The Ratings System

Every country in this report is assessed against a range of “boundary conditions“. The boundary conditions are statements which may or may not apply to each country. Each boundary condition is associated with one of four thematic strands (these are the vertical columns in the table below). Also, each boundary condition is placed at a given level of severity (these are the coloured horizontal rows in the table below). The following table lists all the possible boundary conditions.

Constitution and government	Education and children’s rights	Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals	Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
Grave Violations
Complete tyranny precludes all freedoms of expression and thought, religion or belief Religious authorities have supreme authority over the state State legislation is largely or entirely derived from religious law or by religious authorities Quasi-divine veneration of a ruling elite is enforced, or a single-party regime holds uncontested power, subject to severe punishment The non-religious are barred from holding government office	Religious or ideological indoctrination is utterly pervasive in schools Religious or ideological instruction in a significant number of schools is of a coercive fundamentalist or extremist variety	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 a pattern of impunity or collusion in violence by non-state actors against the nonreligious Government figures or state agencies openly marginalize, harass, or incite hatred or violence against the non-religious 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	Expression of core Humanist principles on democracy, freedom and human rights is brutally repressed ‘Apostasy’ or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death ‘Blasphemy’ or criticism of religion is outlawed and punishable by death It is illegal to advocate secularism or church-state separation, or such advocacy is suppressed It is illegal or unrecognised to identify as an atheist or as non-religious
Severe Discrimination
The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects) State legislation is partly derived from religious law or by religious authorities	Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in all or most state-funded schools with no secular or humanist alternative	The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination The non-religious are persecuted socially or there are prohibitive social taboos against atheism, humanism or secularism Systemic religious privilege results in significant social discrimination Government authorities push a socially conservative, religiously or ideologically inspired agenda, without regard to the rights of those with progressive views Prohibitive interreligious social control (including interreligious marriage bans) Religious control over family law or legislation on moral matters It is made difficult to register or operate an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization	Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is severely restricted ‘Apostasy’ is outlawed and punishable with a prison sentence ‘Blasphemy’ is outlawed or criticism of religion (including de facto ‘blasphemy’ laws) is restricted and punishable with a prison sentence
Systemic Discrimination
There is systematic religious privilege Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general There is an established church or state religion Legal or constitutional provisions exclude non-religious views from freedom of belief 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	There is state funding of at least some religious schools Religious schools have powers to discriminate in admissions or employment Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives) Some concerns about children's right to specifically religious freedom	Use of Conscientious Objection clauses resulting in the denial of lawful services to women and LGBTI+ people There is significant social marginalisation of the non-religious or stigma associated with expressing atheism, humanism or secularism Some religious courts rule in civil or family matters on a coercive or discriminatory basis Discriminatory prominence is given to religious bodies, traditions or leaders Religious groups control some public or social services	Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is somewhat restricted Blasphemy or criticism of religion is restricted in law and is punishable by a fine
Mostly Satisfactory
There is a nominal state church with few privileges or progress is being made toward disestablishment Official symbolic deference to religion Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories	State-funded schools offer religious or ideological instruction with no secular or humanist alternative, but it is optional State-funded schools provide religious education which may be nominally comprehensive but is substantively biased or borderline confessional	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 Localised or infrequent but recurring and widespread social marginalisation or prejudice against the non-religious	Some concerns about political or media freedoms, not specific to the non-religious Concerns that secular or religious authorities interfere in specifically religious freedoms
Free and Equal
The state is secular, with separation of religious and political authorities, not discriminating against any religion or belief	No formal discrimination in education	No religious tribunals of concern, secular groups operate freely, individuals are not persecuted by the state	No fundamental restrictions on freedom of expression or advocacy of humanist values
No Rating
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report No condition holds in this strand	Insufficient information or detail not included in this report No condition holds in this strand	Insufficient information or detail not included in this report No condition holds in this strand	Insufficient information or detail not included in this report No condition holds in this strand

Constitution and government

Complete tyranny precludes all freedoms of expression and thought, religion or belief

Religious authorities have supreme authority over the state

State legislation is largely or entirely derived from religious law or by religious authorities

Quasi-divine veneration of a ruling elite is enforced, or a single-party regime holds uncontested power, subject to severe punishment

The non-religious are barred from holding government office

The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)

State legislation is partly derived from religious law or by religious authorities

There is systematic religious privilege

Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general

There is an established church or state religion

Legal or constitutional provisions exclude non-religious views from freedom of belief

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

There is a nominal state church with few privileges or progress is being made toward disestablishment

Official symbolic deference to religion

Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories

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 condition holds in this strand

Education and children’s rights

Religious or ideological indoctrination is utterly pervasive in schools

Religious or ideological instruction in a significant number of schools is of a coercive fundamentalist or extremist variety

Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in all or most state-funded schools with no secular or humanist alternative

There is state funding of at least some religious schools

Religious schools have powers to discriminate in admissions or employment

Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)

Some concerns about children's right to specifically religious freedom

State-funded schools offer religious or ideological instruction with no secular or humanist alternative, but it is optional

State-funded schools provide religious education which may be nominally comprehensive but is substantively biased or borderline confessional

No formal discrimination in education

Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

No condition holds in this strand

Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals

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 a pattern of impunity or collusion in violence by non-state actors against the nonreligious

