Estonia

Since independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Estonia has developed a stable, functioning democracy. Political rights and civil liberties are widely respected as the country scores well on international measures of fundamental freedoms.[ref]Estonia: Freedom in the World 2021 Country Report | Freedom House[/ref]

The population is estimated to be 1.2 million, only 29% expressed religious affiliation in the most recent census in 2011 (19% of ethnic Estonians and 51% of ethnic Russians). According to the data, the majority of Estonians are mainly Lutherans or Russians – Orthodox.[ref]https://www.stat.ee/sites/default/files/2020-08/2011%20Population%20and%20Housing%20Censuses%20in%20Estonia%2C%20Latvia%20and%20Lithuania.pdf[/ref] A recent survey from 2018 shows that 6% of Estonians say religion is very important in their lives.[ref]How do European countries differ in religious commitment? | Pew Research Center[/ref]

Constitution and government Education and children’s rights Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
Government authorities push a socially conservative, religiously or ideologically inspired agenda, without regard to the rights of those with progressive views
State-funding of religious institutions or salaries, or discriminatory tax exemptions
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
The state is secular, with separation of religious and political authorities, not discriminating against any religion or belief
No religious tribunals of concern, secular groups operate freely, individuals are not persecuted by the state
Constitution and government
State-funding of religious institutions or salaries, or discriminatory tax exemptions
The state is secular, with separation of religious and political authorities, not discriminating against any religion or belief
Education and children’s rights
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
Government authorities push a socially conservative, religiously or ideologically inspired agenda, without regard to the rights of those with progressive views
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

Freedom of religion and non-discrimination for religious beliefs is provided for in the Constitution,[ref]Estonia 1992 (rev. 2015) Constitution – Constitute (constituteproject.org)[/ref] in the Churches and Congregations Act 2002[ref]https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/530102013065/consolide[/ref] and in the Equal Treatment Act 2008.[ref]https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/530102013066/consolide[/ref] Non-religious ‘belief’ is not specifically referenced, though freedom of religion or belief is upheld in practice, and Estonia has one of Europe’s, if not the world’s, highest proportions of non-religious citizens.

Article 40 of the Constitution establishes the State as secular, and that “Everyone has freedom of conscience, religion and thought.”

Article 41 states that “beliefs shall not excuse a violation of the law” and that “No one shall bear legal liability because of his or her beliefs.”

Article 42 of the Constitution declares that “state agencies, local governments, and their officials shall not gather or store information about the beliefs of an Estonian citizen against the citizen’s free will.”

The country’s Penal Code[ref]https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/522012015002/consolide[/ref] also contains several protections to freedom of religion or belief and the right to non-discrimination[ref]https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/5478-estonia-country-report-non-discrimination-2021-1-12-mb[/ref]:

  • Article 151 of the Penal Code criminalizes public incitement of hatred, violence, or discrimination on the basis of nationality, race, colour, sex, language, origin, religion, sexual orientation, political opinion, or financial or social status if this results in danger to the life, health or property of a person.
  • Article 152 of the Penal Code criminalizes “Unlawful restriction of the rights of a person or granting of unlawful preferences to a person on the basis of his or her nationality, race, colour, sex, language, origin, religion, sexual orientation, political opinion, financial or social status.“
  • Article 154 of the Penal Code “Any activity which knowingly interferes, without legal grounds, with acknowledgement or declaration of religious beliefs or the absence thereof, or exercise of religion or religious rites.”

The activities of religious organizations are regulated by the Churches and Congregations Act. Churches and congregations are treated as non-profit associations, and receive corresponding tax benefits. The law does not prohibit activities by unregistered associations. However, atheistic, humanist and secular organizations are registered directly as non-profits and therefore enjoy the same tax benefits.[ref]Estonia – United States Department of State[/ref]

The law specifies that individuals are never required to disclose their participation in a religious group, which may offer non-believers some further protection from discrimination.

Government funding of religious activities

The government in 2020 allocated 646,000 euros ($793,000) to the Estonian Council of Churches. The council has 10 churches, including the Lutheran and Orthodox churches. The government continues to fund Christian activities, including Christian programs by the Estonian Broadcasting Company, youth work by churches, activities promoting interreligious dialogue, and religious publishing.[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-report-on-international-religious-freedom/estonia/[/ref]

In April 2020, the government pledged two million euros ($2.45 million) of support for religious associations struggling as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-report-on-international-religious-freedom/estonia/[/ref]

The state funds police and border guard, military, and prison chaplains, who may belong to any registered religious denomination, and must guarantee religious services for individuals of all faiths.[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-report-on-international-religious-freedom/estonia/[/ref]

Education and children’s rights

The government funds religious instruction, however it is optional in public and private schools. All schools must provide religious studies at the primary and secondary levels if requested by at least 12 students. The courses offer a general introduction to different faiths and do not promote any particular religion. A non-religious alternative is not offered.[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-report-on-international-religious-freedom/estonia/[/ref]

Private religious schools enrol all students, regardless of the belief of the student. Attendance at religious services in religious schools is voluntary.[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-report-on-international-religious-freedom/estonia/[/ref]

