To be considered as a claimant suffering religious persecution, the claimant must show that they have a well-founded fear of persecution that is due to the claimant’s religion.
Religious persecution
Tribunals have described persecution as “a sustained or systemic violation of basic human rights”1 or a “systematic form of harassment.”2 Persecution may be carried out by people in the community, or by the government.
This type of persecution occurs because of religion. This means that the persecution is due to the religious identity that claimants hold for themselves, or a religious identity that others assume that they have.
While persons in need of protection may directly experience cruel and unusual treatment, persecution can also occur when laws that discriminate on the basis of religion have consequences that are substantially prejudiced against the claimant. Such prejudicial consequences could involve serious restrictions on the right to earn a living or to access education or healthcare that are normally available to others.3
The activity of practising one’s religion is recognized as a fundamental human right.
If the evidence shows that the open practice of religion will be denied, this can be considered persecution.4 Forcing someone to conform to religious practices may also be considered persecution “if it becomes an intolerable interference with the individual’s own religious belief, identity, or way of life.”5
Defining religion
The term “religion” is interpreted broadly in the international refugee law context. While the 1951 Convention does not define “religion,” the UNHCR Handbook confirms that the category includes a wide variety of theistic and nontheistic beliefs.6 It extends beyond traditional religions like Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam, encompassing belief systems that might not always be considered as religions but play a similar role in the lives of their members (e.g., Falun Gong).7
The laws of different countries define religion in different ways. Some countries that make important provisions for guaranteeing religious freedom may avoid engaging in definitional questions, recognizing that religion is complex and may result in claims involving activities and expressions that are quite foreign to non-members.8
Nonetheless, the general approach is to maintain a broad definition, since a narrow one could exclude minority religious groups and violate principles of religious freedom.9 For example, the Supreme Court of Canada has defined “religion” as
“a particular and comprehensive system of faith and worship; a belief in a divine, superhuman or controlling power; and/or a personal conviction or belief that fosters a connection with the divine or with the subject or object of that spiritual faith.”10
The Supreme Court of Canada
Disclaimer: This website does not contain legal advice. For all legal questions, it is best to consult with a qualified lawyer. The information contained on this website may not be current due to changes since the time it was written.
1. James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status, 2nd ed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014) [Hathaway] at 185.
2. Rajudeen v Canada, (1984) 55 NR 129 at pp 133-34.
3. UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status and Guidelines on International Protection Under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva: United Nations, 2019) [UNHCR Handbook] at 127.
4. Ahmed v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [1999] E.W.J. No. 5882 (C.A. (Civil Div.)), cited in Waldman, Division 1, (ii) (“religion”).
5. UNHCR Handbook, supra note 3 at 128.
6. UNHCR Handbook, supra note 3 at 125.
7. UNHCR Handbook, supra note 3 at 124.
8. T. Jeremy Gunn, “The complexity of religion and the definition of religion in international law” (2003) 16 Harv Hum Rts J at 190.
9. “Overview of the Court’s case-law on freedom of religion” (19 January 2011 and updated on 31 October 2013), online(pdf): European Court of Human Rights
10. Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551 at para 39.
Religious Refugees 