Belgian municipalities have started forcing people to use web browsers to interact with public services. That’s right. It’s no longer possible to reach a variety of public services in an analog way in some Belgian regions. And for people willing to wrestle with the information systems being imposed, it also means cash payment is now impossible when a service requires a fee. The government is steam-rolling over elderly people who struggle with how to use technology along with those who only embrace inclusive privacy-respecting technology. These groups are apparently small enough to be marginalized without government reps worrying about lost votes.
Hypothetically, what would happen if some Amish villages existed in Belgium? I ask because what’s being imposed would strongly go against their religion. Would the right to practice religion carry enough weight to compel the government to maintain an offline option even if it’s a small group of Amish? If yes, would that option likely be extended to everyone, or exclusive to the Amish?
Law is driven by philosophy. When discussing high-level laws at the constitutional level and above (international/human rights), “law” loses effectiveness as such and becomes more of a philosophical guide. It’s not concrete when specific scenarios are not pinned down, and rarely enforced as a consequence. There is an abstract human right that we have freedom of religion, but national law can often contradict human rights.
There are no Amish communities in Europe (and AFAIk, no notable religions that oppose the digital transformation). So there would be not likely be national law that protects them. The question is hypothetical. Answering it requires understanding the meaning, purpose, and history of the freedom of religion, which itself would never be elaborated in law. The law is clean, hard and fast, without history and usually without rationale.
It’s an inherently philosophical question but with legal interplay. So it’s a 10,000 foot view question of how freedom of religion gets implemented in Europe. The philosophy cannot be neglected because it’s the driver.
I would guess unlikely because there are no such religions in Belgium, AFAIK. The Amish would be in for a struggle. They would have to bring a complaint to court about digital transformation excluding them with no concrete law covering them, and try to cling to that rarely enforced body of human rights law. They might prevail in a high court, but what about someone who is not Amish, but who has the same moral objections? The Amish are Christians who morally object to lots of technology but strictly speaking the anti-tech is not really driven by Christianity. It’s more of a culture that is fused with their religion, which enables them to benefit from religious protections despite Christianity not being the driver. So a non-religious person who finds the forced use technology to be as unconscionable as an Amish practicioner would be equally oppressed, but would a court recognize this? Probably not, but if Amish were to arrive, then the question is would the law be written specifically to protect the Amish or would it be generalized enough that non-religious people would benefit? It’s all a question/prediction based on philosophy, psychology, law, and history.