Austria

Austria is a democratic Republic with an elected Federal President and a Democratic parliament. Following Presidential Elections in October 2022, Alexander Van der Bellen was re-elected for President on a 56.7% majority.[ref]https://bundeswahlen.gv.at/2022/[/ref] He is a member of the Greens Party, which advocates for environmentalism and equal social justice.[ref]https://gruene.at/organisation/partei/[/ref]

According to the 2021 census, 77.6% of the population report religious affiliation. The majority of the population are Roman Catholic (55.2%), other groups include Protestants, Muslims, Jews together accounting for 12.2% of the population. The non-religious and unaffiliated accounted for the second largest proportion of the population (22.4% up from 12% in 2001). The statistics suggest that affiliation with a religious denomination is declining.[ref]https://www.statistik.at/en/statistics/population-and-society/population/further-population-statistics/religious-denomination[/ref]

Constitution and government Education and children’s rights Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
State-funding of religious institutions or salaries, or discriminatory tax exemptions
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
No formal discrimination in education
No religious tribunals of concern, secular groups operate freely, individuals are not persecuted by the state
Constitution and government
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
State-funding of religious institutions or salaries, or discriminatory tax exemptions
Education and children’s rights
No formal discrimination in education
Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals
No religious tribunals of concern, secular groups operate freely, individuals are not persecuted by the state
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
Free and Equal
More information about rating table

Constitution and government

Austria has established legal protections for the fundamental human rights of freedom of expression and religion. These protections are enshrined in the Austrian Federal Constitution,[ref]https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Erv/ERV_1930_1/ERV_1930_1.html[/ref] which serves as the supreme law of the country. In 1964, the European Convention on Human Rights became part of Austrian Constitutional law thereby incorporating the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and also guaranteeing this right to churches and religious communities in conjunction with the right of association.[ref]https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10000308[/ref]

In addition to the Constitution, the Austrian Criminal Code[ref]https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex4.detail?p_lang=&p_isn=93674[/ref] criminalizes hate speech and other forms of incitement to violence or discrimination based on religion, belief or other personal characteristics.

Recognized religious groups

A Kirchenbeitrag or ‘church tax’ must be paid by all members of the Catholic and Protestant Churches. It is operated by the churches, not by the state, however, it can only be avoided by terminating membership of the relevant church.[ref]https://www.kirchenbeitrag.at/language/english[/ref]

The law governing relations between the government and the Catholic Church makes various Catholic holidays official national holidays.

The Federal Law on the Legal Position of Religious Communities in Austria provides a legal framework for the recognition of religious communities by the state and outlines their associated rights and responsibilities.

According to the US State Department,[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/austria/[/ref]

“The law divides registered religious groups into two officially recognized legal categories: legally recognized churches and religious societies (referred to here as “religious societies”) and state-registered religious denominational communities (referred to here as “confessional communities”), with the latter enjoying fewer obligations and privileges. Separately, religious groups not qualifying for either religious society or confessional community status may apply to become associations, a status applicable to a broad range of civil society groups.”

The non-religious are not currently among the list of 16 legally recognized religious societies. However, the law does not appear to preclude organized non-religious groups from seeking recognition.[ref]https://brill.com/view/journals/jlrs/8/1/article-p93_93.xml?language=en[/ref]

Legal recognition affords such societies:[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/austria/[/ref]

  • The right to engage in several public or quasi-public activities, such as government-funded religious instruction in both public and private schools;
  • Tax relief;
  • Exemption from payment of a surveillance charge;
  • Exemption from payment of administrative fees for municipal services;
  • Greater autonomy from government scrutiny;
  • receive government funding for pastoral care provided in prisons, hospitals, senior homes, and military installations with the amount of funding based on the size of the society’s membership.

Separate laws govern relations between the government and each of the religious societies.

Confessional communities (of which there are currently 10), and religious associations are not eligible for the financial and educational benefits available to religious societies. However confessional communities are not required to pay taxes on donations. Associations may not offer pastoral care in hospitals or prisons or receive tax-deductible contributions.

A new “Campus of Religions”

According to the US State Department:[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/austria/[/ref]

“The city of Vienna continued work on the “Campus of Religions,”, which it financed and launched in 2019 and expected to complete in 2028. The campus was planned as a site where members of nine religious groups could conduct their own activities while working together and engaging with the general public. Campus participating groups were: the Catholic Church; the Protestant Churches of the Augsburg and Helvetic Confessions; the Orthodox Church; the Jewish Religious Society; the Islamic Religious Society; the New Apostolic Church; the Buddhist Union; the Hindu Religious Community; and the Sikh Faith Community.”

The official website of the Campus indicates that critics of religion will also be welcomed.[ref]https://www.campus-der-religionen.at/; https://www.wien.gv.at/kultur-freizeit/campus-der-religionen.html[/ref]

Education and children’s rights

The government funds religious instruction in public schools and places of worship for children belonging to any of the 16 officially recognized religious societies.[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-report-on-international-religious-freedom/austria/[/ref] The government does not offer such funding to other religious groups.