Government figures or state agencies openly marginalize, harass, or incite hatred or violence against the non-religious

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

The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination

The non-religious are persecuted socially or there are prohibitive social taboos against atheism, humanism or secularism

Systemic religious privilege results in significant social discrimination

Government authorities push a socially conservative, religiously or ideologically inspired agenda, without regard to the rights of those with progressive views

Prohibitive interreligious social control (including interreligious marriage bans)

Religious control over family law or legislation on moral matters

It is made difficult to register or operate an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization

Use of Conscientious Objection clauses resulting in the denial of lawful services to women and LGBTI+ people

There is significant social marginalisation of the non-religious or stigma associated with expressing atheism, humanism or secularism

Some religious courts rule in civil or family matters on a coercive or discriminatory basis

Discriminatory prominence is given to religious bodies, traditions or leaders

Religious groups control some public or social services

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

Localised or infrequent but recurring and widespread social marginalisation or prejudice against the non-religious

No religious tribunals of concern, secular groups operate freely, individuals are not persecuted by the state

Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

No condition holds in this strand

Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values

Expression of core Humanist principles on democracy, freedom and human rights is brutally repressed

‘Apostasy’ or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death

‘Blasphemy’ or criticism of religion is outlawed and punishable by death

It is illegal to advocate secularism or church-state separation, or such advocacy is suppressed

It is illegal or unrecognised to identify as an atheist or as non-religious

Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is severely restricted

‘Apostasy’ is outlawed and punishable with a prison sentence

‘Blasphemy’ is outlawed or criticism of religion (including de facto ‘blasphemy’ laws) is restricted and punishable with a prison sentence

Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is somewhat restricted

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

Concerns that secular or religious authorities interfere in specifically religious freedoms

No fundamental restrictions on freedom of expression or advocacy of humanist values

Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

No condition holds in this strand

Each boundary condition can be clicked to find a full list of countries where that boundary condition was found to apply.

How countries are rated

Only the boundary conditions which are found to apply to a given country are shown in that country’s own “ratings table”. Here is an example ratings table which would be found on a country’s individual page.

Example ratings table for one country

In the individual country ratings table, rows at the edges of the table are omitted when no boundary conditions were found to apply in those rows. In the example, there is no green row and no dark red row, because no strand was found to meet boundary conditions at the lowest level or at the highest level of severity.

A “signal light” summary system sits alongside the title of each country on its individual page. The “signal light” shows the worst rating received in each strand. In the example table above, the worst-rated boundary conditions applying in the left-most two strands are both at the middle level of severity: orange. The worst-rated boundary conditions applying in the right-most two strands are both at the second highest level of severity: red. (They don’t always come in pairs like this!)

Here is an example “signal light” summary which corresponds to the example ratings table above.

A “signal light” shows that the worst boundary conditions applied in this example country were at levels 3, 3, 4 and 4.

The “signal light” is designed to give an at-a-glance visual summary of the country’s rating within the scope of this report.

Another look at the full list of boundary conditions

It is common for a condition on the more free end of the spectrum (except for the “Free and equal” conditions) to be superseded by a condition on the more severe end of the spectrum. In this case, the less severe condition may remain implicit, and not listed against the country in the report. For example: if blasphemy is punishable by a maximum sentence of “death”, then the less severe boundary condition stating that blasphemy that is punishable by “imprisonment” may be omitted in an individual country’s ratings table.

The table is designed to break the boundary conditions into separate “strands” of concern, allowing for a clearer visualisation of what information is available or included in the Report. This means that as we gather more information we will be doing a better job at identifying gaps in our own coverage. As stated in earlier edition of this Report, given the way the ratings are designed, some ratings are likely to get worse over time simply because we are satisfied that additional, more severe boundary conditions have been met.

Omission of a boundary condition in the ratings box does not necessarily mean that the condition does not hold in reality; it may be that the information is missing from the Report. We are always interested in new sources of information.

The bottom, grey row does not contribute toward the “severity” rating of a country. Only the null conditions “No condition holds in this strand” or “Insufficient information or detail not included in this report” appear at this level.

Cautions

It should be noted that this report cannot claim to be exhaustive. While all sovereign nations are recorded in this report, some “overseas territories” are not detailed and are not necessarily without discrimination on freedom of thought. Likewise, the individual cases listed as “Highlighted Cases” in this report are examples, not exhaustive lists.

Lack of transparency in some countries makes comprehensive analysis of those countries more difficult. In some countries, usually among the worst offenders, the secrecy of courts, or state control of media, or lack of reporting, make it impossible to produce a complete account. In some countries, vague laws or broad legal powers delegated to local authorities make it difficult to ascertain exactly how laws are applied (or not applied) on the ground.

We may still be overlooking serious concerns in some countries where we have little on-the-ground contact and the last thing we want to achieve is to make already marginalised non-religious people feel like their problems are being ignored or overlooked because we’ve given the country a better rating than it deserves, or because we have overlooked issues of concern. If you find yourself in this situation, or you have any other information including mitigation or errata for a given country, please take it as a prompt to reach out to us and make contact via freethoughtreport.com/contact.

How countries are rated

Another look at the full list of boundary conditions

Cautions

Support our work