The Quintana Roo feminist network presented a complaint against Bishop Pedro Pablo Elizondo and Gabriela Santana Duarte, representative of the Protestant Christian Church, before the State Attorney General and the Special Prosecutor for Electoral Crimes (Fepade) for alleged acts of discrimination, vote coercion, incitement to hatred and other electoral crimes.
The group maintains that the statements made by the Bishop in the midst of the debate on the decriminalization of abortion in Quintana Roo: “Catholics do not vote for candidates or political parties that are in favor of murder,” violated Article 24 of the Mexican Constitution and as many articles of the Law of Religious Associations and Public Worship.
Article 24 of the Constitution of the United Mexican States develops some scope of the right to religious freedom but adds that no one may use public acts of expression of this freedom for political purposes, proselytism or political propaganda.
In Mexico the separation between the state and the church, at least at the normative level, remains strict, with some forms of religious expression prohibited in the public sphere. At the federal and state regulatory levels, religious institutions face significant restrictions.
In addition to the above, ministers of worship cannot hold public office, and even the authorities cannot attend, on an official basis, religious acts of public worship, among others.
These serious limitations persist and put the right to religious freedom in the country at risk. We must remember that this right includes the right to express one’s beliefs in public and in private.
On the other hand, in the face of accusations of discrimination and incitement to hatred, we must remember that hate speech involves all forms of expression that propagate, incite, promote, or justify hatred based on intolerance.
The fact that a minister of worship, or a person on the basis of his faith, makes his opinions known or expresses the convictions of his religion, whether in rejection of abortion or any other issue of social interest, does not in itself configure hate speech or discrimination.
Revealing or explaining the contents of one’s own faith, either verbally or with the distribution of materials, or others, enters the sphere of freedom of the person.
In the specific case, it will be interesting to know in more detail the facts alleged by the complaining party and closely follow the considerations of the Mexican authorities, in order to assess whether the limits to the right to religious freedom have actually been exceeded or not.