Attendance at religious instruction of their respective religions is mandatory for all students unless they formally withdraw at the beginning of the school year; students under the age of 14 require parental permission to withdraw from instruction. Instruction takes place either in the school or at sites organized by religious groups. Some schools offer ethics classes for students not attending religious instruction.[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-report-on-international-religious-freedom/austria/[/ref]

Religious education and ethics classes include the tenets of different religious groups as comparative religious education.[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-report-on-international-religious-freedom/austria/[/ref]

The curriculum for both public and private schools includes compulsory tolerance education, including religious tolerance, as part of civic education across various subjects, including history and German-language instruction.[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-report-on-international-religious-freedom/austria/[/ref]

Family, community and society

Religious minorities

According to the US State Department, religious minorities – particularly Jews and Muslims, are frequent victims of hate crimes. In 2022, there were also reports of vandalism of a range of places of religious worship. The government implements a legal framework to protect against Antisemitism and hate crimes, some of which have been criticized for unduly curtailing freedom of expression.[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-report-on-international-religious-freedom/austria/[/ref]

The government demonstrates some bias against the Muslim community, funding a documentation center dedicated to monitoring religiously-motivated political extremism – The Documentation Centre Political Islam (DPI).[ref]https://www.dokumentationsstelle.at/en/aboutus/[/ref] The organization publishes reports on extremist groups, as well as maintains an “Islam Map” that lists all Islamic institutions in the country. Critics of the map believe it to be stigmatizing and have suggested that its existence could indicate that Muslim activities must be monitored.

Additionally, the law stipulates that funding for the day-to-day operations of mosques must be derived from domestic sources, Islamic teachings and practices must not violate federal law (compliance is determined by the Office for Religious Affairs), and Islamic institutions should “take a positive stance” toward the state and society.[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-report-on-international-religious-freedom/austria/[/ref]

Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values

Freedom of expression is enshrined in law, and generally respected in practice. However, criminal defamation legislation is reportedly often used to stifle criticism of politicians.[ref]https://freedomhouse.org/country/austria/freedom-world/2021[/ref] In addition, there are concerns that current legislation designed to curb hate speech, may not satisfactorily strike the balance between the State’s duty to protect citizens from hate speech with an individual’s right to freedom of expression.

Media freedom

The 1981 Federal Act on the Press and other Publication Media (Media Act)[ref]https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Erv/ERV_1981_314/ERV_1981_314.html[/ref] and the Federal Constitution provide the framework for media freedom in Austria. The media is subject to political influence. This is best exemplified by the Kurz Media scandal, which revolved around the former Chancellor purchasing positive media coverage from a private newspaper, in the lead up to elections.[ref]https://rsf.org/en/country/austria[/ref] This scandal led to Kurz’s resignation and his exit from Austrian politics.

De facto blasphemy law

Section 188 of the Austrian Criminal Code, called ‘Vilification of Religious Teachings’, criminalizes: “Anyone who publicly disparages a person or thing that is the object of worship of a domestic church or religious society, or a doctrine, [or other] behavior is likely to attract legitimate offense…” This de facto ‘blasphemy’ law has been used in practice to prosecute and fine individuals.

In October 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld the 2011 conviction under this law of Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf (see “Highlighted cases” below), declaring that freedom of expression can be legitimately restricted by states “to ensure the peaceful co-existence of religious and non-religious groups and individuals under their jurisdiction by ensuring an atmosphere of mutual tolerance”. [ref]E.S vs Austria, ECHR, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-187188 [/ref]

In its examination of Article 188, the Court determined that the provision does not criminalize all statements that may hurt religious feelings but only conduct that causes justified indignation and so threatens religious peace, and was therefore met with the State’s obligations to balancing one’s right to freedom of expression with its duty to take action when the peaceful co-existence of religions is threatened.[ref]https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/e-s-v-austria/[/ref]

The ruling has caused concern in that it appears to permit all states under its jurisdiction that have existing blasphemy laws to maintain and enforce them.[ref]humanism.org.uk/2018/10/29/european-court-of-human-rights-rules-that-austria-can-keep-its-blasphemy-law/[/ref] However, in 2019 the case was cited by the ECHR in reaching its determination that the Republic of Azerbaijan violated the right to freedom of expression of two journalists by imposing criminal sanctions for allegedly inciting religious hatred and hostility. In this case, the court determined that the authorities had failed to strike the appropriate balance between the right to freedom of expression and the duty to protect.[ref]https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/tagiyev-and-huseynov-v-azerbaijan/[/ref]

Highlighted cases

On 1 June 2022, the Vienna Administrative Court reportedly rejected an application for registration as a confessional faith community of the Religious Atheist Society of Austria (Atheistische Religionsgesellschaft in Österreich – ARG).[ref]https://atheistisch.at/en/concept[/ref] The decision was reportedly justified its decision on the basis that the organization represented a “worldview” rather than religious community, and that the ARG’s conception of transcendence is insufficient for a religious community, because it does not refer to those realms that are outside of all conscious, plannable and immanent experience, and which are the subject of a “different” reality. The ARG has appealed this decision to the Constitutional Court. Other secular groups reportedly criticized the ARG for making an application, as it would imply complicity with the state system.[ref]https://omnesmag.com/en/newsroom/atheism-a-religion/; https://brill.com/view/journals/jlrs/8/1/article-p93_93.xml?language=en /[/ref]

On 15 January 2011, Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf was convicted of offending religion because she exclaimed, about the Prophet Mohammed’s nine-year-old wife, “If that is not paedophilia, what is it?” Her case would go on to form the basis of a European Court of Human Rights ruling in October 2018 that Austria had the right to enforce its ‘blasphemy’ law (see “De facto blasphemy law” above).