Samoa

Samoa, officially the Independent State of Samoa, is a very small Oceanianic country of about 200,000 thousand inhabitants. It maintains a single-party parliamentary democracy, in principle. However, only the matai (clan chiefs, or heads of extended families) are eligible to run as candidates.[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/SAMOA-2020-HUMAN-RIGHTS-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

Constitution and government Education and children’s rights Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
Systemic religious privilege results in significant social discrimination
Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is severely restricted
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
There is state funding of at least some religious schools
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
There is significant social marginalisation of the non-religious or stigma associated with expressing atheism, humanism or secularism
Discriminatory prominence is given to religious bodies, traditions or leaders
Official symbolic deference to religion
Constitution and government
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
Official symbolic deference to religion
Education and children’s rights
There is state funding of at least some religious schools
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals
Systemic religious privilege results in significant social discrimination
There is significant social marginalisation of the non-religious or stigma associated with expressing atheism, humanism or secularism
Discriminatory prominence is given to religious bodies, traditions or leaders
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is severely restricted
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]https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/44021/124322/F-82949215/WSM44021.pdf[/ref] protects the rights to freedom of religion or belief, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly and association.

Article 11 of the constitution provides for the right to choose, practice, and change the religion of one’s choice. Clause 1 states:

“Every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his or her religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in a community with others, and, in public or private, to manifest and propagate his or her religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”[ref]https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/44021/124322/F-82949215/WSM44021.pdf[/ref]

However, in June 2017, the parliament passed the Constitution Amendment Bill, which shifted references to Samoa being a Christian nation from the preamble of the Constitution to the body. The following clause was added to the first article of the Constitution: “Samoa is a Christian nation founded on God The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Moving this phrasing from the preamble to the body of the Constitution means that now the text can potentially be used in legal action.[ref]https://freedomhouse.org/country/samoa/freedom-world/2019; Par 26, https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/samoa/session_39_-_may_2021/a_hrc_wg.6_39_wsm_3_e.pdf[/ref]

Public ceremonies typically begin with a Christian prayer.[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-report-on-international-religious-freedom/samoa/[/ref]

Religious or belief groups are not required to register with the State, however, unregistered religious groups may not formally buy property or pay employees.[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-report-on-international-religious-freedom/samoa/[/ref] Registration is free of cost and entitles groups to be granted legal status and tax exemption status.

During the 2016 Universal Periodic Review, the following was stated by Samoa concerning discrimination issues in its laws and society:

“Samoa emphasized that much work had been done to increase awareness of human rights among the population, bearing in mind that certain issues, such as discriminatory practices on sexual matters, were especially difficult to face, as they involved cultural and religious sensitivities.”[ref]https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G16/132/73/PDF/G1613273.pdf?OpenElement[/ref]

In 2020, the government passed reforms to the judicial system under wide condemnation. The reform was seen to undermine the independence of the judiciary by giving the executive branch the ability to dismiss and discipline judicial officers. The reform also weakened the rule of law in matters related to land and titles.[ref]https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa45/4021/2021/en/; https://www.ibanet.org/article/bb5ffd28-869e-4235-90d6-b2a1ded8052a; Par 21, 23 https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/samoa/session_39_-_may_2021/a_hrc_wg.6_39_wsm_3_e.pdf[/ref]

The Constitution of Samoa recognizes custom as a source of law through the matai (chief) and fono (village council). Samoan courts are required to take into account to mitigate a sentence, the punishment imposed by a village fono[ref]Par 40, https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/samoa/session_39_-_may_2021/a_hrc_wg.6_39_wsm_3_e.pdf[/ref]. Fono punishments conflict with the formal justice system and in practice impose significant disadvantage against certain groups, namely women and girls.[ref]Par 41 https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/samoa/session_39_-_may_2021/a_hrc_wg.6_39_wsm_3_e.pdf[/ref]

Education and children’s rights

Article 12 of the Constitution provides freedom from unwanted religious education in schools and grants all religious groups the right to establish their own schools. Nevertheless, an education policy from 2009 makes Christian instruction compulsory in public primary schools and secondary schools.[ref]https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/171668.pdf[/ref] Most children of other religions attend private schools.[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-report-on-international-religious-freedom/samoa/[/ref]

