European Court Says Switzerland Wrongly Denied Asylum To Pakistani Convert To Christianity

In M.A.M. v. Suisse, (ECHR, April 26, 2022) [decision in French], the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of a Pakistani asylee in Switzerland.  The Court's English language press release summarizes the case and its holding:

M.A.M. is a Pakistani national who had converted from Islam to Christianity while in Switzerland, where he had arrived in 2015 and where his asylum request had been rejected.

[T]he ... Court ... held, unanimously, that if the decision to expel the applicant to Pakistan were to be executed there would be a violation of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the absence of an assessment of the risk to which the applicant was exposed on account of the overall situation of Christian converts in Pakistan and of his own personal situation. The Court ruled that the assessment by the Swiss authorities of the risk facing the applicant on account of his conversion to Christianity if he were expelled to Pakistan had been insufficient to uphold the rejection of his asylum request....

[Thanks to @sacrareleges for the lead.]

Swiss Voters Approve Burka Ban

SwissInfo reports that voters in Switzerland yesterday approved, by a narrow majority, a constitutional amendment that would ban wearing of the burka in public places:

A decade after another national vote that banned the building of minarets, Switzerland will introduce a clause in its constitution to outlaw face coverings, including the Islamic burka and niqab, in public spaces....

Exceptions to the law will include face coverings for reasons of security, climate, or health – which means protective masks worn against Covid-19 are acceptable. Niqabs and burkas will still be allowed in places of worship.

Final results on Sunday showed just six of the country’s 26 cantons rejecting the initiative, which was launched by the right-wing Egerkinger committee – the same group who were behind the minaret vote in 2009.

Turnout was just over 50%, a little above average.

Swiss Court Says Company's Logo Is Not Offensive To Christians

Swiss Info reports that Switzerland's Federal Administrative Court has ruled against the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property's attempt to prevent the company Jägermeister from expanding the use of its logo (a stag with a glowing cross between it antlers) beyond liquor and clothing items. The Institute argued that the logo was offensive to the religious views of some consumers. According to Swiss Info:

The court ... said ...: although the story behind the logo indeed stems from an old Christian tale, today the average consumer associates it clearly with the Jägermeister liqueur rather than revelation....

For the Swiss federal judges, ... the “intensive” use of the image by Jägermeister had “weakened its religious character” over time, and nobody was likely to be offended. 

The company is thus free to use it for all promotional activities and products in Switzerland including cosmetics, mobile phones, or telecommunications services.

[Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Switzerland Denies Citizenship To Muslim Couple For Their Rejection of Gender Equality

BBC News reported last week that Swiss authorities have denied the citizenship application of a Muslim couple who refused to shake hands with individuals of the opposite sex during their citizenship interview. To obtain citizenship, an applicant must be well integrated into the Swiss community and demonstrate an attachment to the country, its institutions and a respect for its legal order. According to the report:

Officials stressed they were not rejected based on their religion but for their lack of respect for gender equality.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

European Court Vindicates Critic of Anti-Muslim Political Remarks

In Case of GRA Stiftung gegen Rassismus und Antisemitismus v. Switzerland,  (ECHR, Jan. 9, 2018), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that the free speech rights of a civil rights organization were infringed when Swiss courts sanctioned it for a web posting calling remarks of a youth leader of a right wing party "verbal racism." The remarks were made in the context of a referendum on banning the building of minarets. A Swiss appellate court found that the web posting infringed the party leader's personality rights.  It required the organization to remove its web posting and replace it by the court's opinion. It also was required to pay legal and court costs. The ECHR held in part:

When assessing the impugned statements in the present case, it is first of all important to bear in mind the general background of the ongoing political debate in which both statements were made.

... Both B.K.’s speech and the applicant organisation’s article concerned a topic of intense public debate in Switzerland at the material time, which was the popular initiative against the construction of minarets, which was widely reported on in national and international media. The initiative, calling for a ban on the construction of minarets, was ultimately accepted by a referendum on 29 November 2009 and such a ban was included in the Swiss Constitution....

The Court reiterates that a distinction has to be made between private individuals and persons acting in a public context, as political or public figures. Accordingly, whilst a private individual unknown to the public may claim particular protection of his or her right to private life, the same is not true of public figures.... 

... B.K. had willingly exposed himself to public scrutiny by stating his political views and therefore had to show a higher degree of tolerance towards potential criticism of his statements by persons or organisations which did not share his views.

