Source: https://freedomofbelief.net/articles/adf-on-rudy-salles-report
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:29:27+00:00

Document:
1. Alliance Defending Freedom [ADF] is a legal organization of 2300 allied lawyers, over 40 full time lawyers and has offices internationally including Europe, North America, Latin America and India. ADF enjoys accreditation at the European Parliament, Fundamental Rights Agency (for which it is also represented on the Advisory Panel) and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. ADF has also garnered Consultative Status with the United Nations. ADF has been involved in over forty cases at the European Court of Human Rights and is the leading religious liberties legal organization today practicing before the Court.
11. The European Court of Human Rights has further defined Article 9 to require States to restrain themselves from interfering with church autonomy or the right to manifest religious beliefs: “[F]acts demonstrating a failure by the authorities to remain neutral in the exercise of their powers in this domain must lead to the conclusion that the State interfered with the believers’ freedom to manifest their religion within the meaning of Article 9 of the Convention.”  It therefore strains credulity for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to recommend Member States to embark on a process of monitoring the legitimacy of religious beliefs and in essence “doing theology”. Such monitoring would strike at the very heart of the State neutrality principle.
14. ADF has been at the forefront of defending parents from abuses by the State regarding parental rights, specifically in the area of education. The question of parental rights and education, read in the light of the proposed Salles Report, provides perhaps one of the greatest gaps in European law today: that being between the clear protections provided to parents in international law with regard to education on the one hand, and aggressive encroachments of those rights by Member States on the other. Adoption of the Salles Report would further damage the rights of European parents in educating their children according to their own religious and philosophical convictions. Examples of such abuses abound in the casework of Alliance Defending Freedom.
24. The European Convention of Human Rights, Protocol 1, Article 2, mirrors this same idea: “In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.” The term philosophical convictions are interpreted by the European Convention of Human Rights as a whole  and extend to include pedagogical beliefs; those being the parents’ beliefs as to the best way of educating their children.
27. The safeguarding of the possibility of pluralism in education is essential for the preservation of a democratic society.  Parents must be able to choose their children’s schools, whether public or private.  While State subsidization of private or confessional schools is not guaranteed by Protocol 1, Article 2 , the right to establish private or confessional schools is.  Alternative forums for education, such as home schooling, must also be recognized as falling within the weighty protections afforded to parental rights within the corpus of international law.
32. Both the European Court of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights guarantee the right of establishment of private schools.  The right to establish private educational institutions also assumes the right of parents to choose between public and private education; or between different private or confessional schools. Again, the distinction would be illusory and therefore meaningless is some level of academic freedom was not allowed in the development of school curriculum. The chilling effect of the proposed policies of Mr. Salles would indeed directly violate the clear meaning of these provisions in international law.
33. The right to education and respect for parental authority over their children assumes some level of freedom. One aspect of this right is that State schools cannot exercise a monopoly in education. As Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights dictates: “The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the State and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.”  Among the educational options that should be made available to all parents because of international norms is the right to home educate.
 ECHR, Affaire Schmidt c. France, application no. 35109/02, judgment of 26 July 2007.
 See e.g.: ECHR, Affaire Eglise Evangelique Missionaire et Salaun v. France, application no. 25502/07, judgment of 31 January 2013.
 E.g.: Turkey. Article 2 of the Turkish Constitution holds that it is a “democratic, secular and social state.” Article 4 makes these basic principles non-derogable. TURK. CONST. Articles 2, 4 (Law No. 2709).
 E.g.: The United Kingdom. Cf. The Act of Settlement, 12 & 13 Will. 3, c. 2, arts 1-3 (1701) (Eng.).
 ECHR, Darby v. Sweden, EUR. COMM’N H.R. DEC. & REP. § 47 (1989).
 See: ECHR, Koppi v. Austria, 10 December 2009, no. 33001/03; ECHR, Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria, 31 July 2008, no. 40825/98; ECHR, Verein der Freunde der Christengemeinschaft and Others v. Austria, 26 February 2009, no. 76581/01.
