The question of whether there should be a fundamental right to sacramental use of psychotropic drugs, despite the existence of a general prohibition against the drug in question, has been considered by the courts of England, South Africa, and the United States. Despite the commonality of the issues in all three countries, the approaches taken by the courts show significant differences of interest beyond the factual situation. In particular, a consideration of the cases suggests different strategies in evaluating justificatory claims by the state when incidentally restricting religious practice; differing use of cases from other jurisdictions; and differing emphases on the importance of international law in interpreting fundamental rights.

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides:1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The Isle of Man was a distinct diocese before it became a possession of the English crown in 1399. In the following centuries it retained not only a national legislature, the Tynwald, but the lord bishop of Sodor and Man. Ecclesiastical officers were to be found in Tynwald as early as 1614, and throughout the nineteenth century it included the lord bishop, the vicars-general and the archdeacon of the diocese. During the twentieth century the number of ecclesiastical officers in the legislature dwindled, until today only the lord bishop survives, and his position remains controversial.

No abstract

No abstract