Dominica

Dominica, officially the Commonwealth of Dominica, is a parliamentary democracy located in the Caribbean. Dominica is the sole republic within the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS).[ref]https://www.oecs.org/en/who-we-are/member-states[/ref] It gained independence from Britain in 1978, however many of its laws and institutions still remain under British colonial influence today.

According to the 2011 Census, the most recent census, Dominica has a population of 71,293 people.[ref]https://stats.gov.dm/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2011-Population-and-Housing-Census.pdf[/ref] Of this population, 52.7% are Roman Catholic, 31% are other Christian faiths, 1.1% are Rastafarian, 4.3% are ‘Other’ religions, and 9.4% are atheist or follow no religion.[ref]https://stats.gov.dm/subjects/demographic-statistics/population-by-religion-1991-2001-and-2011/[/ref] The 2011 Census shows that the Roman Catholic religion has registered steady decreases over the last decades from 70.1% in 1991 down to 52.7% in 2011. On the other hand, Evangelical followers have grown 12.1% over the last decade representing 19.0% of the population in 2011, similarly Seventh Day Adventist recorded a 10.6% increase representing 6.7% of the population in 2011. Meanwhile, persons with no religious beliefs significantly increased by 54.4% moving from 6.1% to 9.4% of the population between 1991 and 2011.[ref]https://stats.gov.dm/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2011-Population-and-Housing-Census.pdf[/ref]

Dominica is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, and the Non-Aligned Movement.

Constitution and government Education and children’s rights Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination
There is state funding of at least some religious schools
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
Official symbolic deference to religion
Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories
State-funded schools offer religious or ideological instruction with no secular or humanist alternative, but it is optional
Some concerns about political or media freedoms, not specific to the non-religious
No religious tribunals of concern, secular groups operate freely, individuals are not persecuted by the state
Constitution and government
Official symbolic deference to religion
Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories
Education and children’s rights
There is state funding of at least some religious schools
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
State-funded schools offer religious or ideological instruction with no secular or humanist alternative, but it is optional
Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals
The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination
No religious tribunals of concern, secular groups operate freely, individuals are not persecuted by the state
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
Some concerns about political or media freedoms, not specific to the non-religious
Use of Conscientious Objection clauses resulting in the denial of lawful services to women and LGBTI+ people
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in all or most state-funded schools with no secular or humanist alternative
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: Kazakhstan

The state is secular, with separation of religious and political authorities, not discriminating against any religion or belief
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
No fundamental restrictions on freedom of expression or advocacy of humanist values
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand

Countries: Andorra

No condition holds in this strand
Religious courts or tribunals rule directly on some family or ‘moral’ matters; it is legally an opt-in system, but the possibility of social coercion is very clear
No condition holds in this strand

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

Localised or infrequent but recurring and widespread social marginalisation or prejudice against the non-religious

This condition is unusual in that it is applied in cases where there is some social discrimination, but it is not pervasive or nationwide. This condition is applied when there is sufficient background evidence to warrant the assertion that discrimination is not anomalous but widespread, and this condition may be applied for example even where if there is no legislative discrimination or where the non-religious may have legal recourse against such discrimination. However, societal discrimination (i.e. discrimination by peers, as opposed to state or legal discrimination) is not easily measured, and for this reason the Report does not currently have similar more severe boundary conditions to capture higher levels of social discrimination per se. In principle these may be introduced in future. However, we consider that countries with actual higher levels of social discrimination against the non-religious will generally already meet other higher level (more severe) boundary conditions under this thematic strand.

Countries: Botswana, Greece, Serbia, United States of America

The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination

Applied when the influence of religion on public life undermines others’ rights, such as SRHR, women’s rights, LGBTI+ rights.

May be applied when the influence is overt (i.e. when religious laws are applied to undermine others’ rights) or covert (i.e. where religious pressure groups exert influence to affect policy)

Countries: Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Croatia, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eswatini, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Liberia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Oman, Paraguay, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Zambia

The non-religious are persecuted socially or there are prohibitive social taboos against atheism, humanism or secularism
Complete tyranny precludes all freedoms of expression and thought, religion or belief

Applied when overriding acts of oppression by the State are extreme, to the extent that the question of freedom of thought and expression is almost redundant, because all human rights and freedoms are quashed by authorities.

