Lesson video

Hello there.

My name is Mr. Robertson, and I'm delighted to be learning with you today.

Today, we are continuing with our unit, Freedom: How far should governments go to protect freedom of religion or belief?

The title of this lesson is called Competing and balancing rights.

And in this lesson, we're going to look at a situation where the right to freedom of religion or belief may come into conflict with other human rights and how governments and individuals and companies try to balance these different competing rights.

Really look forward to learning with you about this lesson.

By the end of this lesson, you will be able to identify situations where rights may have to be balanced against each other and make a judgment on this.

As always, we have some keywords.

So our first keyword is freedom.

And in the context of rights, that means being able to believe what you want, or not believe at all, and being respected for that choice.

We also have the word limit or limited.

And again, in terms of rights, that means a right that is not absolute and may be lawfully restricted by the state in certain conditions under strict legal conditions.

And finally, we have balancing or balanced.

And that means the process of weighing one right against another to decide how far each should be protected in a particular situation.

As we go through this lesson, you're gonna use these words a lot, and I feel really confident that you will be able to explain them really well by the end of this lesson.

So this lesson about competing and balancing rights is made up of two parts.

In the first part of this lesson, we're gonna be focusing on freedom of religion or belief during COVID.

So just to be really, really clear, what we mean by freedom of religion or belief.

So, freedom of religion or belief is a human right protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And at the heart of freedom of religion or belief is the right to have or change your religion or belief without coercion.

Now, we said that this is a fundamental right, but it asks this really big question.

Does the right to freedom of religion or belief ever have to be limited?

And that's what we're gonna be thinking about today.

And we're gonna be doing that by looking at some case studies.

Now, case studies are really important because examining them and analyzing them can help us understand how rights regarding freedom of religion or belief may be balanced against other rights.

We're gonna begin by rereading the text of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, because it's really, really important that we understand this and understand how this foundational document is used and applied by states and companies around the world.

"Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.

This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching.

" So that is the full right.

Now, in UK law, a distinction is made between the right to have or adopt a religional belief and the right to manifest it individually or with others.

And this is important, so we're going to look at this in some detail now.

So the right to have or change your religion or belief without coercion is an absolute right.

And this means it cannot be limited by a state or government.

So within the UK, you have an absolute right to have a religion or belief of your choice and to change that, and that's guaranteed by government.

However, the right to manifest your religion or belief individually or in community may be limited.

So you have an absolute right to believe or change your religional belief, but your practice to manifest that individually or in community may be limited.

And this means that the government could place restrictions on this right in certain circumstances.

Let's just check our understanding so far, because this is going to be really important for the rest of this lesson.

The right to manifest your religion or belief is an absolute right and cannot be limited.

Think about what we've just said.

You might want to pause the video and have a think.

Excellent.

It's false, isn't it?

And why?

Because the right to have or adopt a religion or belief is an absolute right, but the right to manifest this religion or belief can be limited by government.

So you may well either remember or have heard about the COVID-19 pandemic.

And because this was a huge, unprecedented emergency across the world, really, the UK government instituted restrictions on normal life, and the justification for these restrictions was to protect lives.

We didn't know what this virus could do, but we knew it had a high likelihood of people dying, and so to protect lives, lots of restrictions were brought in.

For example, there was a lockdown, which meant people could only leave the house for a limited time, and schools and many businesses closed as well.

I wonder what you think happened to places of worship.

Again, you may want to pause the video and just discuss this point or think for yourself.

So in March 2020, all public acts of worship were suspended, and that means that most churches, synagogues, mosques, and other buildings closed.

It also meant that most services were moved online, and actually this was quite unprecedented in history, because church services were taking place online, and mosques as well, which had never previously happened.

Later on, as we could see in the photograph, as restrictions were lifted, there were still restrictions on physical spacing and what could take place.

You can see a photograph here of a Catholic Mass, and you can see the priest and the congregation wearing masks.

So thinking about this scenario, and thinking about what we already know about human rights and the right freedom of religion or belief, how was this right limited by the action the government took in closing places of worship?

I wonder what you were thinking.

I wonder if you were focusing on this idea of manifesting.

So the UK government had to weigh up public safety against the right to freedom of religion or belief, and this kind of decision is known as balancing rights, because we have two human rights, which to a certain extent in this situation are in conflict with each other.

Article 3 of the UN Declaration is the right to life, and the government deemed that this was more important in the context of the pandemic.

So to protect the public, their right to manifest religion or belief publicly was limited.

So in terms of balancing, Article 3, the right to life, protecting the public's health, that right was deemed more important for a limited time, as opposed to the right to manifest religion or belief publicly.

