You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) are two closely related qualified rights that protect essential aspects of participation in a democratic society. While they address different subject matters, both share the common theme of protecting individuals' ability to hold and express beliefs, and to come together collectively to advance their interests.
These rights are particularly important in the AQA A-Level Law specification because they raise fundamental questions about the relationship between individual freedom, collective action, and the limits that the state may impose in the interests of public order and the rights of others.
"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
- Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary 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."
Article 9 protects two distinct dimensions of religious and conscientious freedom:
The right to hold beliefs, to change beliefs, and to have freedom of thought and conscience. This is the internal, private aspect of the right and is absolute — it cannot be restricted under any circumstances.
The state can never:
The right to manifest one's religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice, and observance. This is the external, public aspect of the right and is subject to the limitations in Article 9(2).
Manifestation includes:
graph TD
A["Article 9: Freedom of<br/>Thought, Conscience<br/>& Religion"] --> B["Forum Internum<br/>(Inner Belief)"]
A --> C["Forum Externum<br/>(External Manifestation)"]
B --> B1["Right to hold beliefs"]
B --> B2["Right to change beliefs"]
B --> B3["ABSOLUTE — No<br/>restrictions permitted"]
C --> C1["Worship, Teaching,<br/>Practice, Observance"]
C --> C2["QUALIFIED — May be<br/>limited under Art 9(2)"]
C2 --> D["Prescribed by law"]
C2 --> E["Legitimate aim"]
C2 --> F["Necessary in a<br/>democratic society"]
style B fill:#27ae60,color:#fff
style C fill:#2980b9,color:#fff
style B3 fill:#27ae60,color:#fff
style C2 fill:#e67e22,color:#fff
Not every act motivated or inspired by a religion or belief constitutes a "manifestation" for the purposes of Article 9. The act must be intimately linked to the religion or belief.
In Arrowsmith v UK [1978] (European Commission on Human Rights), it was held that distributing pacifist leaflets to soldiers was not a "manifestation" of pacifist beliefs within the meaning of Article 9, because the act of distributing leaflets was not itself a practice of pacifism — it was merely motivated by pacifist beliefs.
However, the ECtHR has moved towards a broader interpretation. In Eweida v UK [2013], the Court accepted that wearing a cross at work could be a manifestation of Christian belief.
This was the first case in which the ECtHR found a violation of Article 9. Mr Kokkinakis, a Jehovah's Witness, was convicted under Greek law for proselytism (attempting to convert others to his religion) after visiting a woman at her home and discussing his beliefs.
The ECtHR held that:
This case established that peaceful proselytism is protected under Article 9.
This case involved four separate applications concerning conflicts between religious beliefs and workplace requirements:
Nadia Eweida (British Airways employee): Ms Eweida wished to wear a visible cross at work, contrary to BA's uniform policy. The ECtHR found a violation of Article 9. The Court held that the domestic courts had given insufficient weight to Ms Eweida's desire to manifest her faith. While BA's desire to project a corporate image was a legitimate aim, it was not sufficient to outweigh Ms Eweida's right given that BA had allowed other employees to wear religious items (e.g., Sikh turbans, Muslim hijabs).
Shirley Chaplin (NHS nurse): Ms Chaplin wished to wear a visible cross on a necklace at work. The hospital asked her to remove it on health and safety grounds. The ECtHR found no violation — the interference was justified because of the legitimate concern about health and safety on a hospital ward.
Lillian Ladele (Islington registrar): Ms Ladele, a Christian, refused to officiate at civil partnership ceremonies for same-sex couples on grounds of conscience. Islington Council disciplined her for refusing. The ECtHR found no violation — the Council's aim of providing a non-discriminatory service was a legitimate one, and the means were proportionate.
Gary McFarlane (Relate counsellor): Mr McFarlane, a Christian, was dismissed after refusing to provide psycho-sexual therapy to same-sex couples. The ECtHR found no violation — the employer's policy of providing services without discrimination was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
| Applicant | Workplace Restriction | Outcome | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eweida | BA uniform policy (no cross) | Violation of Art 9 | Insufficient weight to religious freedom |
| Chaplin | Hospital health & safety (no necklace) | No violation | Health & safety justified restriction |
| Ladele | Must officiate civil partnerships | No violation | Non-discrimination is a legitimate aim |
| McFarlane | Must counsel same-sex couples | No violation | Non-discrimination policy proportionate |
The Grand Chamber upheld France's ban on wearing full-face veils in public. The Court accepted that the ban interfered with Article 9 but found it justified under Article 9(2) for the protection of the "rights and freedoms of others" — specifically, the French concept of "living together" (vivre ensemble), which requires face-to-face interaction in public spaces.
This decision was controversial. Dissenting judges argued that the concept of "living together" was too vague to serve as a legitimate aim and that the ban was disproportionate, particularly as it affected a very small number of women.
"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
- No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State."
Article 11 protects two distinct rights:
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.