Abstract

The proposition that employers are right to prevent absolutely employees from proselytising their religious beliefs at work has been mooted by AG Sharpston, now retired Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in her Opinion in Bougnaoui and Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole SA. She argued this on three bases: that proselytism is not core to a person’s religious beliefs (and therefore not a manifestation of religion); that working time is used for the purposes of business rather than proselytism; and because proselytism creates disharmony among the workforce. It is contended in this article that such a proposition is controversial as each of these statements is deserving of challenge. Proselytism has been recognised as a bona fide manifestation of religion by the European Court of Human Rights and not only facilitates a proselytiser’s religious rights but also those of the potential proselyte (to have the opportunity to change religion). Working time is not exclusively spent in the relentless pursuit of business; there is a social dimension and an exchange of ideas would be commonplace. Disharmony, and even harassment, may result from proselytism, but this may be mitigated by moderation (on behalf of the proselytiser) and the judicious use of restriction (by the employer).

中文翻译：

---

宗教改宗是否“在工作环境中没有立足之地”？

摘要

AG Sharpston（现已退休的欧盟法院总检察长）在她在Bougnaoui 和 Association de défense des droits de的意见中提出了雇主绝对阻止雇员在工作中传教其宗教信仰的主张是正确的l'homme (ADDH) 诉 Micropole SA。她在三个基础上对此进行了论证：改宗不是一个人宗教信仰的核心（因此不是宗教的表现）；该工作时间用于商业目的而不是传教目的；因为传教在劳动力中造成不和谐。本文认为，这样的主张是有争议的，因为这些陈述中的每一个都值得挑战。传教已被欧洲人权法院认定为真正的宗教表现形式，不仅促进传教者的宗教权利，也促进潜在传教者的宗教权利（有机会改变宗教）。工作时间并不仅仅花在不懈地追求业务上；有一个社会层面，思想交流将是司空见惯的。不和谐，甚至骚扰，