsutövning. Några positiva rättigheter beskrivs inte alls. Dessutom anges att övriga opinionsfriheter får begränsas trots att de utövas i religiösa sammanhang.
Den positiva religionsfriheten skyddas utöver regeringsformens reglering även i... (More) - Denna uppsats behandlar frågan om religionsfriheten i 2 kap. 1 § första styck-et 6 regeringsformen (RF) borde omformuleras till en relativ rättighet. Den positiva religionsfriheten i RF är idag reglerad som en absolut rättighet, alltså en rättighet som inte får inskränkas, och beskrivs i lagtexten som frihet att ensam eller tillsammans med andra utöva sin religion. I förarbetena anges dock att religionsfriheten innebär ett förbud mot normgivning som negativt särbehandlar vissa former av religionsutövning. Några positiva rättigheter beskrivs inte alls. Dessutom anges att övriga opinionsfriheter får begränsas trots att de utövas i religiösa sammanhang.
Den positiva religionsfriheten skyddas utöver regeringsformens reglering även i artikel 9 i den Europeiska konventionen angående skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna (EKMR). Där skyddas rät-ten att ha och byta religion samt rätten att ensam eller med andra, enskilt eller offentligt, utöva sin religion eller tro genom gudstjänst, undervisning, sedvänjor och ritualer. Religionsfriheten i EKMR är begränsningsbar men begränsande lagstiftning måste uppfylla krav på ändamålsenlighet, proportionalitet och nödvändighet. Regelverken i RF och EKMR är tänkta att komplettera varandra så att det starkaste rättighetsskyddet alltid ska gälla.
Det finns flera problem med att religionsfriheten är utformad som en absolut rättighet i RF. Ett sådant är att den absoluta regleringen ger en missvisande bild av skyddets omfattning. Att religionsfriheten endast ska tolkas som ett förbud mot diskriminerande föreskrifter och att andra opinionsfriheter kan begränsas trots att de utövas i religiösa sammanhang framgår inte förrän vid en läsning av förarbetena. Detta gör att Sveriges invånare, som är de som ska åtnjuta grundlagens skydd, riskerar att vaggas in i en falsk trygghet i att religionsfriheten aldrig kan inskränkas.
Ytterligare ett problem med den absoluta regleringen är att den är svår att kombinera med religionsfrihetens utformning i EKMR. Lagstiftning som begränsar religionsfriheten i Sverige är tillåten enligt EKMR men sådan lagstiftning skulle stå i strid med ordalydelsen i RF.
Problemen hade kunnat lösas genom en relativ reglering av religionsfriheten. I en sådan hade möjligheterna till begränsningar tydligt kunnat anges vilket hade gett en tydligare bild av rättsläget. Dessutom skulle rättighetsbegränsande lagstiftning som är tillåten enligt EKMR inte stå i strid med RF om både EKMR och RF reglerade religionsfriheten som en relativ rättighet. (Less) - Abstract
- The purpose of this essay is to examine whether the freedom of religion found in the 2 chapter 1 § in the Instrument of Government should be rephrased as a relative right (a right which can be restricted). Today, the positive right of the freedom of religion is regulated as an absolute right which means it can’t be restricted. In the Instrument of Government, it is described as freedom to exercise one’s religion, alone or in company with others. In contrast, the free-dom of religion is according to the legislative history meant to be understood as a prohibition against regulations which disfavors certain types of religious practices. No positive rights are defined. In addition, it is stated in the legislative history that the other... (More)
- The purpose of this essay is to examine whether the freedom of religion found in the 2 chapter 1 § in the Instrument of Government should be rephrased as a relative right (a right which can be restricted). Today, the positive right of the freedom of religion is regulated as an absolute right which means it can’t be restricted. In the Instrument of Government, it is described as freedom to exercise one’s religion, alone or in company with others. In contrast, the free-dom of religion is according to the legislative history meant to be understood as a prohibition against regulations which disfavors certain types of religious practices. No positive rights are defined. In addition, it is stated in the legislative history that the other freedoms in the article, such as freedom of speech, can be restricted even though they are exercised in a religious context.
