Saint Lucia

Saint Lucia is an island nation in the eastern Caribbean Sea which maintains a multi-party parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy. A former French and, subsequently, British colony, Saint Lucia remains a member of the Commonwealth, and a member state of the Organization of American States.

Just over 90% of the population are Christian, with approximately two-thirds being Catholic. While just under 6% of the population are not affiliated with a religion (non-religious, atheist, agnostic).[ref]https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/religious-beliefs-in-saint-lucia.html[/ref]

The country maintains no official religion, however concerns about religious privileging do exist.

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
Government authorities push a socially conservative, religiously or ideologically inspired agenda, without regard to the rights of those with progressive views
There is systematic religious privilege
There is state funding of at least some religious schools
Blasphemy or criticism of religion is restricted in law and is punishable by a fine
Official symbolic deference to religion
State-funded schools offer religious or ideological instruction with no secular or humanist alternative, but it is optional
Constitution and government
There is systematic religious privilege
Official symbolic deference to religion
Education and children’s rights
There is state funding of at least some religious schools
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
Government authorities push a socially conservative, religiously or ideologically inspired agenda, without regard to the rights of those with progressive views
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
Blasphemy or criticism of religion is restricted in law and is punishable by a fine
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
More information about rating table

Constitution and government

The Constitution[ref]http://www.govt.lc/media.govt.lc/www/resources/legislation/ConstitutionOfSaintLucia.pdf[/ref] does not establish any religion, but it begins by invoking “faith in the supremacy of the Almighty God”.

The constitution and other laws and policies protect freedom of religion or belief, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly and association (Articles 9-11). These rights are generally respected in practice.

The Ministry of Equity, Social Justice, Empowerment, Youth Development, Sports, and Local Government is responsible for religious affairs. The law requires religious groups with more than 250 members to register. The government “incorporates” registered groups, which are eligible to receive associated benefits, while it treats unregistered groups as for-profit organizations for taxation purposes. Registration permits groups to apply for concessions, including duty-free import privileges, tax benefits, and exemption from some labor requirements. Such privileges are not extended to secular organizations. Formal government registration also allows registered religious groups to legally register marriages officiated by religious leaders.[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/240282-SAINT-LUCIA-2020-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

The Religious Advisory Committee – on which sit representatives of different religious communities, along with a nonvoting government official – develop regulatory and legal reforms for the consideration of the Cabinet of Ministers. It is unclear whether representatives of the non-religious community also sit on this committee.[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/240282-SAINT-LUCIA-2020-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

Education and children’s rights

The Constitution grants religious groups the right to establish and maintain schools and provide religious instruction, but prohibits religious instruction without consent in schools.[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/240282-SAINT-LUCIA-2020-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

Religious education is a non-compulsory subject in public schools. In these classes students are taught about core beliefs of world religions rather than being encouraged to adopt any particular faith.[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/240282-SAINT-LUCIA-2020-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

Several religious schools exist which are funded by the Catholic, Seventh-day Adventist, and Anglican Churches. The government provides approximately 50% of the funding for these schools, but does not cover expenses for classes on religion. Schools are not permitted to discriminate in their selection of pupils on the basis of religious belief or lack thereof.[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/240282-SAINT-LUCIA-2020-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

Family, community and society

LGBTI+ rights

According to Article 132 of the 2004 Criminal Code of St. Lucia,[ref]http://www.govt.lc/criminal-code[/ref] any act of “gross indecency” committed by people of the same sex is punishable by 10 years in prison. The Article provides an exemption for any act “committed in private between an adult male person and an adult female person, both of whom consent,” but lacks protection for private acts between same-sex couples. Under Article 133 of the same code, a person who commits “buggery” with the consent of another person can be sentenced to five years in prison.

In November 2019, the Eastern Caribbean Alliance for Diversity and Equality announced it planned to launch a legal challenge against the criminalization of private, consensual same-sex sexual activity.[ref]https://www.hrw.org/video-photos/interactive/2021/04/23/country-profiles-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity#st__lucia[/ref]

While the provisions are said to be rarely enforced, the existence of such laws continues to have an impact on the LGBTI+ community. A study by Human Rights Watch found that members of the LGBTI+ community face the discrimination, violence, stigma, and prejudice.[ref]https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/01/21/human-rights-watch-submission-universal-periodic-review-saint-lucia[/ref] As well as harassment, LGBTI+ people have been denied or forced to leave rented accommodation and have been denied jobs or forced to leave work due to discrimination.[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/SAINT-LUCIA-2018.pdf[/ref]

Women’s rights

Abortion remains a criminal offence under Articles 164-168 of the Criminal Code, punishable by up to seven years in prison. Exemptions apply in the case of rape, incest or risk to the life or health of the mother.

Sexual assault is a problem in St Lucia, despite the Criminal Code stating that rape of men and women and ‘unlawful sexual connection’ is punishable by 14 years’ to life imprisonment. In a 2018 report, whilst police were willing to arrest offenders, the government only prosecuted crimes of violence against women when the victim pressed charges.[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/SAINT-LUCIA-2018.pdf[/ref]

Spousal rape is only punishable when a couple is divorced or separated or when there is a protection order from the Family Court.[ref]https://www.refworld.org/docid/50bf2f292.html[/ref] Monetary compensation to settle rape and sexual assault cases out of court is illegal, however is rarely prosecuted.[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/SAINT-LUCIA-2018.pdf[/ref]

Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values

Article 314 of the Criminal Code includes merely exposing a person to “ridicule” as a matter of defamation, suggesting that any satire of a public figure could be liable to prosecution.[ref]http://www.govt.lc/www/legislation/Criminal%20Code.pdf[/ref]

Blasphemy

There are a number of anti-blasphemy or quasi blasphemy law provisions in place, though we have no record of their use.

Under the heading of “Public worship offences”, the Criminal Code criminalizes:

  • behaving “irreverently near any church, chapel, or other building for religious worship during divine service” (article 566);
  • anyone who “disturbs or molests any other person in any place of divine worship, whether during divine service or at any other time” as well as behaviour that is “riotous, indecent, disorderly, or insulting” at a place of worship at any time (article 567);
  • anyone who “disturbs or molests any minister of religion while celebrating any religious rite or office in any public way or public place, or any other person aiding, assisting, or attending at the celebration”.

Anyone convicted under these provisions is subject to “a fine of one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for one year”.

It is unclear if an act of blasphemy in and of itself (without some attendant abuse or harassment) would earn a prison term under these provisions, though it seems likely that some forms of legitimate protest, for example against a religious minister, might fall foul of these provisions.

When considering exemptions to the defamation law, for example on grounds of making a complaint against an official, or expressing an opinion in ‘good faith’,  the Criminal Code, article 318 (g), specifically excludes “blasphemous” matter from such exemptions, even though the material may otherwise needed to be shown in a court of law. Publications are privileged:

“if the matter published is in fact a fair report of anything said, done, or shown in a civil or criminal inquiry or proceeding before any Court, unless the Court prohibits the publication of anything said or shown before it, on the ground that it is seditious, immoral, or blasphemous;” [emphasis added]

Again, in the list of potential justifications for libel (a justification might include for example pleading that a statement was true, or that making it was in the public interest), the Criminal Code, under article 326 (6), again excludes “blasphemous” matter, stating:

“No plea of justification shall be pleaded to any indictment or count of a charge of seditious, blasphemous or obscene libel.”