A/HRC/43/48 3. Gender-based discrimination within religious institutions and communities 45. Consultations addressed the phenomenon of pervasive gender-based discrimination against women, girls and LGBT+ persons within religious communities around the world, particularly against women who openly contest predominant gender stereotypes. Sometimes, even in situations where States have intervened, the leaders of faith-based communities maintain discriminatory practices. In 2005, the Supreme Court of Nepal declared illegal the practice of exiling women from their homes to bare-bones huts during menstruation, yet religious leaders and faith healers continue to enforce the practice, often with deadly consequences. Similarly, despite the Supreme Court of India ruling that declared the prohibition on women entering places of worship to be unconstitutional, Hindu leaders continue to ban women “of menstruating age” from entering temples. 46. In every region, the Special Rapporteur heard from women and LGBT+ persons who are limited in their opportunities to contribute to the content of their religion or belief. In addition to being denied the right to manifest their beliefs through gender equal interpretations of their faith, advocates or individuals working to combat gender-based violence and discrimination may be punished or stigmatized for attempts to do so. For many, their only option is to accept the discriminatory beliefs, rules and internal workings of a religion or belief or leave. Thus, the disenfranchisement of women and LGBT+ persons in religious communities presents serious challenges for the global advancement of equality. 47. The Special Rapporteur notes that, while religious organizations are entitled to autonomy in the administration of their affairs, such deference should be extended within a holistic conception of human rights grounded in the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and inalienability of all human rights. For example, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has called upon States to ensure that church-run institutions are not permitted to discriminate against non-ecclesiastical employees on grounds of religious belief, sexual orientation or gender identity (see E/C.12/DEU/CO/6). 48. The Special Rapporteur reiterates that the right to freedom of religion or belief belongs to individuals, not religions, and emphasizes that, in general, States should not interfere with a community’s communal practices or internal organization. He further stresses that States are prohibited from imposing beliefs on individuals and communities and that religious actors can and should, in upholding their institutional autonomy, be exempted from complying with government regulations where doing so would not inordinately discriminate against others on the basis of gender. He notes, however, that the principle of institutional autonomy does not extend to State deference to harmful discriminatory gender norms. Nor does it oblige States to defer from intervening to prevent harmful practices because said practices are informed by “religious ethos”, including discriminatory acts that have as their purpose or effect the nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis. 35 This is particularly important with regard to internal dissidents who may be targeted with violence as a result of their advocacy for gender equal teachings (A/68/290, para. 60). 49. Many feminist and human rights scholars argue that such deference to the autonomy and traditions of religious institutions is problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, they contend that rules regulating the status of men and women, including in the appointment of clergy or in institutional structures that enforce anti-LGBT+ bias, may be “religious” in nature but they are also political; norms and practices that promote stereotypical masculinities and femininities about roles and about sexuality have profound impacts on the polity. 36 Feminists argue that limiting the roles of persons within their religious communities and institutions cannot be said to involve solely the private relationship between clergy and congregation, and that commitments that consider women and girls subordinate and LGBT+ persons unequal in their personhood implicate much more than the “self-administration” of a religious community. Feminists and human rights scholars observe that norms that oppress women, girls and LGBT+ persons, regardless of their foundation in religious convictions or 35 36 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 18 (1989) on non-discrimination, para. 7. Nelson Tebbe, “Reply: conscience and equality”, Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development, vol. 31, No. 1 (2018). 11