Countries: North Korea

Expression of core Humanist principles on democracy, freedom and human rights is brutally repressed
Expression of non-religious views is severely persecuted, or is rendered almost impossible by severe social stigma, or is highly likely to be met with hatred or violence
There is significant social marginalisation of the non-religious or stigma associated with expressing atheism, humanism or secularism
Religious or ideological indoctrination is utterly pervasive in schools
There is a nominal state church with few privileges or progress is being made toward disestablishment

Countries: Bulgaria, Norway, Peru, Rwanda

The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)
‘Apostasy’ is outlawed and punishable with a prison sentence

Countries: Bahrain, Comoros, Jordan, Kuwait

‘Apostasy’ or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Some religious courts rule in civil or family matters on a coercive or discriminatory basis
Religious authorities have supreme authority over the state

Countries: Iran

State legislation is partly derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general

This condition is applied where there are miscellaneous indicators that organs of the state offer various forms of support for a religion, or to religion in general over non-religious worldviews, suggesting a preference for those beliefs, or that the organs of that religion are privileged.

Countries: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zimbabwe

There is a pattern of impunity or collusion in violence by non-state actors against the nonreligious
State-funded schools provide religious education which may be nominally comprehensive but is substantively biased or borderline confessional
Religious or ideological instruction in a significant number of schools is of a coercive fundamentalist or extremist variety

This condition highlights countries where schools subject children to fundamentalist religious instruction with no real opportunity to question fundamentalist tenets, or where lessons routinely encourage hatred (for example religious or ethnic hatred). The wording “significant number of schools” is not given a rigid quantification (sometimes the worst-offending schools are unregistered, illegal, or otherwise uncounted); however the condition is not applied in cases where only a small number of schools meet the description and may be anomalous, as opposed to being indicative of a widespread problem.

Countries: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia

State legislation is largely or entirely derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
‘Blasphemy’ or criticism of religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Government figures or state agencies openly marginalize, harass, or incite hatred or violence against the non-religious
Government authorities push a socially conservative, religiously or ideologically inspired agenda, without regard to the rights of those with progressive views
It is illegal to advocate secularism or church-state separation, or such advocacy is suppressed
Prohibitive interreligious social control (including interreligious marriage bans)
Quasi-divine veneration of a ruling elite is enforced, or a single-party regime holds uncontested power, subject to severe punishment
Legal or constitutional provisions exclude non-religious views from freedom of belief
It is illegal to register an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization, or such groups are persecuted by authorities
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
The non-religious are barred from holding government office
Some concerns about children's right to specifically religious freedom

This condition may apply if specifically religious education, religious materials, or specific religious denominations are so tightly controlled that children are in fact over-protected from exposure to religion and are likely unable to explore or construct their own worldview in accordance with their evolving capacities. This condition helps us to classify states (perhaps with secular constitutions) which have criminalized specifically religious beliefs or practices. This condition is not applied if the restricted beliefs or practices are found to be outlawed due to their being of an extremist variety. While this condition does not directly reflect discrimination against non-religious persons or non-religious ideas, it does represent an overall threat to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; such restrictions could spill over to affect non-religious beliefs later; and they pose a risk of backlash against over-zealous secular authorities or even against non-religious individuals by association.

Countries: China, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guyana, Italy, Kazakhstan, Laos, Madagascar, Mexico, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe

It is illegal or unrecognised to identify as an atheist or as non-religious
It is made difficult to register or operate an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization
Legend
 
Severe Discrimination
Systemic Discrimination
Mostly Satisfactory
Free and Equal
More information about rating table

Constitution and government

The Constitution[ref]https://www.cpahq.org/media/ovfdlmgv/dom_constitution.pdf[/ref] recognizes and guarantees the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of Dominica citizens consistent with the principles of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. It declares that “a person shall not be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience, including freedom of thought and of religion.”

According to Article 9(1) “except with his own consent, a person shall not be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience, including freedom of thought and of religion, freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others, and both in public and in private, to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

Article 9(2) of the Constitution, which deals with religious teachings, states that “except with his own consent (or, if he is a person under the age of eighteen years, the consent of his guardian) a person attending any place of education, detained in any prison or corrective institution or serving in a naval, military or air force shall not be required to receive religious instruction or to take part in or attend any religious ceremony or observance if that instruction ceremony or observance relates to a religion which is not his own.”

Article 9(4) ensures that a person shall not be compelled to take any oath that is contrary to his religion or belief or to take any oath in a manner that is contrary to his religion or belief.

The Constitution prohibits a practising member of the clergy from holding public office (Article 32), however, the Dominica Association of Evangelical Churches (DAEC) and Catholic Church have sought to remove this obstacle.[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/240282-DOMINICA-2020-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

Education and children’s rights

Religious education within the wider education system

Article 9(3) of the Constitution states that every religious community is entitled to establish and maintain places of education and to manage any place of education. No such community shall be prevented from providing religious instruction for persons of that community in the course of any education.

