Freedom of Religion/Limitations - Restrictions/Derogations: Difference between revisions
Import-sysop (talk | contribs) (transformed) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|questionHeading=Under international human rights laws, what permissible exceptions (often called derogations) exist? | |questionHeading=Under international human rights laws, what permissible exceptions (often called derogations) exist? | ||
|pageLevel=Question | |pageLevel=Question | ||
|contents= | |contents=Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The UDHR provides for exceptions to human rights “determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.” American Convention on Human Rights: Article 12-3 of the convention states that religious practice may “be subject only to the limitations prescribed by law that are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals, or the rights or freedoms of others.” The relevant court has “recognized that a state can limit the exercise of free religious expression when there is a conflict with other rights or when such expression constitutes a threat to society or political stability” (Gomes 2009, 98). European Convention on Human Rights: Article 9-2 states that “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” The European Court of Human Rights has interpreted a right not to have one’s religious views insulted by the public and has condoned state action against blasphemy (Koev 2019). In Valsamis v. Greece (1996), the court ruled against a defendant seeking a religious a religious exemption from a school-sponsored activity (Koev 2019). | ||
Universal Declaration of Human | In Eweida and others v. UK (2013), the court ruled against civil servants who refused to register same-sex marriages (Koev 2019). In Sahin v. Turkey ( 2004), the court upheld restricts on beards and headscarves for Muslim university students to “reconcile the interests of various groups” (Koev 2019, 188). In SAS v. France, the court upheld a ban on public face coverings because the face coverings would intrude on concepts of secularism and liberty (because, the court argued, face coverings symbolize subservience). | ||
American Convention on Human | |||
European Convention on Human | |||
The European Court of Human Rights has interpreted a right not to have one’s religious views insulted by the public and has condoned state action against blasphemy (Koev | |||
In | |||
REFERENCES: | |||
Evaldo Xavier Gomes, “The Implementation of Inter-American Norms on Freedom of Religion in the National Legislation of OAS Member States,” BYU Law Review, 2009, Issue 3 Article 5, 9-1-2009 | |||
Dan Koev (2019) Not Taking it on Faith: State and Religious Influences on European Court of | |||
Koev: | |||
Human Rights Judges in Freedom of Religion Cases, Journal of Human Rights, 18:2, 184-200, DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2019.1588715 | |||
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:52, 27 February 2023
Under international human rights laws, what permissible exceptions (often called derogations) exist?
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The UDHR provides for exceptions to human rights “determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.” American Convention on Human Rights: Article 12-3 of the convention states that religious practice may “be subject only to the limitations prescribed by law that are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals, or the rights or freedoms of others.” The relevant court has “recognized that a state can limit the exercise of free religious expression when there is a conflict with other rights or when such expression constitutes a threat to society or political stability” (Gomes 2009, 98). European Convention on Human Rights: Article 9-2 states that “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” The European Court of Human Rights has interpreted a right not to have one’s religious views insulted by the public and has condoned state action against blasphemy (Koev 2019). In Valsamis v. Greece (1996), the court ruled against a defendant seeking a religious a religious exemption from a school-sponsored activity (Koev 2019). In Eweida and others v. UK (2013), the court ruled against civil servants who refused to register same-sex marriages (Koev 2019). In Sahin v. Turkey ( 2004), the court upheld restricts on beards and headscarves for Muslim university students to “reconcile the interests of various groups” (Koev 2019, 188). In SAS v. France, the court upheld a ban on public face coverings because the face coverings would intrude on concepts of secularism and liberty (because, the court argued, face coverings symbolize subservience).
REFERENCES:
Evaldo Xavier Gomes, “The Implementation of Inter-American Norms on Freedom of Religion in the National Legislation of OAS Member States,” BYU Law Review, 2009, Issue 3 Article 5, 9-1-2009
Dan Koev (2019) Not Taking it on Faith: State and Religious Influences on European Court of
Human Rights Judges in Freedom of Religion Cases, Journal of Human Rights, 18:2, 184-200, DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2019.1588715
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/