 ECHR, 25 May 1993, Kokkinakis v. Greece, Series A No. 260-A, § 31: AFDI, 1994, p. 658.
 Kokkinakis op.cit., ECHR, 23 June 1993, Hoffmann v. Austria, Series A, No. 255-C: JDI, 1994, p. 788; Otto-Preminger-Institut, op. cit.; ECHR, 26 September 1996, Manoussakis and Others v. Greece, Reports 1996-IV: AFDI, 1996, p. 749.
 HRC, General Comment No 22: The Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion (1993) , available at http://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/general%20comment%2022.pdf..
 ECHR, 26 October 2000, Hasan & Chaush v. Bulgaria (Appl. No. 30985/96), § 62.
 ECHR, 13 December 2001, Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, Appl. no. 45701/99., § 123.
 ECHR, Serif v. Greece, application no. 38178/97, judgment of 14 December 1999, § 49.
 ECHR, 26 October 2000, Hasan & Chaush v. Bulgaria (Appl. No. 30985/96), § 78.
 ECHR, Case of Kosteski v. The Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia, application no. 55170/00, judgment of 13 April 2006, § 44. See also: Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, pp. 32-33, § 24, and ECHR, Camp and Bourimi v. the Netherlands, application no. 28369/95, judgment of 3 October 2000, § 37.
 ECHR, 26 September 1996, Manoussakis v. Greece (RJD 1996, p. 1346), § 47.
 Charles F. Potter, Humanism: A New Religion (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1930).
 ECHR, 25 February 1982, Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom, Series A, No. 48, § 36: CDE, 1986, p. 230.
 ECHR, Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pederson v. Denmark, Judgment of 7 December 1976, Application No. 5095/71, 5920/72, 5926/72, § 50.
 ECHR, 5 December 1990, Graeme v. the United Kingdom, 64 DR 158.
 See e.g.: ECHR, X and Y v. the United Kingdom, App. No. 9461/81, Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 210 (1982).
 Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pederson v. Denmark, op. cit.
 ECHR, Manoussakis and Others v. Greece, Reports 1996-IV: AFDI, 1996, p. 749, § 47.
 Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pederson v. Denmark, op. cit., § 53.
 See e.g.: Natan Lerrner, Group Rights and Discrimination in International Law, Chapter 10 (1991) noting the overwhelmingly strong lobby in favor of guarantees for religious education under the Minorities Treaty established by the League of Nations.
 Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pederson v. Denmark, op. cit., § 52. See also: Case of Folgero and Others v. Norway, App. No. 15472/02, judgment of 29 June 2007., § 84(c).
 Case of Folgero and Others v. Norway, op. cit..
 See e.g.: United Nations, Convention on the Rights of the Child, , G.A. Res. 44/25, annex, 44 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989), entered into force 9.2.1990, Article 14.
 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Recommendation 1762, Academic Freedom and University Autonomy, 30 June 2006, § 4.3.
 See e.g.: ECHR, 5 December 1990, Graeme v. the United Kingdom, 64 DR 158; ECHR, X and Y v. the United Kingdom, App. No. 9461/81, Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 210 (1982). See also: ICESCR, supra n. 21, Article 13(4).
 United Nations, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, New York, 16 December 1966.

References: application no. 35109
 v. 
 application no. 25502
 v. 
 § 47
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 31
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 62
 v. 
 § 123
 v. 
 application no. 38178
 § 49
 v. 
 § 78
 v. 
 application no. 55170
 § 44
 v. 
 § 24
 v. 
 application no. 28369
 § 37
 v. 
 § 47
 v. 
 § 36
 v. 
 Application No. 5095
 § 50
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 47
 v. 
 § 53
 v. 
 § 52
 v. 
 § 84
 v. 
 § 4
 v. 
 v.