Human Rights and Displaying of Religious Clothing and Symbols (Essay Sample)

CRITICALLY APPRAISE THE CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNING THE WEARING OR DISPLAYING OF RELIGIOUS CLOTHING AND SYMBOLS.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………….……2
1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………...3
1.1 DEFINITION OF TERMS…………………………………………..………………….…3
2 .0 DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………………………4
2.1 CRITICALLY APPRAISE THE CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNING THE WEARING OR DISPLAYING OF RELIGIOUS CLOTHING AND SYMBOLS………………………………………………………………….………….…4
3.0 DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………………….6
3.1 HOW THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS HAS EXPANDED PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND PROHIBITION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHENT THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT OF POSITIVE OBLIGATIONS……………………………………………………………….……………….6
3.1 THE APPROACH OF UK COURTS AND THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS TO CASES CONCERNING ASSISTED SUICIDE AND VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA …………………………………………………………………………………7
4.0 SUMMARY…………………..…………………………………………………………….8
4.1 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………..8
5.0 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………...9
Definitions of terms
Religious clothing are clothing which hold special kind of significance and specially designed to fit specific religious faith groups like Christianity, Ecumenicist, Islam and Judaism. Examples include Vestments and Clerical clothing.
Human rights on the other hand are basically moral principles and norms with a description of standards of human behavior and have guaranteed legal protection of in both the municipal and the international law. The rights are applied regardless of where you come from, what you believe in or how you choose to live your life.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is an international court set up in 1959 revolving around rules on individual or state applications alleging violation of the civil and political rights set out in the European convention for human rights.[European Convention on Human Rights 1950, Article 9.]
Introduction
Religious clothing often raises controversies in our real-time societies and has remained a controversial subject in the courts weighing its relevance from the parties involved. We are going to discuss further instances involving rights to wear or display religious clothing and symbols and scenarios where the law has been used to interpret such rights in cases of disputes by ECtHR as discussed in following scenarios.[P. Lobba, ‘Holocaust Denial Before The European Court Of Human Rights: Evolution of An Exceptional Regime’ (2015) 26 EJIL 237]
Critically appraise the case law of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the wearing or displaying of religious clothing and symbols.
European court of human rights upholds strict adherence to the democratic rights because from Article 9 ECHR (Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) of the convention provides that; Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observation. Freedom to change ones religion or belief shall be subject to only such limitations as prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society because of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of rights and freedom of others .[Renucci, Jean-François. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights: freedom of thought, conscience and religion (2005) LIM 140,141.]
The ECHR fully supports wearing or displaying of religious clothing and symbols on the grounds that because there exist many ways to in which people can patent their beliefs like worshipping, teachings, practicing, observing, singing and even crying whether in public or private. In the court case where parents sued the school for displaying crucifixes in schools, they thought the school was in violation of Article 9 (religion, freedom of thought and conscience) but the case was argued by one judge who elaborated that, “the display of the crucifixes in the walls of the classrooms did not associate with any forceful participation and learning in Christian lessons and that it was the right of the parent to adhere to article 2 ( right to education) and educates the children on all aspects of life.” ECHR has been used to interpret the law in cases where some parties felt their rights of wearing religious clothing while on official duties like teaching have been interfered with.
For instance, in the case of Dahlab v Switzerland, a teacher protested that the school establishment had outlawed her from wearing a headscarf in school, later on her contract was terminated which made her she present the case in court to secure her job .The federal court upheld the ruling claiming that the ruling had not been unreasonable, stating that the children were at a tender age and that they could be easily influenced.[Dahlab v Switzerland[2001] UKSC 39,[2002] 1 AC 208]
The ECHR supports common good of every citizen. In the case of phull v france, an applicant who was practicing Sikh, complained relying on Article 9 of the ECHR, which his rights to freedom of religion had been interfered with by the airport authorities who had refused to remove his turban as part of security checks. The court held that security checks were for public security as stipulated in Article 9(2).
The ECHR is very critical in solving problems between employer’s vs employees so as there is mutual agreement regarding the wearing and displaying of religious clothing and symbol. From the court cases of Eweida and Chaplain V United Kingdom, the court ruled that “applicant’s necessity for her to express her religion by having the cross at work was needful. However, the reason for her to remove the cross was more important the protection and safety of the patient.”[Eweida and Chaplain V United Kingdom[2013]ECHR37] []
ECHR shades more light on rights a person has when wearing or displaying religious symbols in private and public places.
How The European Court of Human Rights has expanded protection of the right to life and prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment through the development of positive obligations
In the case of Hamidovic v Bosnsia and Herzegovina, the applicant was expelled from the court room and was convicted for contempt of the court for failing to remove his skull cap. The court held that his freedom of religion had been violated and further his case had to be distinguished from other cases concerning wearing of religious clothes and symbols at workplaces from public officials.[Hamidovic v Bosnsia and Herzegovina, App no 57792/15(ECtHR,22 December 2017)]
In Article 2 of the European convention of human rights , the law is clear to the fact that everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law and “No one shall be shall be shall be deprived of his life intentionally.” The ECHR has been keen to strengthen the positive obligation to protect life under Article 2 by applying them to numerous different context, including health care sector, people in detention, domestic violence, environmental hazards, extreme climate conditions and other activity to which the right of life may be at s...