Family, community and society

Estonia has been described as one of the the “least religious countries in the world”. The most prominent church in Estonia is the Lutheran Church. However, it only accounts for 13% of the population. Fewer than one in five Estonians say any religion plays a pivotal part in their lives. The low level of religiosity in Estonia has been linked to relative difficulty of transmitting Christianity across the language barrier; Estonian is a Finnic language that was not spoken by invading Germans and Danish. Many Estonians however do associate with a form of pagan traditional spirituality.[ref]bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14635021[/ref]

According to many religious and other civil society leaders, there is societal support for religious freedom and tolerance.[ref]Estonia – United States Department of State[/ref]

Discrimination against LGBTI+ people

The state does not yet fully recognise the rights of same-sex families. The Registered Partnership Act,[ref]Registered Partnership Act–Riigi Teataja[/ref] which allows same-sex couples to register, was passed without amending other laws, such as the Family Law Act, the Vital Statistics Registration Act and the Population Register Act. Some notaries refuse to notarise partnership agreements, the agreements are not reflected in the population register and there have been obstacles to adoptions.[ref]https://humanrights.ee/en/materials/inimoigused-eestis-2016-2017/lgbt-inimeste-olukord/[/ref]

Although the law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, discrimination against the LGBTI+ community remains widespread.[ref]Estonia – United States Department of State[/ref] A 2019 Eurobarometer survey showed that 53% of Estonians supported gay, lesbian, and bisexual people having equal rights, while 37% respondents were opposed.[ref]https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/ebs_493_data_fact_lgbti_eu_en-1.pdf[/ref] In 2019 police registered two cases that included hatred against LGBTI+ persons. Advocacy groups reported that societal harassment and discrimination against LGBTI+ persons remains common but noted improving public attitudes.[ref]Estonia – United States Department of State[/ref]

Conservative People’s Party of Estonia’s (Eesti Konservatiivne Rahvaerakond – EKRE) entry into a coalition government in 2019 raised concerns due to the party’s history of racist, sexist, anti-LGBTI+, and white nationalist sentiments. EKRE cabinet ministers have advocated anti-LGBT+ policy goals and expressed a variety of extremist views, including conspiracy theories, discriminatory falsehoods about immigration and refugees, and antisemitic sentiments. The rhetoric and ideological beliefs of many active EKRE members have raised the prominence of hostile and extremist views toward minorities and marginalized groups.[ref]Estonia: Freedom in the World 2021 Country Report | Freedom House[/ref]

Discrimination against women

Hostile attitudes towards women and women’s rights activists have been displayed at the highest level of Government in recent years.[ref]https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/europe-and-central-asia/estonia/report-estonia/[/ref] Examples of this include the minister of Foreign Affairs, Urmas Reinsalu, who used derogatory words to criticize feminist activists and regretted having condemned violence against women in his op-ed piece dated 16 January 2018;[ref]https://epl.delfi.ee/arvamus/reinsalu-kaitseb-ojasood-aitab-lopetage-kanakarja-kambakas-kahetsen-et-tema-juhtumi-puhul-naistevastase-vagivalla-hukka-moistsin?id=80801805[/ref] in addition, the minister of Finance, Martin Helme, reportedly criticized the Istanbul Convention and called childless young women “harmful elements in society.”[ref]https://epl.delfi.ee/eesti/martin-helme-istanbuli-konventsiooni-ainus-efekt-on-see-et-lasteaias-opetatakse-poisse-kleiti-kandma?id=74553915[/ref]

In July 2020, the Minister of Trade, a post held by the EKRE, reportedly attempted to halt grants to three human rights organizations working on gender and equality issues: the Estonian Women’s Associations Roundtable, the Estonian Women’s Studies and Resource Centre, and the Estonian Human Rights Centre.[ref]https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/europe-and-central-asia/estonia/report-estonia/[/ref]

Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values

The Constitution provides for freedom of expression and the press. The government usually respects these rights. Independent media is active and expresses a wide variety of views without restriction. The government does not restrict or disrupt access to the internet or censor online content.[ref]Estonia – United States Department of State[/ref]

However, members of the government are reported to verbally attack journalists, and on several occasions, government ministers refused to provide information to journalists at press conferences, without giving any valid reason.[ref]Estonia | RSF[/ref] Observers have noted a trend toward media ownership concentration in recent years, which may cause editorial interference. Economic challenges exacerbate the media’s vulnerability to editorial pressure.[ref]Estonia: Freedom in the World 2021 Country Report | Freedom House[/ref]

Judges have increasingly used the criminal procedure code to restrict media coverage in various cases of public interest, particularly those concerning corruption.[ref]Estonia: Freedom in the World 2021 Country Report | Freedom House[/ref] The supreme court set a positive precedent for press freedom and the public interest in December 2020 by overturning a decision by the state auditing court, preventing a newspaper from reporting the testimony of witnesses and part of a trial involving corruption at the port of Tallinn.[ref]Estonia | RSF[/ref]