Article 118 of the 1997 Education Act[ref]http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex4.detail?p_lang=en&p_isn=48075&p_country=DMA&p_count=211[/ref] reiterates the rights of children attending state-funded schools run by religious associations (termed ‘assisted schools’) to abstain from acts of religious worship or instruction enshrined in Article 9(2) of the Constitution.

According to Section 142(2a) of the Education Act, it is not a condition of admission or attendance at any public or assisted private school that a student participates in religious education or attends or abstain from attending any place of religious instruction or worship. However, under Section 21(1e) during enrollment of a student, the parent or guardian of the student must inform the school of the religious persuasion of the student. Private schools can, at their own expense, provide religious instruction.

At public schools, teachers, principals, and students lead nondenominational prayers during morning assemblies, but students are not required to participate.[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/240282-DOMINICA-2020-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref] According to Section 142(1) of the Education Act, the school day in every public or assisted private school shall begin with collective worship by all students in attendance at the school, unless the school premises are such that it would be impracticable to assemble for such purposes or it would be more convenient to conduct such worship in the classrooms.

The government subsidizes teacher salaries at all private schools run by religious organizations, including those affiliated with the Catholic, Methodist, and Seventhday Adventist Churches.[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/240282-DOMINICA-2020-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

Children’s rights

The legal minimum age for marriage is 18 for both men and women, but marriage is permitted at age 16 with parental consent.[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/DOMINICA-2019-HUMAN-RIGHTS-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

Family, community and society

LGBTI+ rights

Discriminatory laws in Dominica make lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people targets for discrimination, violence and abuse.[ref]https://www.refworld.org/country,,HRW,,DMA,,5aba9a244,0.html[/ref] There are no laws in Dominica that protect the LGBTI+ community against discrimination against a person based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or sex characteristics in employment, housing, education, or health care.[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/DOMINICA-2019-HUMAN-RIGHTS-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

In 2012 the education minister created a task force with the purpose of “investigating and identifying the root causes of deviance and the increasing incidents of homosexuality among [the] student population.”[ref]http://dominicanewsonline.com/news/homepage/news/general/dominica-ranked-third-worse-gay-rights-russia/[/ref] In 2014 the Prime Minister stated “I will make it clear that there are some things that this Government will not accept and we will never allow for the state to recognize same-sex marriage in our country.”[ref]http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Dominica-PM-says-no-to-same-sex-marriage_17128008?[/ref]

In 2020, experts from the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concern about the violence, harassment and marginalization of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons and by the so-called “gay panic” criminal defence that justified murder if the male victim propositioned the accused.[ref]https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25709&LangID=E[/ref]

Dominca criminalizes same-sex intimacy between consenting persons using the term “buggery”. As such, the Sexual Offences Act 1998[ref]http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex4.detail?p_lang=en&p_isn=49696&p_country=DMA&p_count=208&p_classification=01.04&p_classcount=25[/ref] defines buggery as “anal intercourse by a male person with a male person or by a male person with a female person.” Buggery laws do not distinguish between consensual and non-consensual sex.[ref]https://www.refworld.org/country,,HRW,,DMA,,5aba9a244,0.html[/ref] In it’s testimony before the Human Rights Committee, representatives of Dominica stated that the law is not enforced.[ref]https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25709&LangID=E[/ref]

Section 16(1) of the Sexual Offences Act states that “A person who commits buggery is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to imprisonment for – (a) twenty-five years, if committed by an adult on a minor; (b) ten years, if committed by an adult on another adult; (c) or five years, if committed by a minor; and, if the Court thinks it fit, the Court may order that the convicted person be admitted to a psychiatric hospital for treatment”.

Dominica defines gross indecency as: “any act other than sexual intercourse by a person involving the use of the genital organs for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire.” The vague wording of the law means that LGBTI+ persons are susceptible to arrest and prosecution for a wide range of sexual acts.[ref]https://www.refworld.org/country,,HRW,,DMA,,5aba9a244,0.html[/ref]

Section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act states that “(1)Any person who commits an act of gross indecency with another person is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to imprisonment for five years. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an act of gross indecency committed in private between an adult male person and an adult female person, both of whom consent. ”

The government have repeatedly rejected UN Universal Periodic Review recommendations to decriminalize same-sex acts,[ref]Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Dominica, A/HRC/27/9, June 26, 2014, para. 22; Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, A/HRC/42/9/Add.1, 10 September 2019, https://undocs.org/A/HRC/42/9/Add.1; https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G19/209/52/PDF/G1920952.pdf?OpenElement [/ref] citing religious opposition (particularly from evangelical churches) as well as cultural and societal opposition.[ref]http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/violencelgbtipersons.pdf[/ref]

