European Court Says Switzerland Wrongly Denied Asylum To Pakistani Convert To Christianity

In M.A.M. v. Suisse, (ECHR, April 26, 2022) [decision in French], the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of a Pakistani asylee in Switzerland.  The Court's English language press release summarizes the case and its holding:

M.A.M. is a Pakistani national who had converted from Islam to Christianity while in Switzerland, where he had arrived in 2015 and where his asylum request had been rejected.

[T]he ... Court ... held, unanimously, that if the decision to expel the applicant to Pakistan were to be executed there would be a violation of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the absence of an assessment of the risk to which the applicant was exposed on account of the overall situation of Christian converts in Pakistan and of his own personal situation. The Court ruled that the assessment by the Swiss authorities of the risk facing the applicant on account of his conversion to Christianity if he were expelled to Pakistan had been insufficient to uphold the rejection of his asylum request....

[Thanks to @sacrareleges for the lead.]

Indian Court Says Religious Conversion Does Not Change Person's Caste

In Raj v. The Tahsildar, (Madras High Ct., Nov. 17, 2021), the High Court in the Indian city of Madras (Chennai) held that "conversion from one religion to another religion will not change the caste of a person which he belongs." The case involved a petition from a couple seeking an "inter-caste marriage certificate" in order to obtain the priority in public employment that is available to inter-caste couples.  The claim was based on petitioner's possession of a Backward Class certificate which he was issued when he converted to Christianity. However, according to the court:

by birth, the petitioner belongs to 'Adi-Dravidar' community and change of religion will not change the community.

Thus the court upheld the denial of the certificate. Normally this would still allow petitioner to claim the benefits reserved for Scheduled Classes. However, under a 1950 Presidential Order, members of Scheduled Classes that convert to Islam or Christianity are denied these benefits.

Israel's Top Court Rules That State Must Recognize Non-Orthodox Conversions Under Law of Return

Yesterday, Israel's Supreme Court ruled that those who convert to Judaism in Israel under auspices of the Reform or Conservative (Masorti) movements must be granted Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return.  As reported by JTA:

Israel’s Law of Return offers automatic citizenship to anyone with at least one Jewish grandparent. The state also generally recognizes those who converted to Judaism under Orthodox standards.

Past Supreme Court decisions have mandated that the state also recognize Jews who converted outside of Israel under non-Orthodox authority, provided they live in a recognized Jewish community....

Monday’s decision extends the right to citizenship to those who converted to Judaism under non-Orthodox auspices in Israel itself. The petition that spurred the court ruling was filed in 2005 but was postponed for more than a decade because the court wanted to give the government time to resolve the matter through legislation.

According to the New York Times:

The decision was mainly symbolic because typically, only 30 or 40 foreigners convert to Reform or Masorti Judaism in Israel every year.... 

But the ruling chips away some of the monopoly Orthodox rabbis have held over questions of religious identity that are central to frictions within Israeli society. It also inflames a long-running debate about the relationship between Israel’s civil and religious authorities — and particularly the role of the Supreme Court.

Indian State Places New Restrictions On Religious Conversion

On Nov. 27, the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh promulgated the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 (full text) (section-by-section explanation). It outlaws religious conversions entered solely for the purpose of marriage, as well as religious conversions by means of misrepresentations, force, coercion, undue influence, allurement or fraud. Violations are punishable by imprisonment of 1 to 5 years, and a fine of up to $200(US)-- with higher punishments where a minor, a woman or member of a Scheduled Caste are involved, or a mass conversion. 

The new law also sets out an elaborate procedure for anyone who wishes to change his or her religion. The procedure includes a 60-day advance notice to the District Magistrate, followed by a police investigation, and a post-conversion filing. The clergy planning to conduct a conversion must file a notice 30 days in advance. The Hindu reports on the new law.

Time reports on the "love jihad" conspiracy theory that has given impetus to laws such as this one:

Love Jihad is a baseless conspiracy theory that Muslim men are attempting to surreptitiously shift India’s demographic balance by converting Hindu women to Islam through marriage. The narrative has been pushed by Hindu nationalist groups close to India’s ruling BJP since Prime Minister Narendra Modi was first elected in 2014....

