scholarly journals The Right to Discriminate

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell Sandberg
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Human Sexuality ◽  
Religious Groups ◽  
Broadcast Media ◽  
High Profile ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Right

The first decade of the 21st century has witnessed a number of controversies surrounding the interaction between law and religion in the United Kingdom. In particular, tensions have emerged between laws protecting religious freedom and those which prohibit discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. In particular, Parliament has repeatedly examined the scope and ambit of exceptions afforded to religious groups which allow them to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation when specific conditions are met. And these exceptions have reportedly led to tensions within both the Blair and Brown cabinets and rebukes from the Vatican and the European Commission, criticising the exceptions for being too narrow and too broad respectively. The exceptions have also been challenged by way of judicial review, have been applied or commented upon in a number of high-profile cases and have attracted comment in the print and broadcast media. A number of employees have brought claims asserting that new legal requirements promoting equality on grounds of sexual orientation are incompatible with their religious beliefs. This article seeks to explore the legal changes that have occurred in the first decade of the 21st century affecting religion and sexual orientation with particular reference to how courts and tribunals have dealt with clashes between the two. It discusses the extent to which English law allows religious groups and individuals to follow their own beliefs regarding human sexuality.

scholarly journals DEMOKRASI DI INDONESIA Antara Pembatasan dan Kebebasan Beragama

2010 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 9
Author(s):  
Abu Hafsin
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Religious Groups ◽  
Ambiguous Words ◽  
Clear Explanation ◽  
Religious Teaching

<p>Democracy has been understood differently. Law no.1/PNPS/1965 which<br />is previously recognized as protection of religious followers is recognized as<br />limitation that denied principle of democracy recently. The polemic of religious<br />freedom ended with proposal of judicial review on law no.1/PNPS/1965 proposed</p><p>by some group of societies. This proposal, finally, is rejected by prime<br />court. This rejection can be corrected since UUD 1945 follows an expressive<br />relativism on religious freedom. Because of the existence of ambiguous words<br />in such law, revision is really needed so that there will be a clear explanation<br />related to who has the authority to determine whether certain religious teaching<br />is wrong or not. It is important to solve the problematic matters faced by government and certain religious groups.</p><p><strong>Keywords</strong> : demokrasi, relativisme</p>

Revocation of Citizenship and Rule of Law: How Judicial Review Defeated Britain's First Denaturalization Regime

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 295-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Weil ◽  
Nicholas Handler
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Political Order ◽  
Foreign Born ◽  
The Past ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Global Trend ◽  
The Right ◽  
Western Democracies

Over the past decade, the United Kingdom has deprived an increasing number of British subjects of their citizenship. This policy, known as “denaturalization,” has been applied with particular harshness in cases where foreign-born subjects have been accused of terrorist activity. The increase is part of a global trend. In recent years, Canada, Australia, France, and the Netherlands have either debated or enacted denaturalization statutes. But Britain remains an outlier among Western democracies. Since 2006, the United Kingdom home secretary has revoked the citizenship of at least 373 Britons, of whom at least 53 have had alleged links to terrorism. This is more than the total number of revocations by Canada, France, Australia, and Netherlands combined. These developments are troubling, as the right to be secure in one's citizenship has been a cornerstone of the postwar European liberal political order, and of the international community's commitment to human rights.

scholarly journals Gods and Services: Religious Groups and Sexual Orientation Discrimination

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-209
Author(s):  
Russell Sandberg
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Orientation Discrimination ◽  
Religious Groups ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Sexual Orientation Discrimination ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Religious Exemption

Exemptions for religious groups from generally applicable laws are by no means unusual, especially in the field of discrimination law. However, exemptions from laws prohibiting discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation have proved particularly controversial. The legality of exemptions in regulations prohibiting discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the employment sphere has been the subject of judicial review and the scope of those exemptions has also been judicially examined. The extension to prohibit discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services has proved controversial, and case law on the extent of the religious exemption included in the British regulations is awaited. In the meantime, a recent judicial review of the corresponding Northern Ireland regulations, which were enacted prior to the British regulations, may be illuminating.

Architectural Design Controls on Places of Worship in Australia: State Encroachment on Religious Expression and Exercise

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-92
Author(s):  
Noel G. Villaroman
Keyword(s):  
Architectural Design ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Religious Communities ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Religious Groups ◽  
Religious Expression ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Constituent Element ◽  
The Right

Abstract This article analyses the ramifications to the right to religious freedom when the design of proposed places of worship is subjected to architectural design controls imposed by Australian planning authorities. First, such design controls can impinge on the freedom of religious expression—that is, the ability of religious communities to express their beliefs through their built structures. Such expression of beliefs may be vital to their prescribed manner of worship, observance, practice or teaching. Second, they can pose a physical obstacle to a religious group’s freedom of religious exercise—that is, their actual conduct of rituals, ceremonies and other kinds of worship. It is argued that the rigid application of design controls hinders the ability of religious groups in Australia to fully exercise their right to establish and maintain places of worship which is a constituent element of the right to religious freedom as guaranteed in international human rights law.

Religious Rights versus Sexual Orientation Discrimination: A Fair Deal for Everyone

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 128-159
Author(s):  
Erica Howard
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Conscientious Objection ◽  
Orientation Discrimination ◽  
Reasonable Accommodation ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Sexual Orientation Discrimination ◽  
The Right ◽  
Fair Deal

This article examines restrictions on the right to manifest one’s religion which are held to be justified for the protection of the rights of others, in particular, the right not to be discriminated against on the ground of one’s sexual orientation. Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom is scrutinised and it is argued that this suggests three possible ways of dealing with cases where an employee refuses to carry out certain parts of their job because of their religion or belief: using the “free to resign” rule; imposing a duty of reasonable accommodation on employers; and, providing for a conscientious objection exemption. These will be analysed with particular attention for their restrictions and limitations. This should lead to a conclusion as to whether these rights can be reconciled in a way that provides a fair deal for everyone.