Of course, the absolute right to have a religious belief was not limited.

So what were the consequences and the impact of limiting the right to manifest?

Well, let's meet Father Jason.

Father Jason is a Roman Catholic priest, and he was a priest during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This is what he says.

He says, "As a priest, it had a huge impact.

I could not offer the Mass to my congregation.

It has taken many years for attendance at church to return to before.

Religion is not a lifestyle choice like shopping.

I do not think the government was right to close places of worship.

" So, let's think a little bit about what Father Jason is saying here.

You might want to pause the video and reread his statement, and I wonder if you could summarize his opinion, either with someone next to you or to yourself.

So you may have picked out that he said it had a huge impact, not being able to offer Mass, which is really important for Roman Catholics.

He also said that the attendance at his church took a very long time to return to the levels before the pandemic, so it had an impact beyond the actual pandemic itself.

And thirdly, he was questioning the reason for the restrictions.

He says, "Religion's not a lifestyle choice like shopping.

" So actually he doesn't feel that it was right to close places of worship.

He feels that place of worship should have been put in a different category to shops and other things.

Let's hear from Danielle.

Danielle is also Catholic, and she's going to talk about what this impact was on her of limiting the right to manifest.

Danielle says, "Closing the church during the lockdown was a really isolating time for me.

I lived by myself, so I felt completely alone.

I missed my community, but I also felt separated spiritually as I could not take communion.

I think it was wrong to do this and more thought should have been given.

" So as before, you may want to pause the video and reread Danielle's statement and talk to someone else, what would you pull out as most important about what Danielle is saying?

I wonder what you picked out.

For me, I noticed she talked about the isolation of lockdown and the fact that as she lived alone, she felt away from her community.

But she also talked about a spiritual isolation as well, didn't she?

The fact that she couldn't attend communion in person meant that she felt she missed that spiritual relationship that her faith gave her.

Let's just check our understanding so far.

Which Article was balanced against the right to freedom of religion or belief during COVID-19?

Was it Article 3, the right to life?

12, the right to family life and privacy?

18, the right to freedom of religion or belief?

Or 19, the right to freedom of opinion?

Excellent.

It was Article 3 the right to life, wasn't it?

Fantastic if you got that right.

Okay, let's think about what we've learned so far.

Alex is reflecting on freedom of religion or belief during COVID-19.

Alex says, "I think the government was right to limit the freedom to manifest religion or belief.

In a crisis like COVID-19, the right to life is more important.

People were protected, and they had the freedom to practice their religional belief at home.

The loss of public worship was not that important.

" So this is Alex's view.

Now, Sofia is working with Alex, and she doesn't agree with him.

I wonder how she might present a different view.

I'd like you to create a statement for Sofia to argue against what Alex has been saying and present a different viewpoint.

To help you, I suggest that you look back at Father Jason and Danielle and talk about this idea of balancing rights.

It was Article 3 balanced against the right to freedom of religion or belief and the way in which that was limited.

Can you make her view to argue that Alex is wrong and the government was not right to limit the freedom to manifest religion or belief?

Really look forward to seeing how you present that.

Well, what a lot of amazing work you've done.

So let's listen to Sofia's point, and I wonder how closely the statement we prepared looks like yours.

Sofia says, "I do not agree, Alex.

I think that limiting the right to manifest religion or belief went too far with the closure of places of worship during COVID-19.

I understand that governments had to balance the right to life and protect the public.

However, religion is about more than private practice and the impact on people in terms of isolation and loss of community was not fought through properly.

" So here, Sofia is talking about the idea of limiting the idea of manifesting.

She talks about religion not being, it being more than just something you do privately and having a real impact on people in terms of community and isolation.

I wonder how many of those points you brought out yourselves, but brilliant work, and thank you.

So for the second part of this lesson, we're going to be thinking about balancing competing rights.

So in the first part of the lesson, we thought about the COVID-19 pandemic, and that highlights how there may be competing rights at a national level.

However, it's also true that rights can compete and need to be balanced in other situations as well.

And to do this, we're going to look at a different case study.

This is a case study of a smaller community, and it's going to be really helpful for us to understand and identify situations where there are competing rights, and we're going to be making a judgment about whether we thought the right decision was made in this case.

As individuals, we all have a role as citizens of this country to protect and promote human rights.

And so looking at case studies like this and practicing making judgments will help us in our real lives when we try to promote human rights.

So this case study is set in a primary school.

This is Mahsa.

She's a primary school teacher, and she's also Jewish.

Mahsa has moved from Brighton to a new job at a small village school in the New Forest.

Yom Kippur is approaching, and she's asking her Head Teacher for some time off to observe the holy day.