The new law comes just two weeks after judges in Uttar Pradesh’s high court overturned a previous decision that religious conversions for the sake of marriage are unacceptable....

The high court case referred to is Priyanshi @ Km. Shamren and others v. State of U.P. and Another, (Allahabad High Court, Nov. 11, 2020). The court said in part:

Right to choose a partner irrespective of caste, creed or religion, is inhered under right to life and personal liberty, an integral part of the Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

British Tribunal Denies Asylum To Disingenuous Iranian Convert To Christianity

Britain's appellate court that reviews decisions on visa and asylum applications and the right to enter or stay in the UK-- the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber-- has recently issued an interesting decision on how to treat a citizen of Iran who disingenuously converts from Islam to Christianity in Britain in order to create a basis for an asylum claim. In PS (Iran) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (UKUT IAC, Feb. 20, 2020), the court concluded that such aperson does not run a real risk of persecution upon return to Iran, and therefore is not entitled to asylum in the UK. the court said in part:

PS has been out of Iran since 2013; he has claimed asylum on at least two occasions, variously asserting fear as a result of being caught up in the green movement protests, ‘honour’ based violence and latterly on the basis that he had converted to Christianity; he attended church between May 2015 and sometime in 2016 and was baptised after he had been going to that church for about two weeks; he has no known contact with the authorities prior to leaving Iran; he has no known connection with any persons of interest, nor any adverse social media content to be concerned about. He has no known connection with any organisation which could be connected by the Iranian government to the house church movement.  He may be asked to sign an undertaking promising that he will not undertake any Christian activities. There is no reason why PS would refuse. We find that he is likely to be judged to present a negligible risk to the security of Iran. He will be released fairly quickly and we are not satisfied that there is any risk of ill-treatment. PS may be placed under surveillance. Once the authorities are satisfied that he is not attending house church or attempting to contact known Christians he will be of no further interest to the authorities.  Accordingly, we find that PS does not face a real risk of persecution upon return to Iran and his appeal is dismissed. 

The Tribunal also issued a new Country Guidance based on this case. Law & Religion UK reports on the case at greater length.

Israeli Court Orders Recognition of Conversion Performed Outside of Official Rabbinate

Haaretz and Times of Israel report today that in a first of its kind decision in Israel, a Jerusalem district court has ordered Israel's Interior Ministry to register as Jewish in the Population Registry a woman converted by a rabbinical court operating outside of the official Rabbinate.  The conversion was performed by Orthodox rabbis through Giyur K’Halakha, a private initiative of prominent religious Zionist rabbis that is less stringent in its conversion requirements.

Scottish Appeals Court Says Government Did Not Adequately Consider Refugees' Claim of Conversion To Christianity

In TF and MA v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (Scot. Ct. Sess., Aug. 30, 2018), Scotland's Inner House, Court of Session, held that the Secretary of State and appellate tribunals had failed to adequately consider certain evidence that Iranian asylum seekers had genuinely converted to Christianity after leaving Iran. All the parties agreed that individuals who converted from Islam to Christianity face a risk of persecution of forced to return to Iran. At issue however was:

the status of evidence from church leaders (or others holding positions of responsibility within a church) about the conduct of a person who has begun the process of admission into the church and as to the sincerity of his conversion to Christianity; as to the weight to be given to such evidence; and whether the usefulness of such evidence as a guide to the genuineness of the sur place conversion is undermined by findings that, in relation to other matters, the appellant, the applicant for asylum, has given evidence which is untrue or unreliable and/or may be said to undermine his basic credibility.

Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

India Supreme Court Affirms Right To Choose Religion and Marriage Partner

In Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (India Sup. Ct., April 9, 2018), a 3-judge panel of India's Supreme Court, in 61 pages of opinions, set aside a High Court's order that had annulled the marriage of a 26-year old student who had converted to Islam in order to marry. The court strongly affirmed the right of individuals to choose their religious faith and their marriage partner. The court's opinion by Chief Justice Misra said in part

It is obligatory to state here that expression of choice in accord with law is acceptance of individual identity. Curtailment of that expression ... destroy the individualistic entity of a person.  The social values and morals have their space  but they are not above the constitutionally guaranteed freedom.  The said freedom is both a constitutional and a human right. Deprivation of that freedom which is ingrained in choice on the plea of faith is impermissible.  Faith of a person is intrinsic to his/her meaningful existence.  To have the freedom of faith is essential to his/her autonomy....

