Islam under the Rule of Law in Europe: How Consistent Is the Human Rights Test?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Human Rights as Guarantor of Minority Protection in Contemporary Multicultural Europe
2.1. Two Concrete Illustrations Drawn from Case Law
2.1.1. Circumcision of Boys: The Free Will of the Child versus the Rights of His Parents
2.1.2. Code of Conduct in the Workplace: The Freedom to Conduct a Business versus the Freedom of Religious Expression of Individual Employees
3. Conclusion: How Consistent Is the Human Rights Test? A Few Critical Remarks
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
1 | I have already defended this position in (Foblets 2018). |
2 | Landgericht Cologne, 7 May 2012, Docket no. 151 Ns 169/11 (for the English translation, see: https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ilm/CircumcisionJudgmentLGCologne7May20121.pdf, accessed on 4 March 2021). For a more developed version of this analysis, see: (Foblets 2016). |
3 | CJEU 14 March 2017, C-157/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:203 (Achbita) and CJEU 14 March 2017, C-188/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:204 (Bougnaoui). |
4 | For the English translation of the press release issued by the Council, see: http://www.zentralratderjuden.de/en/article/3706.on-the-decision-of-the-district-court-of-cologne-concerning-circumcision-of-boys.html (accessed on 4 March 2021). |
5 | The new § 1631d of the German Civil Code (BGB), introduced by the Law of 20 December 2012, states: “Beschneidung des männliches Kindes: (1) Die Personensorge umfasst auch das Recht, in eine medizinisch nicht erforderliche Beschneidung des nicht einsichts-und urteilfähigen männlichen Kindes einzuwilligen, wenn diese nach den Regeln der ärtzlichen Kunst durchgeführt werden soll. Dies gilt nicht, wenn durch diese Beschneidung auch unter Berücksichtigung ihres Zwecks das Kindeswohl gefährdet wird. (2) In den ersten sechs Monaten nach der Geburt des Kindes dürfen auch von einer Religionsgesellschaft dazu vorgesehene Personen Beschneidungen gemäss Absatz 1 durchführen, wenn sie dafür besonders ausgebildet und, ohne Arzt zu sein, für die Durchführung der Beschneidung vergleichbar befähigt sind”. http://last-conformer.net/2012/12/28/its-official/ (accessed on 4 March 2021). See among others (Germann 2013; Walter 2012; Isensee 2013; Hörnle and Huster 2013). |
6 | ‘Reasonable accommodation’ refers to a technique designed in the first instance to meet the specific needs of persons with a handicap. Reasonable accommodation removes the barriers faced by people in the ordinary course of social interaction: in the labour market, at school, when entering public buildings, etc. There is no fixed list of what ‘reasonable accommodations’ may be possible. The decision must be made in each case, taking account of the specificities of the individual situation. Reasonable accommodation may consist of remediating measures (helping individuals); differential measures (laying down different conditions); compensatory measures (via compensation or extra resources); or exonerating measures (exemptions). In determining whether the accommodation is reasonable, the following are taken into consideration: the cost, the impact the accommodation would have both on the persons in question and on their immediate surroundings; whether or not there are equivalent alternatives. The technique lends itself to application to other minorities in society, with a view to enabling them to participate in the ordinary course of social interaction (including minority policy). The question that arises in this regard is whether, in the case of cultural, religious and/or ethnic minorities, for example, the application of the technique of reasonable accommodation can be made mandatory. Opinions vary greatly. On this issue and in particular on the question of the participation of members of a religious minority in the labour market, see the richly documented comparative study by Katayoun Alidadi (2017). See also, for a comparative law approach (Hendrickx and Roger 2016). |
7 | A few of these reactions are discussed in (Foblets 2016). |
8 | A similar criticism was made several years ago (Viens 2014, p. 242). |
9 | About this inconsistency, see (Levey 2013; Shweder 2013). |
10 | See, among others (Scolnicov 2011). |
11 | |
12 | Judgment of 17 December 2020, Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België and Others, Case C 336/19 (see Press Release No 163/20); this judgment followed two previous rulings: the judgments of 29 May 2018, Liga van Moskeeën en Islamitische Organisaties Provincie Antwerpen and Others, C-426/16 (see Press Release No 69/18), and of 26 February 2019, Œuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs, C-497/17 (see Press release No 15/2019). |
