Portugal

Portugal is a constitutional republic, with a president and prime minister in executive roles, and multi-party elections.

Constitution and government Education and children’s rights Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
There is systematic religious privilege
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
Discriminatory prominence is given to religious bodies, traditions or leaders
Blasphemy or criticism of religion is restricted in law and is punishable by a fine
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
Constitution and government
There is systematic religious privilege
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
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
Discriminatory prominence is given to religious bodies, traditions or leaders
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
Blasphemy or criticism of religion is restricted in law and is punishable by a fine
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
 
Systemic Discrimination
Mostly Satisfactory
More information about rating table

Constitution and government

The Constitution[ref]https://dre.pt/constitution-of-the-portuguese-republic[/ref] and other laws and policies protect freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 41), as well as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. These rights are generally respected in practice. The law prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of religion or belief, and requires reasonable accommodation of employees’ religious practices.

The government maintains a separate agreement with the Roman Catholic Church under the terms of a 2004 concordat with the Holy See, which replaced the concordat of 1940. The concordat allows the Catholic Church to receive a percentage of the income tax voluntarily allocated by taxpayers to various institutions in their annual tax returns. A taxpayer may allocate a portion of his or her tax payment to any registered religious group. The Catholic Church and “rooted” religious communities are also exempt from VAT.[ref]laicidade.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/concordata-2004-05-18.pdf[/ref]

Under Article 51(1) of the Constitution, “[w]ithout prejudice to the philosophy or ideology that underlies their manifestoes, political parties may not employ names that contain expressions which are directly related to any religion or church, or emblems that can be confused with national or religious symbols.”

The 2001 Law on Religious Freedom[ref]http://www.legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/20218[/ref] defines  freedom of conscience, religion and worship as the right to hold, not to hold and cease to hold a religion, to freely choose and change one’s beliefs, practice or not to practice the worship deeds in public or private, profess one’s beliefs, to seek new believers, to prosyletize, among other rights (Article 8). It also protects individuals from forced worship, being obliged to take a religious oath, or being questioned by state authorities regarding their convictions (Article 9).

The law also further stipulates that “Churches and other religious communities are separate from the State and are free in their manner of organization and in the practice of their activities and worship” (Article 3) and that “The State does not adopt any religion whatsoever, nor pronounce itself regarding religious issues” (Article 4). It stipulates the relations between the government and religious communities, but doesn’t mention any humanist, secular or other philosophical groups. The law allows each religious group to negotiate their own concordat-style agreements with the government.

Religious groups may register as religious corporations and receive tax-exempt status. Registered groups receive the right to minister in prisons, hospitals, and military facilities; provide religious teaching in public schools; participate in broadcasting time on public television and radio; and receive national recognition of religious holidays. A taxpayer may allocate 5 percent of his or her tax payment to any registered religious group. Unregistered religious groups are not subject to penalties and may practice their religion but do not receive the benefits associated with registration. The State pays for the salaries of chaplains in public hospitals, prisons, the armed forces and the police force. The law permits members of any registered religious group to serve as chaplains. However, in practice, most chaplains are members of the Catholic Church.[ref]https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1287276/download[/ref]

The Religious Freedom Commission has representatives from several small religious communities, but no representatives from humanist or secular organizations.[ref]https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1287276/download[/ref] The commission reviews and takes a position on all matters relating to the application of the law on religious freedom, including proposed amendments.

Religious symbols such as crucifixes are on display in many State primary schools and hospitals, and in some municipalities meeting rooms. Priests are invited to many public inaugurations by local authorities and by national authorities.

Education and children’s rights

Under Article 43 of the Constitution, “[p]ublic education shall not be linked to a religious belief” and the state “may not programme education and culture in accordance with any philosophical, aesthetic, political, ideological or religious directives.”[ref]https://dre.pt/part-i[/ref]

All schools, both public and private, are required to accommodate the religious practices of students, including rescheduling tests if necessary (whether this extends to secular holidays or any non-religious practices is unclear).

Public secondary schools offer an optional survey course on world religions taught by lay teachers. Religious groups may offer optional religion instruction through state-funded schools, provided the course is taught by lay teachers and ten or more students of the faith attend the class.[ref]http://www.legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/20218[/ref] The Catholic Church, as well as Buddhist, Bahá’í and Christian evangelical communities have teaching courses approved by the State. Religious group representatives have the right to approve the course’s instructors as well as to dismiss them.[ref]dge.mec.pt/educacao-moral-e-religiosa[/ref]

Local sources report that in public schools, the school administration often pressures parents into enrolling their children in Catholic education courses.

Pastoral visits to public schools by local Catholic priests, including the suspension of classes to participate in mass, take place in some schools, mainly around Easter.

The State has been unwilling to force gypsy families to keep girls in school after puberty and before the end of the legal period of obligatory schooling.