In the case at hand, the father ... may feel that there has been enormous transgression of his right to protect the interest of his daughter but his view point or position cannot be allowed to curtail the fundamental rights of his daughter who, out of her own volition, married the appellant.

A concurring opinion by Justice Chandrachud added:

The right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees the right to life.... Intrinsic to the liberty which the Constitution guarantees as a fundamental right is the ability of each individual to take decisions on matters central to the pursuit of happiness. Matters of belief and faith, including whether to believe are at the core of constitutional liberty. The Constitution exists for believers as well as for agnostics. The Constitution protects the ability of each individual to pursue a way of life or faith to which she or he seeks to adhere. Matters of dress and of food, of ideas and ideologies, of love and partnership are within the central aspects of identity.... Society has no role to play in determining our choice of partners. 

One India and The Hindu report on the decision.

Malaysia's Federal Court Says Conversions To Christianity Are For Sharia Courts

In Malaysia last week, the Malaysian Federal Court dismissed appeals by four women who seek to have their names and religious affiliation changed on their national identity cards-- from Muslim to Christian.  Three of the women were originally Christians, but embraced Islam when they married Muslim men.  Now they are divorced and wish to re-embrace Christianity.  The fourth woman is a convert from Islam to Christianity. According to World Watch Monitor, the country's highest civil court held that jurisdiction over these cases is only in the Syariah Courts, even though the Sarawak Shariah Court Ordinance 2001 has no provision for leaving Islam.  CBNNews yesterday further explained the implications of this holding:

In the past, Sharia courts have not allowed conversion from the Islamic faith.

Christian groups said they'll request Sarawak legislators to amend state law to allow conversion. In response, several Islamic groups said they plan to counter Christian conversion efforts by sending more Muslims into the state.

Located in Malaysia's east, Sarawak is about 40 percent Christian. Most Christians are Chinese ethnics. Overall, Christians are about nine percent of the Malaysia population while Muslims are about 61 percent. Leaving Islam is unthinkable for most ethnic Malays who believe to be Malay is to be Muslim.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Reverses Itself In Suit By Muslim Convert To Christianity

In Doe v. First Presbyterian Church U.S.A. of Tulsa, (OK Sup. Ct., Dec. 19, 2017), the Oklahoma Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, withdrew its Feb. 2017 decision (see prior posting) dismissing on church autonomy grounds a suit challenging a church's publicizing of plaintiff's baptism, and replaced it with a majority opinion reversing the trial court's dismissal of the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. At issue are tort and breach of contract claims against a Presbyterian congregation.  Plaintiff is a Syrian, Muslim refugee who became interested in converting to Christianity and agreed to be baptized only after it was agreed that his conversion would be kept private.  However Presbyterian Church doctrine requires that information about those baptized be made public.  The fact of plaintiff's baptism was published on the Internet, leading to plaintiff's kidnapping and torture by Islamic extremists when he returned to Syria for a visit. The majority held:

All parties agree Doe simply asked for baptism, but never to become a member subject to the Appellees' ecclesiastical hierarchy. Without this consent, Doe's religious freedom to not subject himself to the Appellees' judicature must be respected and honored under the longstanding and clear constitutional decisions from our Court and the Supreme Court of the United States. What Doe consented to and what the FPC communicated to Doe must be determined as a foundational inquiry regarding Doe's claims.

It was error for the district court to conclude that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to hear Doe's claims on the basis of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The record below is replete with contested issues of fact which must be resolved by the trier of fact in an adversarial hearing below. This matter is hereby remanded back to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this decision.

