Talk:Ahmad v United Kingdom

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The freedom of thought and religion is absolute. that is what i have been taught.

Well, that's not entirely true, because if you try to act on your thoughts or religion, there are a number of constraints. For instance, would you want somebody to have a religion which required sacrificing human babies? Or would you want to allow somebody who thought that all French people should die, and then went around killing them? Of course not. But admitting exceptions shows that you need more exceptions and a more nuanced approach. This is why the ECHR is written to contain exceptions where interference with a right to freedom of conscience or religion are justifiable. So, you've been taught wrongly. Wik idea 08:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The facts section is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.147.182 (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Add topic