The positive right of the freedom of religion is also protected by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). Article 9 of the ECHR protects the right to have and to change one’s religion and the right to, alone or in community with others, and in private or in public, manifest one’s religion in worship, teaching, practice and observance. It is permitted under the ECHR to restrict the freedom of religion through legislation, but the restrictions must pursue a legitimate aim and be proportionate and necessary. The regulations in the Instrument of Government and the ECHR are meant be complementary to each other to always ensure the most extensive protection of the freedom of religion.
The fact that the freedom of religion is regulated as an absolute right in the Instrument of Government causes several problems. Firstly, it causes a mis-leading conception of the scope of the right. It is not apparent until one reads the legislative history that the freedom of religion should be interpreted as a prohibition against discriminatory regulations and that other rights in the same article can be restricted even though they are exercised in a religious context. This may cause the Swedish residents to feel a false sense of security in the conception that the freedom of religion can never be restricted.
Secondly, the absolute regulation makes it difficult to combine the article with the regulation in the ECHR. Legislation which restricts the freedom of religion in Sweden is permitted under the ECHR, but such legislation would be contrary to the wording of the Instrument of Government.
These problems could be solved by rephrasing the freedom of religion in the Instrument of Government from an absolute to a relative right. This would enable the legislator to specify on what grounds the freedom of religion can be restricted which would give a clearer view of the legal position. Furthermore, regulations which restrict the freedom of religion under the ECHR would not be contrary to the wording of the Instrument of Government if both the ECHR and the Instrument of Government would regulate freedom of religion as a relative right. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9115746
- author
- Fridh, Hilda LU
- supervisor
-
- Per Nilsén LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20231
- year
- 2023
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- statsrätt, regeringsformen, RF, religionsfrihet, absolut, relativ
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9115746
- date added to LUP
- 2023-06-29 09:40:32
- date last changed
- 2023-06-29 09:40:32
@misc{9115746,
abstract = {{The purpose of this essay is to examine whether the freedom of religion found in the 2 chapter 1 § in the Instrument of Government should be rephrased as a relative right (a right which can be restricted). Today, the positive right of the freedom of religion is regulated as an absolute right which means it can’t be restricted. In the Instrument of Government, it is described as freedom to exercise one’s religion, alone or in company with others. In contrast, the free-dom of religion is according to the legislative history meant to be understood as a prohibition against regulations which disfavors certain types of religious practices. No positive rights are defined. In addition, it is stated in the legislative history that the other freedoms in the article, such as freedom of speech, can be restricted even though they are exercised in a religious context.
The positive right of the freedom of religion is also protected by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). Article 9 of the ECHR protects the right to have and to change one’s religion and the right to, alone or in community with others, and in private or in public, manifest one’s religion in worship, teaching, practice and observance. It is permitted under the ECHR to restrict the freedom of religion through legislation, but the restrictions must pursue a legitimate aim and be proportionate and necessary. The regulations in the Instrument of Government and the ECHR are meant be complementary to each other to always ensure the most extensive protection of the freedom of religion.
The fact that the freedom of religion is regulated as an absolute right in the Instrument of Government causes several problems. Firstly, it causes a mis-leading conception of the scope of the right. It is not apparent until one reads the legislative history that the freedom of religion should be interpreted as a prohibition against discriminatory regulations and that other rights in the same article can be restricted even though they are exercised in a religious context. This may cause the Swedish residents to feel a false sense of security in the conception that the freedom of religion can never be restricted.
Secondly, the absolute regulation makes it difficult to combine the article with the regulation in the ECHR. Legislation which restricts the freedom of religion in Sweden is permitted under the ECHR, but such legislation would be contrary to the wording of the Instrument of Government.
These problems could be solved by rephrasing the freedom of religion in the Instrument of Government from an absolute to a relative right. This would enable the legislator to specify on what grounds the freedom of religion can be restricted which would give a clearer view of the legal position. Furthermore, regulations which restrict the freedom of religion under the ECHR would not be contrary to the wording of the Instrument of Government if both the ECHR and the Instrument of Government would regulate freedom of religion as a relative right.}},
author = {{Fridh, Hilda}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Den absoluta religionsfriheten i RF - absolut redo för reform? En undersökning av om den positiva religionsfriheten borde bli en relativ rättighet}},
year = {{2023}},
}