How to Strengthen Protection of (Religious) Minorities and Cultural Diversity under EU Law: Some Lessons from Human Rights Protection System

The paper is split into two parts. The first part starts with the analysis of Views adopted by the UN Human Rights Committee on Yaker and Hebbadi v. France cases concerning the French Act prohibiting the concealment of the face in public. These Views are then compared with the judgment S.A.S. v. France delivered by the European Court of Human Rights on a similar case. This comparison shows that the principle of non-discrimination and, in this vein, intersectional discrimination play a critical role in assuring the effective protection of Muslim women wearing religious clothing. Analysis of S.A.S. is completed by highlighting the most relevant weaknesses of religious minority protection in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Some references are also made to freedom of religious clothing in the workplace, underling the critical role that can be played in this regard by the duty of reasonable accommodation. The second part identifies the most significant shortcomings characterizing the protection of religious minorities under European Union law. In conclusion, this paper tries to highlight which lessons can be learnt from the human rights system—examined in the first part—in order to strengthen minority protection in the EU.

Tolerance: Circles of Inclusion and Exclusion

This chapter on the concept and practice of tolerance makes use of the legal case Begum together with three other cases from the same period: X v Y, Playfoot and Watkins-Singh. The chapter analyses the debates about the cases in two broadsheets: The Guardian and The Telegraph. The cases all concerned the rights of schoolgirls in state schools to wear particular kinds of religious clothing and symbols: two different versions of the hijab, a Christian purity ring, and a Sikh bangle. Examining the way tolerance and difference and identity are articulated across the debates about the four cases, I show how lines of inclusion and exclusion are articulated, existing side by side and competing within the same representational space of British multiculturalism.

Religious Freedom and the European Court of Human Rights’ Two Margins of Appreciation

The European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) use of the margin of appreciation (MoA) in cases concerning religious clothing is well-documented. This article paints a more complete picture of the use of the doctrine in cases falling within Article 9 and Article 2, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (echr). The ECtHR’s use of the normative MoA often appears to be superfluous as it does not seem to extend past the Article 9(2) echr, limitations clause. In contrast, the systemic MoA allows almost complete deference to the State, which has the potential to undermine the religious freedom of minorities.

The French Veil Ban: A Transnational Legal Feminist Approach

After the gruesome terrorist attack that killed eighty-four people in Nice, many beach towns in France began to ban Muslim women from wearing the "burkini" on beaches. The burkini, which was created by an Australian designer, is modest swimwear that covers the body and hair. The Nice attack occurred on the heels of a series of attacks in France. The timing of the French burkini ban suggests it was targeting Muslims due to the anger over the attacks. The argument that burkinis are not hygienic is a fig leaf for other more pernicious justifications. Others argue that religious garb generally contravenes the French vision of secularism. Another line of attack against the burkini relates to gender equality. For example, the French Prime Minister argues that the burkini reinforces the "enslavement of women." In this article, I will focus on arguments that justify bans on Muslim women's religious clothing on the basis that they are oppressive to women.Published: The French Veil Ban: A Transnational Legal Feminist Approach, 46 University of Baltimore Law Review 201 (2017).