What Business do Businesses Have with the Free Exercise of Religion?

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 171-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Lynn Failer
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
State Law ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Free Exercise ◽  
Private Citizens ◽  
Bed And Breakfast ◽  
Free Exercise Of Religion ◽  
The Right ◽  
Hobby Lobby

AbstractSince Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), federal and state religious freedom restoration acts now extend the right to free exercise of religion to businesses. But what does it mean for businesses to have such a right? In this paper, I identify three implications of these new rights: they shift the burden for fulfilling the right to private citizens, and they conflict with businesses’ both commercial and democratic obligations. To illustrate how they become problematic, I draw on the case of In re Wathen (2015) where the owners of a bed and breakfast cited their business's religion as their reason for refusing to host a wedding reception for a same-sex couple, even though state law specifically prohibited commercial businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation.

scholarly journals The right to freedom of religion and the right against religious discrimination: Theoretical distinctions

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 1125-1145
Author(s):  
Tarunabh Khaitan ◽  
Jane Calderwood Norton
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Religious Group ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Religious Discrimination ◽  
Religious Groups ◽  
The Right ◽  
Material Advantage

Abstract This article argues that while they are often conflated, the right to freedom of religion and the right against religious discrimination are in fact distinct human rights. Religious freedom is best understood as protecting our interest in religious adherence (and non-adherence), understood from the committed perspective of the (non)adherent. This internal, committed perspective generates a capacious and realistic conception of religious adherence, which reflects the staggering plurality of forms of religiosity (or lack thereof) as extant in contemporary societies. The right against religious discrimination is best understood as protecting our non-committal interest in the unsaddled membership of our religious group. Thus understood, the two rights have distinct normative rationales. Religious freedom is justified by the need to respect our decisional autonomy in matters of religious adherence. The prohibition on religious discrimination is justified by the need to reduce any significant (political, sociocultural, or material) advantage gaps between different religious groups. These differences reveal a complex map of two overlapping, but conceptually distinct, human rights which are not necessarily breached simultaneously.

Englishness and the Union in Contemporary Conservative Thought

2009 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 343-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard English ◽  
Richard Hayton ◽  
Michael Kenny
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
National Identity ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Public Intellectuals ◽  
Detailed Consideration ◽  
High Profile ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right

AbstractThis article analyses the importance of arguments developed since 1997 by influential right-wing commentators concerning Englishness and the United Kingdom. Drawing on historical, cultural and political themes, public intellectuals and commentators of the right have variously addressed the constitutional structure of the UK, the politics of devolved government in Wales and Scotland, and the emergence of a more salient contemporary English sensibility. This article offers case studies of the arguments of Simon Heffer, Peter Hitchens and Roger Scruton, all of whom have made controversial high-profile interventions on questions of national identity, culture and history. Drawing on original interviews with these as well as other key figures, the article addresses three central questions. First, what are the detailed arguments offered by Heffer, Hitchens and Scruton in relation to Englishness and the UK? Second, what does detailed consideration of these arguments reveal about the evolution of the politics of contemporary conservatism in relation to the Union? And, third, what kinds of opportunity currently exist for intellectuals and commentators on the fringes of mainstream politics to influence the terms of debate on these issues?

Jehovah's Witnesses and Medical Practice in Mexico: Religious Freedom, Parens Patriae, and the Right to Life

2001 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-52
Author(s):  
JORGE HERNÁNDEZ-ARRIAGA ◽  
CARLOS ALDANA-VALENZUELA ◽  
KENNETH V. ISERSON
Keyword(s):  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Focal Point ◽  
The United States ◽  
Religious Groups ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Jehovah’S Witnesses ◽  
Jehovah's Witnesses ◽  
Societal Norms ◽  
Parens Patriae ◽  
The Right

The influx of new groups into society, such as recently established religious groups whose practices differ from societal norms, may disturb relatively stable communities. This instability is exacerbated if these practices contravene long-held fundamental societal tenets, such as the protection of children. This situation now exists in Mexico, where the country's traditional Catholic and secular values clash with those of a religion introduced from the United States, Jehovah's Witnesses. The focal point for these clashes, as it has been elsewhere, is in the bioethics arena.

scholarly journals Last Rites and Human Rights: Funeral Pyres and Religious Freedom in the United Kingdom

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Cumper ◽  
Tom Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
City Council ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal

This article considers the litigation in Ghai v Newcastle City Council in which the legality of open air funeral pyres under the Cremation Act 1902, and under the right to freedom of religion and belief in article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, was considered. Ultimately the Court of Appeal held that open air funeral pyres within a walled enclosure were not unlawful. But at first instance the Administrative Court, which had assumed that domestic law prohibited such pyres, held that such a ban would not breach article 9 since it was legitimate to prevent causing offence to the majority of the population. It is the approach of the Administrative Court to article 9 (which was not considered by the Court of Appeal) that forms the basis of the critical analysis in this article. In particular it is argued that the Administrative Court undervalued the right to freedom of religion and belief, as against the need to prevent offence to others, and adopted a stance which was overly deferential to Government and Parliament.1

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document