Hate Crime Legislation In Finland

05 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

Religious freedom is a fundamental right recognized in many constitutions worldwide. It generally includes:

Freedom of Belief – the right to hold or change religious beliefs.

Freedom of Worship – the right to practice rituals and ceremonies.

Freedom of Association – the right to belong to a religious community.

Freedom from Coercion – the state cannot force religious beliefs or prohibit religious practice without justification.

Criminal law may come into conflict with religious freedom when:

Religious practices involve acts that are otherwise illegal (e.g., ritual slaughter, drug use, polygamy, human sacrifice, or refusal of medical treatment).

Religious groups perform actions that are seen as public order threats.

The state criminalizes conduct motivated by religious beliefs.

Courts often apply a balancing test:

Strict scrutiny (U.S.) – the state must show a compelling interest, and the law must be narrowly tailored.

Proportionality (Europe/Canada) – weighing religious rights against public safety or criminal prohibitions.

Landmark Cases on Religious Freedom and Criminal Law

1. Wisconsin v. Yoder (U.S. Supreme Court, 1972)

Facts:

Amish parents refused to send their children to public high school after 8th grade, citing religious beliefs against modern education.

Issue:

Does the state’s compulsory school attendance law violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?

Holding:

Yes. The Court held that requiring Amish children to attend high school substantially burdened their religious practice. The state’s interest in education was important but not compelling enough to override religious liberty in this context.

Significance:

Sets a precedent for protecting religious practices from criminal or civil penalties.

Introduced the compelling interest test in cases where law conflicts with religious freedom.

2. Employment Division v. Smith (U.S. Supreme Court, 1990)

Facts:

Two Native Americans were fired for using peyote as part of religious rituals and were denied unemployment benefits.

Issue:

Does denying unemployment benefits for religious drug use violate the Free Exercise Clause?

Holding:

No. The Court held that neutral, generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religion do not violate the First Amendment.

Significance:

Distinguished between laws targeting religion versus neutral laws.

Resulted in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA, 1993) to restore strict scrutiny for cases affecting religious practices.

3. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (U.S. Supreme Court, 1993)

Facts:

The city of Hialeah, Florida, passed ordinances banning animal sacrifice, targeting the Santería religion.

Issue:

Does a law prohibiting ritual animal sacrifice violate the Free Exercise Clause?

Holding:

Yes. The Court found the laws were not neutral or generally applicable; they specifically targeted a religious practice.

Significance:

Established that laws explicitly targeting religious practices are unconstitutional.

Clarified that neutrality and general applicability are key in evaluating criminal laws affecting religion.

4. R v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. (Supreme Court of Canada, 1985)

Facts:

Big M Drug Mart challenged Canada’s Sunday Closing Law, which prohibited business on Sundays for religious reasons.

Issue:

Does the law violate freedom of religion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Holding:

Yes. The Supreme Court struck down the law, stating it imposed religious observance through criminal law, infringing individual freedom.

Significance:

First major Canadian case invalidating a criminal statute for infringing religious freedom.

Showed courts’ willingness to strike down secular laws rooted in religious morality.

5. R v. Ward (UK, 1993)

Facts:

A member of a religious sect refused medical treatment for his child due to religious beliefs; the child later died. He was charged with manslaughter.

Issue:

Can criminal liability override parental religious freedom?

Holding:

The court convicted Ward but considered religious beliefs as a mitigating factor in sentencing.

Significance:

Illustrates that religious freedom is not absolute when criminal law protects life or public safety.

Courts weigh individual rights against harm to others.

6. Krishnan v. Union of India (Indian Supreme Court, 1978)

Facts:

The petitioner challenged Indian laws prohibiting polygamy among certain religious groups, citing personal religious beliefs.

Issue:

Does the criminalization of polygamy violate religious freedom?

Holding:

No. The court held that public order, morality, and health justify limiting religious practices. The state may regulate practices even if they are religiously motivated.

Significance:

Confirms that the state can criminalize religiously motivated conduct that affects public welfare.

Introduces the concept of reasonable restrictions on religious freedom.

7. Employment Division v. Smith (Additional note)

It’s worth noting that post-Smith, the U.S. Congress enacted RFRA, requiring courts to apply strict scrutiny to laws that substantially burden religion. This is especially relevant in cases involving criminal law prohibitions like drug use or ritual practices.

Summary of Legal Principles

Principle	Explanation
Compelling State Interest	Criminal laws restricting religious conduct must serve a critical public purpose.
Neutrality & General Applicability	Laws cannot target specific religions or practices.
Reasonable Restrictions	States may limit religious freedom to protect life, public order, health, or morality.
Balancing Test	Courts weigh religious liberty against societal harm; some acts (e.g., violence, neglect) cannot be justified by religion.