13 | Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing (OJ 2009 L 303, 1). |
14 | |
15 | |
16 | This debate is not limited to Europe. See (Korteweg and Yurdakul 2014). |
17 | See Note 3. |
18 | See Note 3. |
19 | OJ L. 2 December 2000, No 303, 0016–0022. |
20 | The Court made a connection here with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Article 9 of the ECHR (ECHR 15 January 2013, CE:ECHR:2013:0115JUD004842010 (Eweida and others v. The United Kingdom, point 94). |
21 | See, among others (Weiler 2017; Collins 2018; Hambler 2018; Hennette-Vauchez 2017; Marin Ais 2018; Howard 2017). |
22 | The protection of the employer’s freedom of belief (either positive or negative) constitutes, of course, an issue in itself, and would deserve to be further explored. There are two aspects: some employers may indeed wish to affirm their (religious or philosophical) identity and reflect that in their choice of the staff who represent the company, with the risk that this could be grounds for exclusion of certain (potential) employees. But the opposite is also true: by extending to the private sector the concept of ‘neutrality’ as it applies to public services, companies are offered an argument to exclude, in particular members of communities who insist on their right to identify with a particular belief and claim the right to express it, also in the workplace. In some cases, this is precisely what companies are aiming at, namely to exclude the prospect of such claims. The latter strategy has been fiercely criticized by minorities, as they see this policy as excluding them not only from working in the public service but also in private companies, for example if they wear religious signs of symbols (Ufarte 2017; Gonzalez 2018; Gonzalez 2020). |
23 | ECHR 15 January 2013, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0115JUD004842010 (Eweida and others v. The United Kingdom). |
24 | See, among others (Mathieu 2012; Pastor 2019). |
25 | CJEU 15 July 2021 in C-804/18 (WABE) and CJEU 15 July 2021 in C-341/19 (MH Müller Handel). |
26 | For example, in view of the court, avoiding social conflict may constitute a genuine employer need as well as maintaining a neutral attitude toward clients. In addition, the employer must prove that, without the introduction of a neutrality policy, its freedom to do business would be affected as it would suffer pernicious consequences given the nature or context of its activities. |
27 | In this regard, see (Tarlo 2013; Grigo 2015). |
28 | Already in the months before the judgments were handed down, authors were emphasising the importance and the stakes involved in the two cases. See among others (Jolly 2016). |
29 | Another practice that has caused much ink to flow, for now mainly in English-speaking countries, is the use of religious mediators or arbitrators in conflicts under private law. See, among others (Shachar 2008; Eisenberg 2007; Bano 2017). Opinions are divided (for two very critical anlayses, see (Manea 2016; Wagner 2015)). Scholarly studies that have thoroughly examined the functioning of “religious arbitration” are still relatively scarce. The mistrust is, therefore, all the greater. |
References
- Alidadi, Katayoun. 2017. Religion, Equality and Employment in Europe: The Case for Reasonable Accommodation. Oxford: Hart Publishing. [Google Scholar]
- Bano, Samia, ed. 2017. Women, Mediation and Religious Arbitration: Thinking through Gender and Justice in Family Law Disputes. Waltham: Brandeis University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Bergeaud-Blacker, Florence. 2011. New Challenges for Islamic Ritual Slaughter: A European perspective. In Islam in the West. Vol. 4: Politics and Law. Edited by David Westerlund and Ingvar Svanberg. London: Routledge, pp. 420–37. [Google Scholar]
- Berghahn, Sabine. 2012. Legal Regulations: Responses to Muslim headscarf in Europe. In Politics, Religion and Gender. Framing and Regulating the Veil. Edited by Sieglinde Rosenberger. London: Routledge, pp. 97–115. [Google Scholar]
- Bodenheimer, Alfred. 2012. Haut Ab! Die Juden in der Beschneidungsdebatte. Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag. [Google Scholar]
- Collins, Philippa M. 2018. Covering up? Client Embarrassment, Neutral Intolerance and Wearing Headscarves at Work. Law Quarterly Review 134: 31–37. [Google Scholar]
