What If? An Experiment to Include a Religious Narrative in the Approach of the European Court of Human Rights
In: Journal of Law, Religion and StateSearch for other papers by Anicée Van Engeland in
Current site
Google Scholar
According to some interpretations of Islam supported by gender activists, the veil can be perceived as a passport that enables women to participate in public affairs. This argument has been overlooked by the courts, including the European Court of Human Rights. The latter has adopted a discourse that considers the veil to be a threat to public order and gender equality, and more recently, an obstacle to social cohesion. By doing so, the Court has excluded veiled European Muslim women from the public sphere. The Court has justified curbing freedom of religion by granting states a wide margin of appreciation on the basis of the concept of “living together.” I argue that the Court needs to take the “passport veil” into account to be consistent with its argument on living together. A shift of approach and discourse would constitute a new way of understanding integration through the veil.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1278 | 373 | 43 |
| Full Text Views | 30 | 1 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 50 | 3 | 0 |
What If? An Experiment to Include a Religious Narrative in the Approach of the European Court of Human Rights
In: Journal of Law, Religion and StateSearch for other papers by Anicée Van Engeland in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
According to some interpretations of Islam supported by gender activists, the veil can be perceived as a passport that enables women to participate in public affairs. This argument has been overlooked by the courts, including the European Court of Human Rights. The latter has adopted a discourse that considers the veil to be a threat to public order and gender equality, and more recently, an obstacle to social cohesion. By doing so, the Court has excluded veiled European Muslim women from the public sphere. The Court has justified curbing freedom of religion by granting states a wide margin of appreciation on the basis of the concept of “living together.” I argue that the Court needs to take the “passport veil” into account to be consistent with its argument on living together. A shift of approach and discourse would constitute a new way of understanding integration through the veil.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1278 | 373 | 43 |
| Full Text Views | 30 | 1 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 50 | 3 | 0 |