So this is one of the characters we're going to meet in our case study.

Let's meet Rowan.

Rowan has been the head teacher of All Saints school in the New Forest for five years.

Rowan is agnostic, but he describes himself as a cultural Christian, which means he goes to church occasionally and he's interested in the ethics of Christianity, but he wouldn't necessarily call himself a Christian.

He's seen Mahsa's request and he calls her in for a meeting to discuss it.

So I'm going to read you now the script of a conversation between Mahsa and Rowan as they talk about her request.

And when you've read it, I've got some questions for you to think about before we move on.

So we start with Rowan.

He says, "Come in, Mahsa.

Many thanks for your request.

I can see you've asked for some time off for Yom Kippur.

I understand you would like to leave school at lunchtime on Tuesday, and then you would be back in school on Thursday.

Could you explain why this time off is necessary?

" Mahsa replies, "Thanks for meeting with me, Rowan.

As you know, I'm Jewish.

Yom Kippur is the holiest day of the Jewish year.

It's known as the day of atonement.

I will be fasting for nearly 26 hours and spending time in synagogue.

I need some time off the day before to prepare for it.

" Rowan replies, "Thanks for explaining this to me, Mahsa.

Now, I understand you're Jewish and I respect your religion, but I must let you know this is a very difficult time to ask for time off.

Firstly, it's September and the pupils have only just arrived in your class.

They're settling in, and this is gonna be very disruptive for them.

Nearly two days without you will mean that they lose some learning.

And secondly, it's parent's evening on Wednesday.

Parents really want to meet the new teacher, so this will cause them to be very unhappy.

Thirdly, it will mean I have to get a supply teacher to cover the class, which costs a lot of money for a small school like ours.

So, I'm sorry, but I don't think I can agree to this at the moment.

Perhaps next year, if you let me know in advance.

" Mahsa replies, "I quite understand this will cause disruption, Rowan, and you must understand that I never want to cause any loss of learning to my pupils.

But attendance at Yom Kippur is not something optional for me.

As I said, it's the holiest day of the Jewish year, and the Torah details that all Jews should spend the day in fasting and prayer.

I would not ask for time off if it was not really important.

" Rowan replies, "I'm sorry if this causes problems for your faith matter, but we are not a Jewish school, as you must have known when we took the job.

All teachers get a lot of holidays throughout the year.

Can't you observe the festival at the weekend?

" Mahsa replies, "I know this is not a Jewish school, Rowan, and of course I know we have good holidays as teachers, but all of our holidays are linked to the Christian festivals of Christmas and Easter, for example.

I don't observe these, but I'm very happy to talk about them with the pupils.

I'm sorry, but it's not possible to observe Yom Kippur on any other day.

The date is celebrated by Jews all around the world on this day, and my Jewish community will come to the synagogue.

I will make sure I set all the work for the supply teacher, and I can arrange to meet parents on another day.

I'm sure they'll understand this is something important to me.

" And Rowan closes by saying, "I'm very sorry, Mahsa, but I cannot agree to your request at this time.

" So now we've heard the conversation between Mahsa and Rowan.

I have some questions for you.

What is Mahsa asking for?

What reasons does Rowan give for his decision?

And what do you think of this situation?

This might be a good time to pause the video and reflect on these or talk to the person next to you.

Let's just check our understanding so far.

What was Mahsa's request for time off?

A, to attend synagogue for Shabbat, B, to observe Yom Kippur, C, to mark Eid-ul-Fitr?

Excellent, it was B, to observe Yom Kippur.

And secondly, which two reasons did Rowan use to refuse her request?

A, the school could not afford it, B, the pupils were still settling into class, C, it was parent's evening, D, she was not entitled to time off for Jewish holidays?

Excellent, it was B and C, wasn't it, that the pupils were settling into class and that it was parent's evening.

He didn't say the school could not afford it.

He just said it would be a lot of money for a small school, and he didn't say she wasn't entitled to time off for Jewish holidays.

He just questioned why she needed that time off during the week.

So I wonder what competing rights we can identify in this case study.

Rowan claimed that pupils' learning would be lost and they would be disrupted as they were still settling into class.

Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the right to education for all.

So Rowan is arguing that these rights, the children's rights under Article 26, were more important in this situation than Mahsa's rights to manifest her religion or belief.

I wonder what you think about his argument here and the choices he's made about these balancing rights.

And I wonder, whose rights were potentially being violated in this case?

So Mahsa argues that as a Jew, she must attend synagogue to observe Yon Kippur.

I wonder which part of the right to freedom of religion or belief is being limited or violated by the school if Mahsa is told she has to teach those days.

And I wonder what you think about her situation.

