Religious Symbols in Educational Institutions: Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights

in Religion & Human Rights
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Abstract

The issue of religious symbols in educational institutions has been a source of vigorous legal and political controversy. Two types of cases have been litigated before the European Court of Human Rights: those concerning the wearing of the Islamic headscarf in schools and universities, and those concerning the presence of the crucifix in school classrooms. In this article, I shall analyse these cases, assessing how the Court balances different rights and State interests, focusing in particular on the Court’s interpretation of the principles of neutrality/secularism and of gender equality. I shall criticise the Court’s deference to the State, arguing that it should more strictly supervise how States respect human rights. Respect for human rights requires that the States respect individual’s religious freedoms, be autonomous from the religion and safeguard the principle of plurality. While the Court has proclaimed these principles, it has failed to apply them in these cases.

Religious Symbols in Educational Institutions: Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights

in Religion & Human Rights

Sections

References

20

BVerfG 2 BvR 24 September 2003No. 1436/02 <http://www.bverfg.de> 1 March 2012.

23

Rosenfeldsupra note 19.

26

Natasha Walter‘When the Veil Means Freedom: Respect Women’s Choices that Are not Our Own, Even if they Include Wearing the Hijab’The Guardian20 January 2004. See also Jane Freedman ‘Secularism as a Barrier to Integration? The French Dillema’ 43:3 International Migration (2004) p. 5. For reactions to the Leyla Sahin judgment see the Turkish on-line journal: www.zaman.org.

40

At para. 12 of her Dissenting Opinionsupra note 1.

52

In its judgment of 18 March 2011.

55

BVerfGE 93 I I BvR 16 May 1995No. 1097/91 para. C (II) (1).

58

See Badersupra note 24.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 31 31 5
Full Text Views 58 58 36
PDF Downloads 4 4 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0