A Chamber Judgment may be appealed to the Grand Chamber.  the Court issued a press release summarizing the decision.  Law & Religion UK has more on the case.

European Court Rejects Muslim Parents' Complaints About Mixed Swim Lessons In Schools

In Osmanoğlu and Kocabaş v. Switzerland, (ECHR, Jan. 10. 2017) (full text of opinion in French), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment rejected a challenge by Muslim parents to a Swiss educational requirement that their young daughters attend mixed swim lessons.  The Court's press release summarized the decision:

The Court ... observed that the authorities’ refusal to grant ... an exemption from swimming lessons had been an interference with the freedom of religion, that interference being prescribed by law and pursuing a legitimate aim (protection of foreign pupils from any form of social exclusion).

The Court emphasised, however, that school played a special role in the process of social integration, particularly where children of foreign origin were concerned. It observed that the children’s interest in a full education, facilitating their successful social integration according to local customs and mores, took precedence over the parents’ wish to have their daughters exempted from mixed swimming lessons and that the children’s interest in attending swimming lessons was not just to learn to swim, but above all to take part in that activity with all the other pupils, with no exception on account of the children’s origin or their parents’ religious or philosophical convictions.

The Court also noted that the authorities had offered the applicants very flexible arrangements ... such as allowing their daughters to wear a burkini.... The Court accordingly found that by giving precedence to the children’s obligation to follow the full school curriculum and their successful integration over the applicants’ private interest in obtaining an exemption from mixed swimming lessons for their daughters on religious grounds, the domestic authorities had not exceeded the considerable margin of appreciation afforded to them ... which concerned compulsory education.

A Chamber Judgment may be appealed to the Grand Chamber. [Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

Swiss Court Says Anti-Muslim Referendum Is Invalid

Daily Sabah reports that yesterday Switzerland's Federal Tribunal held that a referendum supported by the right-wing Swiss People's Party is unconstitutional. The referendum was an attempt to prevent state funding of the University of Fribourg's Swiss Centre for Islam and Society. Four of the high court's 5 judges agreed with the Fribourg regional Parliament that the referendum is unconstitutional because it singles out a particular religion.

European Court Says Switzerland Need Not Recognize Underage Religious Marriage of Afghan Nationals

In Z.H. and R.H. v. Switzerland, (ECHR, Dec. 8, 2015), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Switzerland was not required for asylum purposes to recognize the religious marriage between first cousins, entered when the bride was only 14 years old.  The religious marriage between the two, who are Afghan nationals, would have been illegal in Afghanistan because a woman must be at least 15 years old to marry there.  The religious marriage was contracted in Iran where the couple was living illegally, but it was not registered with Iranian authorities. The couple subsequently applied for asylum in Switzerland which they had entered illegally from Italy. Refusing to recognize them as husband and wife, authorities removed the husband to Italy.  However he soon returned illegally to Switzerland where apparently then Switzerland decided to recognize the marriage once the woman turned 17. The European Court did not treat this as mooting the appeal to it of Switzerland's initial decision.

European Court Says Armenian Genocide Denial Protected By Freedom of Expression

In Case of Perincek v. Switzerland, (ECHR, Oct. 15, 2015), the European Court of Human Rights in a Grand Chamber judgment, by a vote of 10-7, held that Switzerland violated Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression) when it criminally convicted the head of the Turkish Workers Party of violating Swiss law when he, at three public events in Switzerland, denied the 1915 Armenian genocide.  Swiss courts found Doğu Perinçek guilty of violating Art. 261 of the Swiss Criminal Code which, among other things, criminalizes denying, trivializing or seeking justification for genocide or other crimes against humanity. The European Court, finding his conviction in violation of the Convention, said in part in its majority opinion:

Taking into account ... that the applicant’s statements bore on a matter of public interest and did not amount to a call for hatred or intolerance, that the context in which they were made was not marked by heightened tensions or special historical overtones in Switzerland, that the statements cannot be regarded as affecting the dignity of the members of the Armenian community to the point of requiring a criminal law response in Switzerland, that there is no international law obligation for Switzerland to criminalise such statements, that the Swiss courts appear to have censured the applicant for voicing an opinion that diverged from the established ones in Switzerland, and that the interference took the serious form of a criminal conviction – the Court concludes that it was not necessary, in a democratic society, to subject the applicant to a criminal penalty in order to protect the rights of the Armenian community at stake in the present case.