Erratum to: Limitations to the Right to Religious Freedom: Rethinking key approaches

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many governments established important restrictions on religious freedom. Due to a restrictive interpretation of the right to religious freedom, religion was placed in the category of “non-essential activity” and was, therefore, unprotected. Within this framework, this paper tries to offer a reflection on the relevance of the dual nature of religious freedom as an individual and collective right, since the current crisis has made it clear that the individual dimension of religious freedom is vulnerable when the legal model does not offer an adequate institutional guarantee to the collective dimension of religious freedom.

Download Full-text

Lachiri v Belgium and Bans on Wearing Islamic Dress in the Courtroom: An Emerging Trend

Ecclesiastical Law Journal ◽

10.1017/s0956618x18000947 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

pp. 48-53

Author(s):

Kaushik Paul

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Religious Freedom ◽

Public Spaces ◽

Religious Liberty ◽

Recent Case ◽

European Convention ◽

European Court ◽

The Subject ◽

The Right ◽

Islamic Dress

In recent years, the wearing of Islamic dress in public spaces and elsewhere has generated widespread controversy all over Europe. The wearing of the hijab and other Islamic veils has been the subject of adjudication before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on many occasions. The most recent case before the ECtHR as to the prohibition on wearing the hijab is Lachiri v Belgium. In this case, the ECtHR held that a prohibition on wearing the hijab in the courtroom constitutes an infringement of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the right to freedom of religion or belief. From the perspective of religious freedom, the ruling of the Strasbourg Court in Lachiri is very significant for many reasons. The purpose of this comment is critically to analyse the ECtHR's decision in Lachiri from the standpoint of religious liberty.

Download Full-text

Religious freedom and the ‘right to discriminate’ in the school admissions context: a neo-republican critique

Legal Studies ◽

10.1111/j.1748-121x.2011.00204.x ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 31 (4) ◽

pp. 615-643 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Eoin Daly ◽

Tom Hickey

Keyword(s):

Public Education ◽

Religious Freedom ◽

Religious Discrimination ◽

Religious Schools ◽

The Public ◽

Definition Of ◽

The Uk ◽

The Right ◽

Republican Theory ◽

Faith Schools

In law and discourse, it has typically been assumed that the religious freedom of state-funded religious schools must trump any competing right to non-discrimination on grounds of belief. For example, the Irish Constitution has been interpreted as requiring the broad exemption of denominational schools from the statutory prohibition on religious discrimination in school admissions. This stance is mirrored in the UK Equality Act 2010. Thus, religious discrimination in the public education context has been rationalised with reference to a ‘liberty-equality dichotomy’, which prioritises the integrity of faith schools' ‘ethos’, as an imperative of religious freedom. We argue that this familiar conceptual dichotomy generates a novel set of absurdities in this peculiar context. We suggest that the construction of religious freedom and non-discrimination as separate and antagonistic values rests on a conceptually flawed definition of religious freedom itself, which overlooks the necessary dependence of religious freedom on non-discrimination. Furthermore, it overstates the necessity, to religious freedom, of religious schools' ‘right to discriminate’. We argue for an alternative ordering of the values of religious freedom and non-discrimination – which we locate within the neo-republican theory of freedom as non-domination.

Download Full-text

From Toleration to Laïcité

Dialogue and Universalism ◽

10.5840/du202131225 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 31 (2) ◽

pp. 145-161

Author(s):

Gerhardt Stenger ◽

Keyword(s):

Religious Freedom ◽

Church And State ◽

Saint Augustine ◽

Anglo Saxon ◽

Modern Times ◽

Political Justification ◽

History Of ◽

The Law ◽

Pierre Bayle ◽

The Right

This paper traces the history of the philosophical and political justification of religious tolerance from the late 17th century to modern times. In the Anglo-Saxon world, John Locke’s Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) gave birth to the doctrine of the separation of Church and State and to what is now called secularization. In France, Pierre Bayle refuted, in his Philosophical Commentary (1685), the justification of intolerance taken from Saint Augustine. Following him, Voltaire campaigned for tolerance following the Calas affair (1763), and the Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789) imposed religious freedom which, a century later, resulted in the uniquely French notion of laïcité, which denies religion any supremacy, and any right to organize life in its name. Equality before the law takes precedence over freedom: the fact of being a believer does not give rise to the right to special statutes or to exceptions to the law.

