expectations and demands stemming from their beliefs or their community, the other dictated by courts, such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and by domestic law. 3 Women are told both to veil and not to veil, and their access to the public sphere is monitored, if not restricted. As a result
Zachary R. Calo
through the law and religion jurisprudence of the us Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights, which together offer a window into the shaping of the post-Christian West. This article proceeds by investigating three different areas of law: religion-state relations, individual religious freedom
编者 Nazila Ghanea
The collection explores these issues after the passing of just over two decades from the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination based on Religion or Belief. That declaration set out minimum international standards for the elimination of such discrimination. Sadly the challenge of intolerance on the basis of religion or belief continues to plague us, and tackling it seems to have become increasingly entrenched.
The complexity of this phenomenon requires expertise from different quarters. This collection draws from diplomatic, activist and theological quarters and benefits from the analysis of scholars of law, history, religious studies and sociology.
The ten chapters of this collection examine the relationship between human rights, law and religion; offer a typology for the study of religious persecution; problematise the consequences flowing from religious establishment in religiously plural society; analyse the implications of the directions being taken by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the protections offered by the European Commission council Directive 2000/43/EC outlawing workplace discrimination; study the 1981 Declaration and its promotion through the work of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief; and explore the intricacies of this freedom in detail from within the context of the United Kingdom and The Netherlands.
Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias and Wojciech Sadurski
the legal aspects of the discussion about the constitutionality of religious slaughter in Poland. In Part 3 we outline approaches to the issue in other European legal systems, namely in Germany, France (with the follow-up in the European Court of Human Rights), and Austria, which can shed light on how
Mark Hill QC
’ rights, derivative though separate from those of members. Rivers charts the shift from individual to collective approaches to questions of religious rights, giving a lucid and perceptive review of the evolving jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights which focuses on rights such as legal
to the European Court of Human Rights stated that the domestic law in the UK , the Equality Act 2010, had failed to protect their right to manifest their religious beliefs in relation to wearing crosses in the workplace (Eweida and Chaplin) and refused to provide services to same-sex couples (Ladele
France where the French Parliament approved the veil ban in schools according to Law 2004–228 of 15 March 2004, and Law 2010–1192 of 11 October 2010. 49 According to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, S.A.S. v. France , 50 these laws do not infringe on the freedom of
.), Encyclopedia of Religion , vol. 2 ., 2 nd ed. ( Farmington Hills, Mich. : Thomson Gale , 2005 ), 968 – 971 . Leigh Ian , “ Damned if They Do, Damned if They Don’t: The European Court of Human Rights and the Protection of Religion from Attack ,” Res Publica 17 ( 2011 ), 55 – 73 . Levey
Mirella Klomp, Marten van der Meulen, Erin Wilson and A. Zijdemans
,” The Economist , 6 September 2015 . http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2015/09/migrants-christianity-and-europe (accessed 9 December 2015). European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber . Case of Lautsi and Others v Italy Judgement ( 2011 ). http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001
Milot, Laïcités Sans Frontières (2011). 4 Esther Erlings, “‘The Government Did Not Refer to It’: SAS v France and Ordre Public at the European Court of Human Rights”, 16 Melbourne Journal of International Law (2015), 587. 5 See Patrick Cabanel and André Encrevé, “De Luther à la Loi