Female genital mutilation

Since 2015 there has been a law penalizing female genital mutilation (FGM), however it is rarely enforced, despite cases being reported every year.[ref]publico.pt/2018/09/09/sociedade/noticia/se-acontece-em-portugal-mas-nao-ha-condenacoes-nao-e-feito-muito-bem-o-trabalho-de-casa-das-entidades-1843493[/ref] In 2020, for the first time, a formal accusation was made in a case of FGM, A total of 63 cases of FGM were detected in Portugal as of May 2020, although, in the vast majority of those, the mutilation is reported to have taken place during short stays in West African countries. The Secretary for Citizenship and Equality stated in an interview that these numbers are expected to grow due to increasing awareness among health professionals.[ref]https://www.publico.pt/2020/07/09/sociedade/noticia/mae-acusada-crime-mutilacao-genital-feminina-primeira-portugal-1923840; https://www.dn.pt/edicao-do-dia/10-jul-2020/numero-de-casos-de-mutilacao-genital-continuam-a-aumentar-63-ate-maio–12400015.html[/ref]

Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals

According to a census conducted in 2011, 81 percent of the Portuguese population is Catholic.[ref]ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_publicacoes&PUBLICACOESpub_boui=73212469&PUBLICACOEStema=55466&PUBLICACOESmodo=2&xlang=en[/ref]

There are no major restrictions on personal social freedoms. Portugal legalized same-sex marriage in 2010 and extended adoption rights to same-sex marriage in 2010. In 2007, Portugal held a referendum to remove what had been one of Europe’s most restrictive abortion laws. The majority of voters were in favor of the legalization of abortion during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.[ref]theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/12/gilestremlett.international[/ref]

However, doctors are granted the right of conscientious objection and the percentage of doctors who refuse to perform adoptions based on religious beliefs remains high.[ref]wbez.org/shows/worldview/in-portugal-abortion-legal-but-many-doctors-refuse-to-perform-them/5a63e08f-7ea0-4a9b-a9a5-4eac4ad570cf[/ref]

Despite government efforts aimed at prevention, education and victim protection, domestic violence remains a significant issue in Portugal. In 2016, the country registered 22,773 cases of domestic violence. Furthermore, statistics show that between 2015 and 2016, more than 5,000 domestic violence aggressors who had already been proven guilty were exempted from serving a term of imprisonment.[ref]newsdeeply.com/womenandgirls/articles/2017/05/31/portugal-turns-to-prevention-to-take-on-its-domestic-violence-problem[/ref]

Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values

The Portuguese Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, freedom of information and freedom of the press.

Blasphemy law

A quasi-’blasphemy’ law criminalizes “offending a person in virtue of his religious belief”. Article 251 of the Criminal Code[ref]https://dre.pt/web/guest/legislacao-consolidada/-/lc/107981223/201708230200/73474177/diploma/indice (in Portuguese); http://legaldb.freemedia.at/legal-database/portugal/ (in English)[/ref] defines “Insult motivated by religious belief”:

“Whomever publicly offends another person or derides that person because of his or her beliefs, in such a way as to disturb public peace, will be punished with a prison sentence of up to one year or with a fine of up to 120 days”.

Article 252 further criminalizes “Hindrance, disturbance or insult to an act of worship”:

“Whomever publicly vilifies a religious act of worship or derides such act will be punished with a prison sentence of up to one year or a fine of up to 120 days”.

The articles do not appear to have been used in recent years.

The conflation of religious offence with the language of “public peace” and “vilification”, as well as a lack of prosecutions producing case law, makes it difficult to assess interpretation of this law. We consider it unlikely that sentencing could result in a prison term without some element of hate crime, however the wording on “public offence” and “derision” based on “beliefs” alone is vague enough that the threat of prosecution remains over acts that should constitute legitimate expression about religion and thus constitutes a quasi-blasphemy law.

Defamation

Although prosecutions are uncommon, Portugal remains one of the few countries in Europe where defamation is still a criminal offense.[ref]http://legaldb.freemedia.at/legal-database/portugal/[/ref]

Under Article 180 of the Criminal Code, defamation is punishable by a prison term of maximum six months or a fine of maximum 240 days. If the act is committed through the media, the penalty is increased to imprisonment for up to two years or a fine not less than 120 days (Article 183).

Between February 2005 and February 2015, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) condemned Portugal’s defamation laws 18 times, three times the average number of condemnations for an EU state.[ref]humanrightseurope.org/2014/04/portugal-journalists-celebrate-free-expression-human-rights-victory/[/ref]

The Portuguese journalist Josè Manuel Fernandes was found guilty of defamation by the Portuguese courts for an article written in 2006 and charged a €60,000 fine. The article centered on a critique of the appointment of Noronha do Nascimento to the Supreme Tribunal of Justice. The judge was defined as “the dark side of our justice system” and took out a prosecution for defamation.

Fernandes appealed to the European Court of Human Rights and in January 2017 he won a case for freedom of expression. The Court ruled in favor of the journalist as there was: “no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the restriction of freedom of expression of the complainant and the objective pursued of protecting the good name of Noronha do Nascimento”.[ref]portugalresident.com/portuguese-journalist-wins-landmark-case-over-freedom-of-expression[/ref]

As recently as 2019, four additional cases of decisions by Portuguese courts, in cases of defamation, that were eventually overturned by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) have been mentioned in the press. In two of those, the defendants were lawyers accused of either defamation against a judge (hinting at “intimacy” between her and the lawyer representing one of the parties in a trial) or sponsoring a legal action against a judge who had used derogatory words to refer to the gypsy community. The other cases involved a journalist who used the term “idiot” to refer to a former secretary of state, and a physician who used the expressions “lack of character and honesty” and “cowardice” addressed to a mayor who had excluded his clinic from the list of officially-recognized service providers.[ref]https://www.publico.pt/2019/10/11/sociedade/opiniao/liberdade-expressao-4-portugal-0-1889550[/ref]