You might have drawn out the fact that the violation here is in her right to manifest in community her human rights, and that's what Rowan is trying to limit.

So what happens if Rowan and Mahsa cannot resolve this situation?

So these conflicting and competing rights happen quite frequently within our society, and sometimes they can be resolved within the context they're in, but sometimes these violations cannot be resolved by the people concerned.

In that case, Mahsa could take the case to court.

The court would look at the case study, they would look at the arguments, and they would make a ruling on the rights, and that ruling would have to be accepted by either Rowan or Mahsa.

So sometimes human rights violations or competing rights cannot be resolved, and so they could be escalated under our settlement to courts, and courts can make the final rulings.

Let's just check our understanding of everything we've been learning so far.

A situation which involves two or more rights that may be in opposition to each other are known as what?

You may want to pause the video here.

Excellent, they're known as competing rights.

Well done.

So let's draw this case study together.

I would like you to act in role as the Chair of Governors for All Saints school.

So Rowan is the head teacher, but as the Chair of Governors, you have ultimate responsibility, and you've been asked to mediate in this situation.

You might want to reread the script that I read to you, and you can find that in the additional materials.

What I would like you to do is identify, firstly, the competing rights between Rowan and Mahsa.

I'd like you to think if you think there's been a possible violation of these rights, and I'd like you to make a judgment.

As Chair of Governors, you have to make a judgment.

Who do you think is right in this situation?

Is it either Mahsa or Rowan?

And I'd like you also to try and create a solution, what we might call a reasonable accommodation, depending on who you think is right.

You might want to create a script of a meeting between yourself, Rowan, and Mahsa to try and resolve this situation.

If you're working in a group, you might like to role-play this and take the roles of the different characters each, create your script, and then perform it.

However you do it, I'm really looking forward to seeing how you resolve this situation and the judgment you make.

Well, thank you for all of your hard work.

So I've got some possible answers for you here.

So for the first question, you may have said that there's some competing rights between Mahsa's right to freely manifest her religional belief by attending synagogue for Yom Kippur and the pupil's right to an education, which might be disrupted if she's not there.

You may also have noticed that her rights could potentially be violated.

Mahsa's freedom to manifest her religion could be violated if she's not allowed to observe Yom Kippur.

So we have some competing rights and we have a possible rights violation.

Here is a possible script we've created to how this situation might be resolved.

The governor's saying, "I wanted to bring you, Rowan, and Mahsa together to try to sort out this issue.

" Rowan says, "Many thanks.

I don't want to hurt Mahsa's feelings, but I also have to balance her needs against the children's.

" The governor says, "I think we can sort this issue, Rowan.

In my view, by not allowing Mahsa to have time off for Yom Kippur, her rights are being violated.

Mahsa, I think that it's important that you do have the time off to observe Yom Kippur, as I understand it's a central part of your religious practice to attend synagogue on this day.

" So here, in my answer, you can see that I do have a judgment being made, and I have the Chair of Governor's ruling that Rowan was wrong and that Mahsa's rights were being violated.

Let's see where we go next.

Rowan says, "But what about the cost of the school?

" The governor says, "It's only one and a half days, Rowan, and I think a small price to pay for a highly capable teacher like Mahsa.

I'm sure she'll be a huge asset to the school in the future.

" Rowan says, "If she has time off, she will miss parent's evening and her pupils will miss a lot of learning time.

" The governor says, "I think we can write to the parents in Mahsa's class, Rowan, and explain in advance why Mahsa cannot be at the parent's evening.

Mahsa, please can you set detailed work for the supply teacher so they know exactly what to do?

" Mahsa replies, "Of course I will.

" Rowan says, "Okay, I accept I may have got this decision wrong.

I'm sorry for violating your rights, Mahsa.

I just had the children's interests at heart.

" And the governor finishes by saying, "Thanks, Rowan.

My view is we can allow the time off for Mahsa and she can attend synagogue.

The pupils will still be receiving her lessons, so their rights will not be compromised.

" I wonder what kind of script you prepared and what you thought about the possible violations here and the solutions that you came up with.

Okay, so let's summarize what we've been learning today.

We've learned there may be occasions where rights can be seen as competing and may need to be balanced against each other.

We've learned that the freedom to manifest religional belief can sometimes be limited by the state in certain certain situations.

We've learned that during the COVID-19 pandemic, places of worship were closed by the UK government, and this was an example of competing rights.

We've also learned that if individual or group of people cannot agree about a possible violation of rights, they can take this case to court.

And finally, we've learned that we can identify competing rights and make a judgment on them using case studies.

Thanks ever so much for learning with me today, and I really look forward to seeing you in another lesson soon.

Thank you.