- Eisenberg, Avigail. 2007. Identity, multiculturalism and religious arbitration: The debate over Shari’a law in Canada. In Sexual Justice/Cultural Justice. Edited by Avigail Eisenberg. London: Routledge, pp. 211–230. [Google Scholar]
- Elver, Hilal. 2014. The Headscarf Controversy: Secularism and Freedom of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Foblets, Marie-Claire. 2016. The Body as Identity Marker. Circumcision of Boys Caught between Contrasting Views on the Best Interests of the Child. In The Child’s Interests in Conflict. The Intersections between Society, Family, Faith and Culture. Edited by Maarit Jänterä-Jareborg. Cambridge: Intersentia, pp. 125–62. [Google Scholar]
- Foblets, Marie-Claire. 2018. Recht, cultuur en individuele zelfbeschikking. In Interdisciplinariteit in Het Recht. Law and… Bewegingen in Het Privaatrecht. Edited by Eric Dirix. (Jura Falconis Libri, 20). Antwerp: Intersentia, pp. 55–76. [Google Scholar]
- Foblets, Marie-Claire, and Jan Velaers. 2013. Recent Discussions in Belgium and the Netherlands on Religious Freedom and the Slaughter of Animals without Prior Stunning. In Recht, Religion, Kultur. Festschrift für Richard Potz zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Brigitte Schinkele, René Kuppe, Stefan Schima, Eva M. Synek, Jürgen Wallner and Wolfgang Wieshaider. Vienna: Facultas, pp. 67–86. [Google Scholar]
- Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. 2012. Graumann: Ein unerhörter und unsensibler Akt. June 26. Available online: https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/urteil-zu-beschneidung-von-jungen-graumann-ein-unerhoerter-und-unsensibler-akt-11799759.html (accessed on 5 March 2021).
- Germann, Michael. 2013. Die Verfassungsmässigkeit des Gesetzes über den Umfang der Personensorge bei einer Beschneidung des männliches Kindes vom 20.12.2012. Medizinrecht 7: 412–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonzalez, Gérard. 2018. Régulation du port de signes religieux en entreprise. Revue du Droit des Religions 6. Available online: http://journals.openedition.org/rdr/340 (accessed on 4 March 2021). [CrossRef]
- Gonzalez, Gérard. 2020. La liberté européenne de religion à l’épreuve de la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne. Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme 31: 103–20. [Google Scholar]
- Grigo, Jacqueline. 2015. Religiöse Kleidung: Vestimentaire Praxis Zwischen IDENTITÄT und Differenz. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. [Google Scholar]
- Hambler, Andrew. 2018. Neutrality and Workplace Restrictions on Headscarves and Religious Dress: Lessons from Achbita and Bougnaoui. Industrial Law Journal 47: 149–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hehemann, Lena. 2019. Religious Slaughtering and Organic Labels: Oeuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs. European Papers 4: 297–305. [Google Scholar]
- Hendrickx, Frank, and Blanpain Roger, eds. 2016. Reasonable Accommodation in the Modern Workplace: Potential and Limits of the Integrative Logics. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International. [Google Scholar]
- Hennette-Vauchez, Stéphanie. 2017. Equality and the Market: The Unhappy Fate of Religious Discrimination in Europe. European Constitutional Review 13: 744–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hörnle, Tatjana, and Stefan Huster. 2013. Wie weit reicht das Erziehungsrecht der Eltern? JuristenZeitung 68: 328–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howard, Erica. 2013. Law and the Wearing of Religious Symbols: European Bans on the Wearing of Religious Symbols in Education. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Howard, Erica. 2014. Islamic Veil Bans: The gender equality justification and empirical evidence. In The Experiences of Face Veil Wearers in Europe and the Law. Edited by Eva Brems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 190. [Google Scholar]
- Howard, Erica. 2017. Islamic Headscarves and the CJEU: Achbita and Bougnaoui. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 24: 348–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Isensee, Josef. 2013. Grundrechtliche Konsequenz wider geheiligte Tradition. JuristenZeitung 68: 317–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jolly, Schona. 2016. Islamic headscarves and the workplace reach the CJEU: The battle for substantive equality. European Human Rights Law Review 6: 622–80. [Google Scholar]