There is a lack of comprehensive sexuality education in the country, which causes significant issues. Adolescents are at high risk of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections.[ref]par 71, https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/samoa/session_39_-_may_2021/a_hrc_wg.6_39_wsm_3_e.pdf[/ref]

Family, community and society

There is reportedly strong societal pressure at the local level—including from village councils—to participate in the activities and services of the local church and to contribute large proportions of household income (in some cases totaling more than 30 percent of family income) to support Church leaders and projects.[ref]https://freedomhouse.org/country/samoa/freedom-world/2019; https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SAMOA-2019-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

Despite a duty prescribed by legislation to maintain harmony within the village,[ref]https://www.mwcsd.gov.ws/images/2020/Publications/Mandates/Village-Fono-Amendment-Act-2017-Eng.pdf[/ref] the traditional governing body of villages – the matai councils – reportedly undermines the freedoms of the residents in terms of religion or belief. According to the US State Department report on International Religious Freedom in 2019, these village leaders “resisted attempts by new religious groups to establish themselves in village communities, forbade individuals to belong to churches outside their village, and did not permit individuals to refrain from participating in worship service.”[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SAMOA-2019-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref] Additionally, “villagers in violation of such rules faced fines, banishment from the village, or both.”[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SAMOA-2019-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

Discrimination against women

In some villages where women hold matai titles, women are not allowed to participate in the village council, and other villages do not recognise titles bestowed upon women by their families.[ref] par54, https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/samoa/session_39_-_may_2021/a_hrc_wg.6_39_wsm_3_e.pdf[/ref]

The International Center for Advocates Against Discrimination Chappaqua has reported that, a number of women ae treated unqueally, both in the public and private sphere in Samoa. It observed that discriminatory treatment occurrs “because of entrenched cultural, religious, and patriarchal traditions” and that Samoan men can be perceived as superior to their wives and the head of households. IThe Center also notes that “unequal gender roles in Samoa were widely enforced and domestic and sexual violence by men against women were a reflection of gender-based power and control.”[ref]Par 75, https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/samoa/session_39_-_may_2021/a_hrc_wg.6_39_wsm_3_e.pdf; https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/samoan-culture/samoan-culture-family; https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/samoa/session_39_-_may_2021/icaad_ngo_upr39_wsm_e_main.pdf[/ref]

Articles 112-115 of the Crimes Act[ref]https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/93579/124323/F-1523655815/WSM93579%202015.pdf;https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa45/4021/2021/en/; [/ref] criminalizes Abortion, and make it punishable by up to seven years imprisonment for both the woman concerned and the person performing the procedure. Abortion is allowed in cases where there is a serious danger to the life, physical or mental health of the woman.

LGBTI+ rights

Articles 67 and 68 of the Crimes Act[ref]https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/93579/124323/F-1523655815/WSM93579%202015.pdf[/ref] outlaw consensual same-sex relationships, and those who provide accommodation for such relations, and allows for a seven-year term in prison. However, in practice, the law is not enforced on cases of consensual relationships.[ref]Par 30,31 https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/samoa/session_39_-_may_2021/a_hrc_wg.6_39_wsm_3_e.pdf; https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/93579/124323/F-1523655815/WSM93579%202015.pdf[/ref]

Whilst the Labour and Employment Relations Act 2013 provides some protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, there is no comprehensive anti-discrimination law.[ref]par 25, https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/samoa/session_39_-_may_2021/a_hrc_wg.6_39_wsm_3_e.pdf[/ref]

Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values

The law allows for the imprisonment of any journalist who, despite a court order, refuses to reveal a confidential source upon request.[ref]https://samoa.tradeportal.org/media//Newspapers%20and%20Printers%20Act%201993.pdf[/ref] Libel laws also form an obstacle to journalists’ free expression. A critic of the prime minister was sentenced to seven weeks’ imprisonment for libel in 2019.[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-report-on-international-religious-freedom/samoa/[/ref]

In March 2021, journalists from the Samoa Observer were looking into a potential conflict of interest case involving the government and the law firm where the attorney general used to be a partner and is currently owned by her husband. The Office of the Attorney General of Samoa threatened the journalists and their sources with legal action.[ref]https://ifex.org/attorney-general-attacks-samoa-observer/[/ref]

In 2020, Judicial reforms were passed despite significant criticism from many national and international actors. Local lawyers reported receiving threats and being intimated for speaking out on law reforms.[ref]https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa45/4021/2021/en/[/ref]