COVID-19 and Religious Freedom: Some Comparative Perspectives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

On the whole the article remains faithful to the topic and the direction suggested in the abstract. The main issues it addresses are, the proportionality of limitations on fundamental rights and that of cooperation between government and religious communities (and civil society) in a health crisis like Covid-19. I liked what is contained in lines 58-64. Lines 69-74 are great!

I am of the opinion that what is contained in 58- 64 needs to be included somehow in the conclusion: the matter of cooperation and consultation.

In line 117, I believe that the author makes light of the “trust” question. The trust question cannot be downplayed in the light of its erosion in recent times and the growing cynicism of the populace with governments. I would have said, not “only” as a way of taking cognizance of this. I also wonder whether the author considers “trust’ as belonging to a different realm than the legal one he is looking at? Hence is avoidance of its discussion or at least flagging it as deserving attention.

Lines 600-608 seems not to belong to the discussion. It’s a conclusion from a different discussion because nowhere in the paper has that been discussed! As such I don’t think that art has a place in this article. Therefore 609-618 can be reworked to from the beginning of the Conclusion.

619-630 is faithful to the paper and makes a great conclusion.

632-634 needs to reflect what the article says about freedoms in times of crises. It sounds to me like the sentence waters down the argument that the author is making. My understanding of the article is that freedoms can be “tempered” with during crises with the necessary caveats he has made.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind comments. Your point about trust is interesting but taking it would likely make me go too far in a different direction. Most of the other suggestions you make are just a matter of style or design of the text. So, allow me to leave it as it is.

Reviewer 2 Report

This article requires some revisions in order to become publishable. The principal problem with this article is that it does not provide a clear argument or represent a thorough research project. As it currently stands, the article is more akin to a literature review or a compilation of reflections; it is not a research article that meaningfully engages with - or contributes to - current scholarship.

The closest that the author comes to a real argument is their recommendation of “co-responsible deliberation” between states and religious communities. But this recommendation needs to be outlined further. For example, what would co-responsible deliberation look like in practice? Do we have current examples? Would such a legal arrangement become too deferential to religious institutions and adherents? If this is the core argument of the article, then the author should develop and defend this argument in greater detail.

In terms of style and language, several changes need to be made. To begin, the first three sentences of the article should be rewritten. These sentences do not offer a strong opening, they are too informal, and they minimize the relevance of the article. This introduction is bound to lose many readers immediately.

Also, the article needs to be edited to improve its clarity. I recommend going back through each sentence to excise unnecessary material and clarify ambiguous sections. For instance, the following parts should be edited:

• “our global today’s world” (p. 2)
• Sentence beginning “After the Second World War…” (2)
• “1918 flue” (2)
• Too much numbering on p. 3
• “section 0 of this paper” (5)
• “being freedom of religion or belief a fundamental right” (5)
• “not only it is” (6)
• “neither the State’s” (8)
• “also moral” (9)
• “as some Polish scholar” (10)
• “some Uruguayan scholar” (11)
• “to search a dialogue” (12)
• Sentence beginning “And its collective exercise…” (15)
• One area that needs particular attention is on p. 13. The author’s defense of religious adherents’ anti-vaccine stance is too brusque and requires greater elaboration
• Replace “freedom of religion or belief” with “freedom of religion” throughout the article

Finally, the author purports to bring a "comparative law perspective" to this subject matter, but it is never clear what this perspective entails. The author should explain what kind of legal comparativist work this article represents. How does it fit within broader scholarship? Also, for comparative research, it was striking how few specific, explicit comparisons between states are supplied in the article. I would recommend providing more in-depth case studies.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments as well as for your suggestions about language, which I found particularly helpful. Some quick responses:

• The article is not intended as a case study or a detailed research. As is clearly stated at the beginning, it contains some personal reflections about how freedom of religion, and the relations between State and religious communities, have been affected by the governments' measures against the COVID-19 pandemic. In my view, this type of articles may contribute to productive scholarly debates; specific and detailed research is not the only valid way to do scholarship. In the civil law tradition this is well established. 
• Some of the comments you make are interesting and could certainly lead to further reflection but it is the author's choice which points to develop and which others to leave for further (or others') elaboration. 
• I do not consider that I make a "brusque" (and even less a "too brusque") "defense of religious adherents’ anti-vaccine stance". I merely say -- and I think it is a valid point -- that imposing vaccination in a coercive way against all possible conscientious objections should not be taken lightly, because of freedom of conscience is involved, because of the scientific debate on the efficiency and possible collateral effects of the various vaccines currently available, and also because of the many uncertainties, vacillations, contradictions, and changes of directions we have witnessed in governments' policies in the last 16 months or so. In any event, your comment gave me the occasion to introduce a footnote citing a recent Strasbourg judgment that was delivered after I had finished my article.
• I use often "freedom of religion or belief" instead of "freedom of religion" or "religious freedom" because it is the established practice in legal scholarship in this area. It is supposed to make clear that this fundamental freedom protects also the rights and beliefs of non-religious people. I agree that, duly understood, the expression "religious freedom" could be enough, and less tedious, but I would not like to be accused of ignoring the rights of atheists and agnostics. So, I use both expressions through the text. This is the world in which we live.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is terrific.  I don’t have any suggestions or points of disagreement.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

1. footnote 1 - I don't understand why the reduction of bibliography should be considered an advantage of the article.
2) In section 2, the author should be more concrete and give examples of solutions used by governments, e.g. travel bans, closing stores or various institutions (e.g. schools, universities), ordering people to wear masks, etc. It is worthwhile to include different points of view, including critical ones.
3. The argumentation seems a bit long-winded. It could be more essential. But overall, this is a quite good article.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your kind comments. Some quick responses:

• I do not intend to present reduction of bibliography as an advantage. I just try to be clear about the fact that this article was not conceived as a detailed research on the basis of current legal literature -- which is, by the way, not so abundant -- or of en extensive analysis of measures and regulations in different countries (which could be the theme for a doctoral dissertation but not for this type of article). The purpose of my contribution is explained -- I think clearly enough -- in the first paragraph. 
• Your remarks 2 and 3 seem to go in opposite directions. I tried to keep a balance between illustrative examples and general reflections. I guess we all make different choices about content and methodology.

Reviewer 5 Report

No recommended changes. This article offers a careful and thorough scholarly analysis of the essential issues in governmental restraint of religious freedom owing to the COVID crisis.  I would not require any changes in the content or bibliographical material in the article.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author responded to my grammar and syntax edits, but has not reformed the core problems that I highlighted in my first review. These issues remain, and they hinder the article.