Talk:Ahmad v United Kingdom

Untitled
The freedom of thought and religion is absolute. that is what i have been taught.
 * Well, that's not entirely true, because if you try to act on your thoughts or religion, there are a number of constraints. For instance, would you want somebody to have a religion which required sacrificing human babies? Or would you want to allow somebody who thought that all French people should die, and then went around killing them? Of course not. But admitting exceptions shows that you need more exceptions and a more nuanced approach. This is why the ECHR is written to contain exceptions where interference with a right to freedom of conscience or religion are justifiable. So, you've been taught wrongly.  Wik idea  08:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The facts section is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.147.182 (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)