Download Full-text

Chapter 2. A Model of the Right of the Child to Religious Freedom

The Right of the Child to Religious Freedom in International Law ◽

10.1163/ej.9789004162662.i-293.15 ◽

2007 ◽

pp. 37-62

Keyword(s):

Religious Freedom ◽

The Right

Download Full-text

Battles Over Symbols: The “Religion” of the Minority Versus the “Culture” of the Majority

Journal of Law and Religion ◽

10.1017/s0748081400000242 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 28 (1) ◽

pp. 67-104 ◽

Cited By ~ 22

Author(s):

Lori G. Beaman

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Religious Freedom ◽

Religious Symbol ◽

Anti Semitism ◽

European Tradition ◽

European Court ◽

Fundamental Freedoms ◽

Protection Of Human Rights ◽

Grand Chamber ◽

The Right

Moreover, with the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to identify in the constant central core of Christian faith, despite the inquisition, despite anti-Semitism and despite the crusades, the principles of human dignity, tolerance and freedom, including religious freedom, and therefore, in the last analysis, the foundations of the secular State.A European court should not be called upon to bankrupt centuries of European tradition. No court, certainly not this Court, should rob the Italians of part of their cultural personality.In March, 2011, after five years of working its way through various levels of national and European courts, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights decided that a crucifix hanging at the front of a classroom did not violate the right to religious freedom under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Specifically, Ms. Soile Lautsi had complained that the presence of the crucifix violated her and her children's right to religious freedom and that its presence amounted to an enforced religious regime. The Grand Chamber, reversing the lower Chamber's decision, held that while admittedly a religious symbol, the crucifix also represented the cultural heritage of Italians.

Download Full-text

The Right to Discriminate

Ecclesiastical Law Journal ◽

10.1017/s0956618x11000044 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 13 (2) ◽

pp. 157-181 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

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.

Download Full-text

The Umma in Italy: Eurocentric Pluralism, Local Legislation, Courts’ Decisions. How to Make the Right to Worship Real

Journal of Muslims in Europe ◽

10.1163/22117954-12341407 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

pp. 3-20

Author(s):

Giancarlo Anello

Keyword(s):

Religious Freedom ◽

Basic Assumption ◽

Northern Italy ◽

Freedom Of Religion ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Veneto Region ◽

Lombardy Region ◽

Muslims In Europe ◽

The Right ◽

Muslim Minorities

Abstract The article describes the making of the right of worship of Muslim minorities in Europe and its current difficulties, presenting and commenting on the emblematic example of local legislation concerning the building of new mosques in northern Italy. Controlling norms arise from recent decisions of the Italian Constitutional Court. The Court declared unconstitutional certain provisions of two regional laws approved by the Lombardy region (2/2015) and the Veneto region (12/2016), which imposed very strict conditions for the opening, approval and use of mosques. In particular, the Court declared unconstitutional norms that—with regard to the building of places of worship—introduced certain conditions for groups with an agreement with the State and different conditions for those without. Moreover, the Court declared unconstitutional the principle that all religious services that take place in a building open to public should be conducted in Italian. The basic assumption of the article is that current discrimination is the combined result of anti-migration sentiment and Islamophobic prejudices, and the consequence of the Eurocentric nature of the principle of religious freedom. A historically-oriented pluralism and multilevel (national) enforcement of freedom of religion seem to be huge obstacles to the implementation of the right to worship for Muslims in Europe and Italy.

Download Full-text

Framework of communication needed to protect against human rights violations of individuals who exercise their right to religious freedom in minority religions

Verbum et Ecclesia ◽

10.4102/ve.v33i1.516 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 33 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Stephanus P. Pretorius

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Religious Freedom ◽

Freedom Of Religion ◽

World Peace ◽

Special Rapporteur ◽

International Level ◽

Minority Religions ◽

Religious Intolerance ◽

The Right ◽

The Relationship

The right to religious freedom is generally believed to be the solution to religious intolerance and discrimination and to ensure world peace amongst world citizens. On an international level, the United Nations, through the appointment of a special rapporteur for freedom of religion and belief, has introduced a tool to monitor violations of this right. This tool is known as �the framework of communications� and is focused mainly on the relationship between governments and religions. Unfortunately, religion is not excluded from the violation of human rights within its own ranks. This article pointed out that however pure the intention of freedom of religion, no real measures are in place to address violations of human rights in minority religions. Therefore, a tool is needed to investigate and address alleged violations within minority religions.

Download Full-text