The Spanish Episcopal Conference (CEE) has shown its support for the position of the Islamic Commission of Spain in relation to the decision of the City Council of Jumilla to restrict religious manifestations in public spaces.
In a communiqué, the bishops recall that "public religious manifestations, understood as freedom of worship, are protected by the right to religious freedom", as stated in Article 16.1 of the Spanish Constitution and in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
According to the EEC, the only legitimate intervention of the authorities in this area should be "only in case of disturbance of public order", always evaluated "objectively by specialists and with technical criteria", avoiding "arbitrary or ideological" decisions. They underline that, if restrictions are applied to protect the common good, these should be extended to any type of demonstration in public spaces, not only to those of a religious nature.
The note warns that limiting these rights on religious grounds "is a discrimination that cannot occur in democratic societies" and that "does not affect only one religious group, but all religious denominations and also non-believers".
What happened in Jumilla?
The City Council of Jumilla generated a strong controversy by approving, last Thursday, August 7, a motion -supported by the PP and Vox- that restricts the use of municipal sports facilities exclusively to sports activities organized by the city council, expressly prohibiting religious events such as the end of Ramadan and the Feast of the Lamb.
The measure has been considered by the local Muslim community as a lack of respect and a blow to coexistence. Mohamed Ajana, secretary of the Islamic Commission of Spain, expressed his "concern" for a decision that hinders religious freedom.
Possible confusions
The controversy surrounding the decision of the City Council of Jumilla to restrict the use of municipal sports centers to sports activities organized by the consistory -a measure that prevents religious celebrations such as the end of Ramadan or the Feast of the Lamb- has generated criticism from both Vox (promoter of the motion) and the PP (which abstained to move it forward), as well as the Spanish Episcopal Conference (CEE), which aligned itself with the Islamic Commission to defend freedom of worship.
According to legal experts consulted, Vox's initial proposal involves a confusion between "public religious demonstrations" and the occasional use of a public space managed by the administration. While the former are protected by Article 16.1 of the Constitution and Article 21 (assembly and demonstration), provided they are previously communicated and do not disturb public order, the use of a sports center is governed by administrative law and municipal powers (Law 7/1985 of Bases of the Local Regime), which allow the city council to establish criteria for use.
The City Council can limit the use of facilities to sporting activities, but it must do so in a neutral and general way, not prohibiting only religious activities, because this opens the door to possible discrimination. Constitutional law experts consulted by Omnes explain that a city council can limit the use of a sports center exclusively to sporting activities or prohibit certain events for objective reasons such as public health or risk to the facilities. What it cannot do is veto an activity on religious grounds or discriminate between denominations: if a Catholic mass is authorized, an Islamic prayer must also be allowed, and vice versa. This principle of neutrality and non-discrimination is protected by Article 14 of the Constitution and the Organic Law on Religious Freedom.
The objections to the EEC point out that its communiqué is based on an erroneous assumption: it has not prohibited a procession or act on public roads, but a religious activity within a municipal enclosure, where the local authority has the margin to decide its use. In the same way, the Consistory could deny a mass in those facilities on the same grounds. In this sense, religious freedom (art. 16 CE) does not imply an automatic right to use any public space for acts of worship, but the prohibition of discrimination and the obligation to justify the limitations with objective and non-ideological criteria.
The controversy thus exposes the fine line between guaranteeing fundamental rights and exercising powers to manage public assets, underlining the need for legal precision in a debate with obvious social and political implications.
