This right allows you to change your religion or belief as you wish and gives you the freedom to exercise it publicly or privately; alone or with others. The worship, teaching and practice of your belief are protected too. Article 9 also guards the right to practice no religion or hold other non-religious beliefs.
Of course Article 9 doesn’t prevent there being a state church – but no-one can be made to join a church, get involved in its activities or pay it taxes. The role of the state under this right is simply to encourage religious tolerance. If religions are to be regulated, they must be regulated with complete neutrality.
Under Article 9 the right to exercise one’s religion mustn’t be interfered with. As long as someone is left to choose whether to comply with his or her religious obligations, that’s okay. But any restrictions making it practically difficult or almost impossible to express a belief will be regarded as interference.
Like some other Articles in the Human Rights Act, Article 9 is a qualified right. This means it can be limited under some circumstances. But any limitation must be set by law and be necessary and fair. It must also pursue a legitimate aim such as public safety, public order or the protection of others’ rights.
Anyone questioning why such a fundamental right needs protecting by the Human Rights Act here in tolerant multicultural Britain should look at the case of Sarika Singh. She was the Aberdare Girls’ School pupil who was excluded from classes for wearing her kara – a plain single bangle widely accepted as a central tenet of the Sikh race and religion.
Liberty represented the 14-year-old and, using Article 9 and Article 14 (no discrimination) of the Act, amongst other legislation, we defended Sarika’s right to wear her kara in the wider pursuit of freedom of thought, conscience and religion for everyone in Britain.
The High Court awarded victory to Sarika, upholding a 25-year-old Law Lords ruling allowing Sikhs to wear items representing their faith. But such startling examples remind us that even our most fundamental liberties aren’t necessarily safe in the hands of the state – and that’s why the Human Rights Act remains so vitally important.
