Case No. UKUT-00286-(IAC)

28. Both Article 8 and Article 9 are expressed in terms that are not absolute. Each is a qualified right. However, the qualified nature of the right is expressed in different terms. This is best demonstrated by a synoptic version of the two Articles: 29. It is readily understandable that an individual’s human rights may be outweighed by the economic well-being of the country: hence a claim to remain which operates as a burden upon the state may be a legitimate reason for refusing the claim; it is often expressed as the public interest in maintaining immigration control. The economic well-being of the country is however omitted from the factors that qualify the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Whilst the concept of a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion can less obviously be seen as operating in the realm of economic activity (the biblical antithesis, perhaps, between God and mammon) the fact that a person who claims the right to exercise his freedom of religion may result in his being a burden on the state or the public at large is just as significant a factor in an Article 9 case as it is in an Article 8 case.