Chief Justice Combs dissenting opinion argued that the majority wrongly conflated the church autonomy and ministerial exception doctrines in holding that the church autonomy defense is not jurisdictional. He went on to argue that plaintiff's non-membership in the church does not preclude application of the church autonomy doctrine. News OK reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Claim of Fraudulent Luring Into Conversion To Christianity Dismissed on Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Rymer v. Lemaster, (MD TN, Oct. 4, 2017), a Tennessee federal district court adopted a federal magistrate's recommendation of Aug. 30, 2017 (full text) and dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a suit by a college student against a Baptist minister. Student Lincoln Rymer claimed that Roger Oldham who was acting as his spiritual adviser wrongfully obtained student information about him, and used that information and an attractive female student to lure him into converting to Christianity.  Plaintiff claimed over $15.7 million in damages flowing from the conversion.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Says Church Autonomy Shields Suit Over Publicity of Baptism

In a 5-3 decision in Doe v. First Presbyterian Church USA of Tulsa, (OK Sup. Ct., Feb. 22, 2017), the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the church autonomy doctrine requires dismissal of a suit by a Muslim convert to Christianity challenging the church's online publicity of his baptism. Plaintiff traveled to Syria after the baptism where he allegedly was kidnapped and tortured by radical Muslims who threatened to carry out a death sentence for apostasy.  The majority framed the issue as one of whether publication of the baptism on the internet is an act rooted in religious belief so that it falls within the church's ecclesiastical jurisdiction.  The majority concluded:

The context of the online posting of Appellant's baptism is not secular. Appellant's tort claims all rest on an act that, per church doctrine, is an integral part of what the church considers to be the public nature of the sacrament. Because Appellant's tort claims arise from the performance of his baptism, this dispute is one over ecclesiastical rule, custom or law, and is not purely secular.....

Justices Gurich and Kauger disagreed, saying in part:

The present case does not involve a question of discipline, faith, or ecclesiastical rule decided by a church tribunal, nor does it involve an internal, administrative matter. It merely involves the Church's publication of Appellant's name on the internet. No judicial body in the Church rendered any decision that Appellant is now trying to relitigate in civil court, and ... the autonomy of an internal Church disciplinary process is not threatened. Moreover [this suit] ... satisfies an exception to the church autonomy doctrine [for serious threats to public safety, peace or order].

AP reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Israeli Rabbinate Will Adopt New Standards Likely To Validate Conversion of Ivanka Trump

As previously reported, in Israel in July the country's Supreme Rabbinical Court (which hears appeals in personal status matters) ruled that it will not recognize religious conversions performed by U.S. modern Orthodox Rabbi Haskel Lookstein.  Lookstein is the New York rabbi who officiated in the conversion of Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka. In recent years, the Israeli Rabbinate has become more restrictive in recognizing conversions performed abroad.  Now however it appears that Donald Trump's victory in the U.S. presidential election has even impacted the Israeli Rabbinate.  According to JTA, in separate announcements yesterday both Israel's Ashkenazi and Sephardi chief rabbis announced that they will convene a meeting next week with the Chief Rabbinate Council and the Supreme Rabbinical Court to create standards for determining which rabbis' conversions will be recognized.  Once a rabbi is on the list, his conversions will be automatically recognized without further investigation. Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef suggested that the standards will result in recognition of Ivanka Trump's conversion.

Court Rejects As Applied Challenge To California Reparative Therapy Ban; Seattle Adopts Its Own Ban

In Pickup v. Brown, (ED CA, Aug. 9, 2016), a California federal district court dismissed plaintiffs' amended complaint raising an "as applied" challenge to California's ban on health professionals providing conversion therapy (sexual orientation change efforts) to minors. The courts had previously rejected facial attacks on the law. (See prior posting.) Now the court held that plaintiffs had not pointed to any action by defendants involving differential application of the law to them.

Meanwhile, last week the Seattle, Washington City Council unanimously adopted an ordinance (full text) banning licensed medical or mental health professionals from providing conversion therapy or reparative therapy to a minor. (Background and White Paper.) Capitol Hill Seattle Blog reports on the Council's action.

