The Teleological Problem

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher McCrudden
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Religious Discrimination ◽  
Civil Strife

This chapter deals with the first of three problems that dominate religious litigation, the teleological problem, that is, the problem the courts face of deciding what the primary human rights protections relating specifically to religion are for, what their aim or telos is. Neither with regard to the freedom of religion provisions, nor with regard to the freedom from religious discrimination provisions, is there any real consensus as to what they are aiming to achieve. Are they protecting the vulnerable? Are they to prevent civil strife? Are they another way of protecting minorities? Is there something in the nature of religion that means that these provisions are sui generis? The courts have struggled mightily with these issues, and contrasting approaches are to be found within the courts of the same jurisdictions, between the courts of different jurisdictions, and between courts and organized religions themselves.

scholarly journals Minority Muslims and freedom of religion: Learning from Australian Muslims’ Experiences

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 295-326
Author(s):  
Syamsul Arifin ◽  
Hasnan Bachtiar ◽  
Ahmad Nur Fuad ◽  
Tongat Tongat ◽  
Wahyudi Wahyudi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Minority Group ◽  
The State ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Religious Discrimination ◽  
Life Activity ◽  
State Administrators ◽  
Societal Context ◽  
The Right

This paper aims to examine the position of ummah while Muslims are living as minority in Australia. This paper argues that Australia as a secular and multicultural state has supported the development of ummah. There are some reasons to deal with this argument: first, the state consistently protects, respects and fulfils the right to the freedom of religion of all citizens because it ratified some international human rights documents; second, the state administrators have shown their professionalism in their daily life activity in terms of implementing the state law enforcement; third, although there are minor cases of religious discrimination that have been imposed by a minority group of fundamentalist Christian, they can be mitigated through the larger involvements of Muslims in the process of social development such as organising interreligious dialogues, discussions on religious tolerance, which significantly has been conditioned by the societal context of multiculturalism in Australia; fourth, a Muslim intellectual in Australia is totally pro-human rights.

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.

Reconciling Rights and Obligations

2003 ◽  
Vol 20 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 140-172
Author(s):  
Pernille Ironside
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Common Law ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Northern Nigeria ◽  
Law System ◽  
Constitutional Legality ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Criminal Matters

This article examines the debate concerning the recent reinstatement of Shari`ah law with respect to criminal matters in Northern Nigeria. The discussion explores the inherent challenges in reconciling the equally entrenched and passionate views of pro-Shari`ah supporters on their right to freedom of religion with those that question its application in terms of human rights norms and obligations, and its constitutional legality. The analysis concludes that Shari`ah laws can coexist with Nigeria’s common law system and remain relevant in the context of Islam, provided that its principles are adapted and modernized to comport with international standards for due process and are interpreted and applied consistently.

L'azione dell'Unione europea contro le discriminazioni basate sulla religione: l'impatto della giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti umani

2012 ◽  
pp. 475-511
Author(s):  
Federico Casolari
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
General Framework ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

Law Although EU law has established a general framework concerning the fight against discriminations on the grounds of religion (namely as far as equal treatment in employment and occupation is concerned), the related ECJ case law is not very rich. This article tracks and evaluates the impact of the ECHR case law devoted to the freedom of religion on the interpretation and application of EU law concerning religion discriminations. It argues that the ECHR case law may contribute to identify the notion of ‘religion' which is relevant for EU law, while several arguments may be put forward against the application of the Strasbourg approach to the balancing between the right to quality based on religion and others human rights into the EU legal order.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document