- Korteweg, Anna C., and Gokce Yurdakul. 2014. The Headscarf Debates: Conflicts of National Belonging. Redwood City: Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Kristiansen, Maria, and Aziz Sheikh. 2013. Legislation on male infant circumcision in Europe: A call to avoid paternalism and to promote evidence-based patient-centred care. Global Discourse: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Current Affairs and Applied Contemporary Thought 3: 342–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lerner, Pablo, and Alfredo Mordechai Rabello. 2006. The Prohibition of Ritual Slaughtering (Kosher Shechita and Halal) and Freedom of Religion of Minorities. Journal of Law and Religion 22: 1–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levey, Geoffrey Brahm. 2013. Thinking about Infant Male Circumcision after the Cologne Court Decision. Global Discourse: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Current Affairs and Applied Contemporary Thought 3: 326–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manea, Elham. 2016. Women and Shari’a Law: The Impact of Legal Pluralism in the UK. London: I.B. Tauris. [Google Scholar]
- Marin Ais, José Rafael. 2018. Freedom of Religion in the Workplace v. Freedom to Conduct a Business, The Islamic Veil before the Court of Justice: M. Samira Achbita Case. European Papers 3: 409–17. [Google Scholar]
- Mathieu, Chantal. 2012. Le respect de la liberté religieuse dans l’entreprise. Revue de Droit du Travail 1: 17–23. [Google Scholar]
- Pastor, Relaño Eugenia. 2019. Religious discrimination in the workplace: Achbita and Bougnaoui. In EU Anti-Discrimination Law Beyond Gender. Edited by Uladzislau Belavusau and Kristin Henrard. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 183–202. [Google Scholar]
- Scolnicov, Anat. 2011. The Right to Religious Freedom in International Law. Between Group Rights and Individual Rights. London and New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Shachar, Ayelet. 2008. Privatizing diversity: A cautionary tale from religious arbitration in family law. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 2: 573–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shweder, Richard A. 2013. The Goose and the Gander: The genital wars. Global Discourse 3: 348–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Strack, Christophe. 2012. European rabbis deplore circumcision ruling. Deutsche Welle. July 11. Available online: https://www.dw.com/en/european-rabbis-deplore-circumcision-ruling/a-16088448 (accessed on 10 October 2021).
- Tarlo, Emma. 2013. Islamic Fashion and Anti-Fashion: New Perspectives from Europe and North America. London: Bloomsbury. [Google Scholar]
- Ufarte, Thomas. 2017. La liberté de conscience des salariés face au culte de la liberté d’entreprise prôné par la CJUE: Une nouvelle guerre de religion? La Revue des droits de l’homme. Available online: http://journals.openedition.org/revdh/3056 (accessed on 4 March 2021).
- UlAin, Qurat, and Terry L. Whiting. 2017. Is a ‘Good Death’ at the Time of Animal Slaughter an Essentially Contested Concept? Animals 7: 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van der Schyff, Gerhard. 2014. Ritual Slaughter and Religious Freedom in a Multilevel Europe: The wider importance of the Dutch case. Oxford Journal of Law and Religion 1: 76–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viens, Adrian M. 2004. Value Judgement, Harm and Religious Liberty. Journal of Medical Ethics 30: 241–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wagner, Joachim. 2015. Richter Ohne Gesetz. Islamische Paralleljustiz gefährdet unseren Rechtsstaat. Berlin: Ullstein. [Google Scholar]
- Walter, Tonio. 2012. Der Gesetzentwirf zur Beschneidung—Kritik und strafrechtliche Alternative. JuristenZeitung 67: 1110–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weiler, Joseph, ed. 2017. Je suis Achbita! International Journal of Constitutional Law 15: 879–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wheeler, Robert, and Pat Malone. 2013. Male Circumcision. Risk versus Benefit. Archives of Disease in Childhood 98: 321–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Foblets, M.-C. Islam under the Rule of Law in Europe: How Consistent Is the Human Rights Test? Religions 2021, 12, 857. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12100857
Foblets M-C. Islam under the Rule of Law in Europe: How Consistent Is the Human Rights Test? Religions. 2021; 12(10):857. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12100857
Chicago/Turabian StyleFoblets, Marie-Claire. 2021. "Islam under the Rule of Law in Europe: How Consistent Is the Human Rights Test?" Religions 12, no. 10: 857. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12100857