Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Religious Pluralism (Commentary (Durham: religious liberty requires four…

- - - - A bill would have incorporated a group of nuns, allowing them to establish schools, hospitals and orphanages
      - challenged under art 9 of the constitution (challenging the "foremost place" of Buddhism); art 10 (violates freedom of religion by taking advantage of those with a disability)
    - - Art. 10 (freedom of religion): the right does not include proselytization, and only freedom of conscience
      - cited ECtHR precedent (Larissis v. Greece) in support, where proselytization was found to be validly limited where one party was subordinate
      - Art. 9 also breached, because it would undermine the strength of Buddhism (esp. if slippery slope with Western backing)
    - - accepted that provision of welfare and propagation of beliefs are core parts of Catholic practice
      - "It follows that the Supreme Court's determination of the Bill's unconstitutionality restricted the authors' rights to freedom of religious practice and to freedom of expression"
      - was the restriction permissible under the ICCPR?
        
        No
        
        criticzed the SLSC for not establishing "how provision of material and other benefits to vulnerable people coercively or otherwise improperly propagates religion"
        
        didn't show how it was different to other, already incorporated religious bodies
        
        didn't establish threat to Buddhism
        
        the international case law did not support its conclusions