[T]he purpose of the restriction on the applicants' right to manifest their religious convictions was to adhere to the requirements of secularism in state schools..... [N]ational authorities were obliged to take great care to ensure that, in keeping with the principle of respect for pluralism and the freedom of others, the manifestation by pupils of their religious beliefs on school premises did not take on the nature of an ostentatious act that would constitute a source of pressure and exclusion. In the Court's view, that concern did indeed appear to have been answered by the French secular model.Yesterday's Irish Times and Today's Zaman reported on the decision.
In the applicants' cases the Court considered that the conclusion reached by the national authorities that the wearing of a veil, such as the Islamic headscarf, was incompatible with sports classes for reasons of health or safety was not unreasonable..... [T]he penalty of expulsion did not appear disproportionate.... [A]pplicants had been able to continue their schooling by correspondence classes. It was clear that the applicants' religious convictions were fully taken into account in relation to the requirements of protecting the rights and freedoms of others and public order. It was also clear that the decision complained of was based on those requirements and not on any objections to the applicants' religious beliefs.
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Friday, December 05, 2008
European Court of Human Rights Upholds French Limit on Head Scarves In Schools
In Dogru v. France, (ECHR, Dec. 4, 2008) [in English, Word.doc] and Kervanci v. France, (ECHR, Dec. 4, 2008) [in French, Word.doc], the European Court of Human Rights upheld French restrictions on Muslim girls wearing Islamic head scarves in their physical education classes. It found that the rule did not violate the girls' freedom of thought, conscience and religion protected by Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. As summarized in the Court's press release on the cases: