I don’t agree with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. But they have a right to knock on my door

Earlier this month, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously ruled in favour of a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses who were banned from preaching door-to-door in Shumen, Bulgaria, in a move that stands to affect Christians across Europe.   

What may initially seem like a remote local issue carries significant implications for religious freedom in Europe, particularly as states show a growing willingness to censor Christian expression simply because others do not want to hear it. 

Why? Because Velev and Others v. Bulgaria asks the same question that European states have increasingly struggled to answer: when two fundamental rights collide, can banning the exercise of one effectively solve the problem? 

Annoyance ≠ Harm

In this case, the Court had to reconcile the right to manifest one’s religion with the right to privacy. In 2016, the Shumen municipal council adopted an ordinance prohibiting all “religious propaganda in residents’ homes”.

The ban was prompted by complaints from locals who found door-to-door visits by religious preachers unwelcome. And while religious outreach like that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses was banned, others – like salesmen and political campaigners – remained free to visit residential buildings.  

States deploy broad, vaguely-worded legal tools to restrict religious expression; not because it is coercive or harmful, but because it is unwelcome.  

The Bulgarian authorities claimed that the measure was necessary to protect residents’ privacy, yet they failed to demonstrate actual or repeated disturbances that would justify a blanket ban. The most they could point to was “the undesirable nature of certain home visits” – in other words, annoyance. 

Faced with this tension, the Court ruled that a blanket prohibition of peaceful religious outreach violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It did not deny residents the right to privacy in their homes, but it rejected the idea that this required a general ban on religious outreach, which did not distinguish between coercive conduct and a polite knock on the door. 

Peaceful witness or improper proselytism

The Strasbourg Court has defended this principle for over three decades, clearly distinguishing between peaceful evangelism – which is protected as a manifestation of religion under Article 9 – and “improper proselytism”, involving pressure or an abuse of power.  

The Court’s decision is a timely response to the unmistakable pattern we are seeing across Europe, where states deploy broad, vaguely-worded legal tools to restrict religious expression; not because it is coercive or harmful, but because it is unwelcome.  

The Shumen ban is a textbook example. The term “religious propaganda” was left undefined, giving authorities sweeping discretion and creating a chilling effect on religious manifestation in the city. And when neither the faithful nor the authorities know where peaceful witness ends and “propaganda” begins, the rule of law itself is at stake. 

Bulgaria is not an isolated incident. In Türkiye, foreign Christians who had lived in the country for years were expelled after being branded “threats to national security”, without any evidence of wrongdoing or criminal charges. Here, too, the reasoning behind the move amounts to a vague unease about the peaceful presence of religious minorities. The European Court of Human Rights is now examining 20 such cases. 

Legislators across Europe would do well to heed this reminder that encountering ideas we disagree with is not a harm to be legislated away.

Perhaps the most powerful passage in the Velev judgment is the Court’s statement that “in a democratic society characterised by pluralism and tolerance, the mere fact of being exposed to religious ideas or beliefs that one does not share cannot, in itself, justify a blanket ban on peaceful missionary activities”.  

Legislators across Europe would do well to heed this important reminder that encountering ideas we disagree with is not a harm to be legislated away. Indeed, the fact that some would “rather not” never has been – and never should be – a reason to curb others’ basic freedoms, especially when not engaging can be as simple as saying “no, thank you” and closing the door. When annoyance becomes the threshold for restricting fundamental rights, no freedom is truly safe.  

The Velev ruling serves as a timely reminder that the European Convention on Human Rights exists to protect fundamental freedoms, even when their exercise is inconvenient to others. At a time when Christians are increasingly afraid to express their faith in the public square, we would do well to celebrate this victory and draw strength from this renewed affirmation of religious freedom.