Search Results (2)

It is clearly stated by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that provided education should not follow or consist of a means of catechism contrary to the religious or philosophical perceptions of the parents. Consequently, a specific negative claim is established: the state, through its educational policy, must refrain from transmitting information that is contrary to the philosophical and religious beliefs of the parents. In Greece, education policy is not neutral. It has a clear Christian orientation, primarily due to the constitutional establishment of the prevailing religion. It is not a constitutional paradox but a choice of the legislator based on cultural and social characteristics. This article aims to present an analysis of the effect of the constitutional establishment of the Christian faith in the national educational policy, which aims at the development of national and religious consciousness. Given that religious education is more freely formulated, the influence of the prevailing religion proves to be catalytic. In Greece, the catechism is preferred, according to the teachings of the prevailing religion. This choice makes it easier for parents to raise their children based on their beliefs, effectively reinforcing the fundamental right established by Article 2 of the additional protocol of the ECHR. Full article

The purpose of this article is to assess the impact of the UK government’s response to the Covid-19 outbreak from a human rights perspective, particularly its apparent tension with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in relation to non-Covid-19 patients whose lives were put at risk by not being able to attend appointments and treatments for pre-existing conditions and illnesses. The UK has also rejected the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union with the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018, which will leave the population even more exposed to potential human rights violations. This seems to be a direct consequence of the narrative and slogan employed by the government: “Stay Home; Protect the NHS; Save Lives”. Other potentially threatened categories, the NHS staff and prisoners are also mentioned in the same context. The latter have already launched a judicial review application along the same lines: Article 2 of the ECHR and the due regard duty stemming from the Equality Act 2010. The NHS staff were directly at risk, and evidence was emerging almost on a daily basis that implied authorities’ responsibility for the shortage of personal protective equipment and testing kits. While there have been a number of discussions on other issues in relation to the lockdown and the strategy directly or indirectly impacting human rights, it appears that no discussion on the impact of the strategy for non-Covid-19 patients and other categories from a human rights perspective has taken place. This gap in analyses and literature merits the present analysis. Full article