In July 2019, an anonymous citizen, backed by the Canadian HIV/AIDs Legal Network, filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of portions of the Sexual Offenses Act that criminalize specific sexual activity between same-sex partners.[ref]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dominica-lgbt-rights-idUSKCN1UE2HG[/ref]

In September 2020, the Dominica Christian Council applied for, and received, the High Court’s permission to intervene in a 2019 constitutional challenge to the country’s anti-sodomy law. LGBTI+ groups called the challenge a “delay tactic” by the Dominica Christian Council, because the council opposes overturning the law.[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/240282-DOMINICA-2020-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

In court documents filed on behalf of the Dominica Christian Council by Bishop Gabriel Malzaire, the Council has a duty to promote Christian values and oppose any legislation that “challenges, opposes and/or is likely to degrade these values and beliefs, public decency and/or public morality.”[ref]https://www.ncronline.org/news/justice/bishop-reverses-course-supports-lgbtq-criminalization-laws-dominica[/ref]

The DAEC also continues to support the government’s ban on same-sex marriage.[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/240282-DOMINICA-2020-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

Activists have argued that the influence of the Church in society and politics plays an important part in the realisation or lack thereof of members of the LGBTI+ community.[ref]https://www.ncronline.org/news/justice/bishop-reverses-course-supports-lgbtq-criminalization-laws-dominica[/ref]

Abortion

The Offences Against the Person Act[ref]http://www.dominica.gov.dm/laws/chapters/chap10-31.pdf; https://abortion-policies.srhr.org/country/dominica/ [/ref] criminalizes abortion under section 8, 9, 56 and 57. Abortion is not an option for victims of rape who become pregnant.

Section 8(1) “any person who with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother is guilty of the offence of child destruction and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life; but no person shall be found guilty of an offence under this section unless it is proved that the act which caused the death of the child was not done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother.”

Section 9 “(1) Where, upon the trial of any person for the murder or manslaughter of any child or for infanticide, or for an offence under section 56 (which relates to administering drugs or using instruments to procure abortion), the jury are of opinion that the person charged is not guilty of murder, manslaughter or infanticide, or an offence under section 56, as the case may be, but that he is shown by the evidence to be guilty of the offence of child destruction, the jury may find him guilty of that offence and thereupon the person convicted shall be liable to be punished as if he had been convicted upon an indictment for child destruction. (2) Where upon the trial of any person for the offence of child destruction the jury are of opinion that the person charged is not guilty of that offence but that he is shown by the evidence to be guilty of an offence under section 56, the jury may find him guilty of that offence and thereupon the person convicted shall be liable to be punished as if he had been convicted upon an indictment under that section.”

Section 56 “ Any woman being with child, who, with the intent to procure her own miscarriage, unlawfully administers to herself any poison or other noxious thing, or unlawfully uses any instrument, or other means whatsoever, with the like intent, and any person who with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she is with child or not, unlawfully administers to her, or causes to be taken by her, any poison or other noxious thing, or unlawfully uses any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, is liable to imprisonment for ten years.”

Section 57 “Any person who unlawfully supplies or procures any poison or other noxious thing, or any instrument or thing whatsoever knowing that the same is intended to be unlawfully used or employed with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she is with child or not, is liable to imprisonment for two years.”

Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values

Freedom of expression is constitutionally guaranteed, and the press is generally free in practice.[ref]https://freedomhouse.org/country/dominica/freedom-world/2021[/ref] Criminal defamation[ref]http://www.dominica.gov.dm/laws/chapters/chap7-04.pdf[/ref] and Seditious Libel[ref]http://www.dominica.gov.dm/laws/chapters/chap10-03.pdf[/ref] laws remain on statute, although they are not reported to be enforced.[ref]https://cpj.org/reports/2016/03/the-caribbean/[/ref] However, defamation lawsuits and threats of lawsuits are commonly used by the government against members of the media, resulting in some self-censorship.[ref]https://freedomhouse.org/country/dominica/freedom-world/2021[/ref]

The UN Human Rights Committee in 2020 noted that “The 2018 Anti-Terrorism Act contained a very broad definition of terrorism and there was concern that it might be used as a tool to intimidate political opposition. The excessive use of force against the opposition, combined with the police raids on opposition villages and political meetings indicated a broader pattern. The wording and implementation of the Public Order Act possibly infringed on the freedom of assembly, as it was being used to disperse opposition’s meetings.”[ref]https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25709&LangID=E[/ref]

Several domestic and international human rights and advocacy organizations operate without government restriction, investigating and publishing their findings on human rights cases. Government officials are somewhat cooperative and responsive to their views.[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/DOMINICA-2019-HUMAN-RIGHTS-REPORT.pdf[/ref]