Chapter

Endorsing Discrimination Between Faiths: A Case of Extreme Speech?

John Finnis

in Extreme Speech and Democracy

Published in print February 2009 | ISBN: 9780199548781
Published online May 2009 | e-ISBN: 9780191720673 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.003.0022
 Endorsing Discrimination Between Faiths: A Case of Extreme Speech?

More Like This

Show all results sharing this subject:

  • Human Rights and Immigration

GO

Show Summary Details

Preview

The question whether government and law can discriminate between different religious faiths (or their adherents as such) is given a resounding affirmative answer by a unanimous Grand Chamber (seventeen judges) of the European Court of Human Rights in Refah Partisi (No. 2) v Turkey (2003), upholding the dissolution of the largest political party in Turkey's legislature on the grounds that, as a dominant member of the governing coalition, it intended to introduce sharia law either for everyone or as part of a plural system of laws for citizens of different faiths. For sharia, the court held, is inherently incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the conceptions of democracy and the rule of law which the Convention enshrines. That is, shariah (‘which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by [a] religion’ and ‘is stable and invariable’) would be incompatible with human rights, democracy and the rule of law even if adopted democratically and without threats of force. This ruling in Refah in turn grounds the same Court's decision in Sahin v Turkey (2005), upholding the prohibition of the wearing of head scarves in universities in Turkey. And Sahin is, inconspicuously but clearly enough, at the foundation of the House of Lords' decision in R (Begum) v Denbigh High School Governors [2006] UKHL 15, [2007] 1 AC 100. This chapter argues that despite its unpersuasive reasoning (in which essential premises such as those displayed in Sahin and Refah are never sufficiently articulated), Begum was rightly decided, and that — especially in relation to immigration — it is neither extremist, nor a case of extreme speech to propose discrimination analogous to that endorsed by the Strasbourg Court in those cases.

Keywords: shariah; immigration; speech; Begum; Refah Partisi; Islam; human rights litigation

Chapter.  6515 words. 

Subjects: Human Rights and Immigration

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Buy this work at Oxford University Press »

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.