Getting Rights ‘Right’

2020 ◽  
pp. 97-116
Author(s):  
Méadhbh McIvor
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Liberty ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Christian Morality ◽  
Positive Rights ◽  
Christ Church ◽  
American Law ◽  
Conservative Protestants

This chapter examines how human rights language is deployed at Christ Church. Although Christianity and human rights are sometimes genealogically linked, English law's replacement of the 'passive accommodation' of religion with the more robust 'prescriptive regulation' of a positive right to freedom of religion is experienced by some conservative Protestants as a dilution of their religious liberty. Drawing on comparative Melanesian ethnography, the chapter discusses the values of individualism and relationalism in global Christianities to argue that, for those at Christ Church, the perceived egocentrism of rights-based claims is thought to undermine the relationality necessary for a successful gospel encounter. For this reason, Christ Churchites encourage one another to forgo their rights for the sake of the gospel. This suggests that, even among those who embrace the interior, conscience-driven understanding of religion privileged by Euro-American law, there is little faith in the state's ability to protect religious liberty, with positive rights seen to privilege secular norms over Christian morality.

Recent Developments in Religious Liberty

2008 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Leigh
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Liberty ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
European Court ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Uk

This is the first in what is intended as a series of comments on current developments in the law concerning freedom of religion that will appear regularly in this Journal. This first survey deals with religious liberty challenges brought in the UK courts in 2007 and 2008. A subsequent survey will examine similar developments in international human rights law and especially before the European Court of Human Rights.

Justifying Freedom of Religion: Does ‘Dignity’ Help?

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Rivers
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Religious Liberty ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Democratic Tradition ◽  
Fundamental Reason ◽  
Political Traditions

Underlying the practice of the protection of freedom of religion in constitutional and human rights law is a debate about the justifications for such protection. Many of the arguments which have been offered during the emergence of the liberal democratic tradition from the seventeenth century onwards are instrumental or theological in nature. By contrast, modern justifications tend to be ‘dignitarian’ in character—non-instrumental and non-theological. Yet they struggle to identify religion as a sufficiently broad liberty-grounding good, or they dissolve freedom of religion into other rights of conscience, expression and association. In general, such dignitarian justifications fail to ground the practice of legally protected religious liberty in liberal democratic political traditions. One fundamental reason for this may lie in the anti-religious tendency of an emerging postmodern conception of human dignity.

Symposium Introduction: The Freedom of Religion and Belief Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Legal, Moral, Political and Religious Perspectives

2010 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 249-260
Author(s):  
Brett G. Scharffs
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Law Schools ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
Religious Perspectives ◽  
American Law ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

During the past fifteen years, the European Court of Human Rights has been engaging seriously with the freedom of religion and belief under Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In many ways, the scope and ambition of the Court's jurisprudence has been breathtaking, especially when viewed from the United States; but many questions have begun to emerge about whether the Court has established an intellectual and conceptual architecture that is up to the task of dealing with the increasingly complex cases involving religious freedom that the Court is currently facing and will soon face. Accordingly, several sections of the Association of American Law Schools sponsored a program in January, 2010 entitled, “The Freedom of Religion and Belief Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Legal, Moral, Political and Religious Perspectives.”

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.

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.

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

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.

Empire, Mission, Ecumenism, and Human Rights: “Religious Liberty” in Egypt, 1919–1956

2014 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 110-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Stuart
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Middle East ◽  
British Empire ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Religious Liberty ◽  
Complex Interplay ◽  
American Protestantism ◽  
Informal Empire ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
Egyptian Government

Historians identify many connections between human rights and religion, including the influence of religious organizations on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Protestant ecumenical movement and American Protestantism played important roles in this regard. Historical analysis has so far taken insufficient account of another contemporaneous phenomenon important in terms both of religion and of rights—the British Empire. Its authorities typically offered a “fair field” to Christian missionaries irrespective of their nationality or denomination. They might also offer protection to religious minorities. In Egypt the situation was complicated. An Islamic country and a vital part of Britain's “informal” empire in the Middle East, Egypt was also an important area of missionary activity. To Egyptian government and British imperial representatives alike missionaries asserted their right and that of Christian converts to “religious liberty.” Focusing in part on Anglican mission in Egypt, this article examines the complex interplay of empire and Anglo-American ecumenism in missionary assertion of religious freedom. It also shows how imperialism and debates about “religious liberty” in Egypt and the Middle East influenced both “universal” and Egyptian national ideas about freedom of religion up to 1956.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document