Israel's High Court Recognizes Conversions Performed Outside of the Chief Rabbinate's Jurisdiction

Israel's High Court of Justice yesterday dealt another blow to the monopoly power of the country's Chief Rabbinate.  The Jerusalem Post reports that the Court, in an 8-1 decision, held that non-Israeli nationals who convert to Judaism through private Orthodox rabbinical courts-- rather than through the Chief Rabbinate's State Conversion Authority-- are eligible for citizenship under Israel's Law of Return.  Last year, a group of senior Orthodox rabbis gave up on trying to make the State Conversion Authority more accessible-- particularly to the many Soviet immigrants who are not recognized as Jewish under religious law-- and instead created their own non-state Orthodox conversion system known as Giyur Kahalacha.  It has converted some 150 people so far.  In Israel's complicated religious-political system, recognition under the Law of Return will likely require the Interior Ministry to register these converts as Jewish in the Population Registry. Then the question will be whether the Chief Rabbinate will recognize them as Jewish for purposes of marriage. Two leaders of the United Torah Judaism Party said that they would demand legislation to overturn the Court's decision.

Malaysian Civil Court Orders Recognition of Conversion Back To Christianity

In what the Borneo Post describes as a landmark case, a High Court judge in the Malaysian state of Sarawak has ordered the National Religion Department (NRD) to change a man's registration from Muslim to Christian and also to recognize his name change. The Star describes the decision in more detail. The man had been born into a Christian family, but the family converted to Islam when he was 8.  The court said in part:

His conversion to the Muslim faith was not of his own volition but by virtue of his parents’ conversion when he was a minor.

He is not challenging the validity of his conversion as a minor. But having become a major, he is free to exercise his right of freedom to religion and he chose Christianity.

The NRD had insisted on a letter of release from a Syariah Court, but the High Court concluded that the man's constitutionally protected religious freedom rights entitled him to obtain relief from a civil court.

Israel Supreme Court Says Public-Funded Mikvehs Must Be Open To Reform and Conservative Conversions

According to Haaretz and Times of Israel, last Thursday a 3-justice panel of Israel's Supreme Court held that state-funded mikvehs  (ritual bath facilities) operated by Orthodox-controlled religious councils must be open for use  by the Conservative and Reform Jewish movements for their conversion ceremonies as well as for Orthodox conversions. Israel's Chief Sephardi Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef called the decision "outrageous."

Malaysia Court of Appeal Says Civil Courts Have No Jurisdiction Over Religious Conversions

Malaysia Insider reports that yesterday in a 2-1 decision, Malaysia's Court of Appeal held that civil courts have no jurisdiction to void a contested conversion of three children to Islam. Only Shariah courts have jurisdiction. The Ipoh High Court (a civil court) had held that the conversion certificate entered by the Registrar of Conversion did not comply with Perak Shariah law because the conversion application was made unilaterally by the children's father, instead of by the children with the father's consent.  The children's mother, now divorced from the father, has also been battling with the father over custody of the children.

Israel's Rabbinical High Court To Consider Retroactive Conversion Revocation Case

Times of Israel and Haaretz report on an appeal filed last week with Israel's Rabbinical High Court seeking reversal of a lower religious court's decision handed down in 2012 that retroactively invalidated a Christian woman's 1983 conversion to Judaism. The lower court's action was taken because the woman was not living the Orthodox Jewish life-style she had promised to lead at the time of her conversion. The appeal is being pursued by the woman's daughter because it calls into question her and her young daughter's religious status. It is expected that the High Court will reverse the invalidation because it usually refuses to retroactively invalidate conversions.

Burma's Parliament Passes Controversial Religious Conversion and Monogamy Laws

According to Human Rights Watch, on Aug. 21 Burma's joint parliament passed two bills that violate human rights and threaten to entrench religious discrimination.  The Religious Conversion Bill will require anyone wishing to change religion to be over 18, and then to file an application with a local Religious Conversion Scrutinization and Registration Board.  It is feared that many local boards will be dominated by ethnic Buddhists who will be biased against conversion to other faiths. The second bill, the Monogamy Bill, is seen as targeting religious minorities that practice polygamy. These two laws, along with the Population Control Law which became law in May, and the Interfaith Marriage Law, passed in July but not yet signed into law, were promoted by the Association for Protection of Race and Religion ("Ma Ba Tha"), an organization of Buddhist monks with an anti-Muslim and ultra-nationalist agenda. Human Rights Watch urges Burma's President Thein Sein to refuse to sign the two newly-passed bills.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom also issued a statement this week condemning Burma's Religious Conversion Bill.