Belgian Court Fines Catholic Archbishop and Cardinal for Denying Woman Clergy Training

The Pillar and Catholic News Agency report that a Belgian civil court has fined a Cardinal and an Archbishop each 1500 Euros for refusing to allow a woman to register for training as a deacon in the Catholic Church. Article 10 of Belgium's Constitution provides that "Equality between women and men is guaranteed." In Belgium, the state pays the salaries of clergy, but the Catholic Church reserves holy orders to baptized men. While the court held that the Church should have admitted Veer Dusauchoit for training, it did not address whether the Church would later be required to ordain her.

European Court Advisory Opinion: Security Clearance May Be Withdrawn for Supporter of Religion That Is Threat to the State

In a Grand Chamber advisory opinion, the European Court of Human Rights has concluded that Belgium many deny a person the right to work as a security guard because he belongs to a religious movement that poses a threat to the state.  In Requested by the Conseil d’État of Belgium, (ECHR, Dec. 14, 2023), the Belgian Ministry of Interior had withdrawn the identification card of a security guard who was a supporter of the scientific branch of Salafism. The Ministry gave the following justifications:

... [S]cientific Salafism represents a threat to our model of society and to our country. Any security guard or officer must display conduct that is respectful of the fundamental rights of his or her fellow citizens and must respect democratic values....

Even though you have stated that you reject any violence in the name of Islam, the State Security Service has nevertheless indicated that you are a supporter of an ideology which, in particular, questions the legitimacy of Belgian law, advocates community sectarianism, fosters a backward view of the role of women and takes positions which threaten the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens by a reactionary vision seeking to rid Islam of all its non-Islamic evolutions and influences.

The Court in its Advisory Opinion concluded:

The established fact that an individual belongs to a religious movement that, in view of its characteristics, is considered by the competent administrative authority to represent a threat to the State may justify a refusal to authorise that individual to work as a security guard or officer, provided that the measure in question: (1) has an accessible and foreseeable legal basis; (2) is adopted in the light of the conduct or acts of the individual concerned; (3) is taken, having regard to the individual’s occupational activity, for the purpose of averting a real and serious risk for democratic society, and pursues one or more of the legitimate aims under Article 9 § 2 of the Convention; (4) is proportionate to the risk that it seeks to avert and to the legitimate aim or aims that it pursues; and (5) may be referred to a judicial authority for a review that is independent, effective and surrounded by appropriate procedural safeguards, such as to ensure compliance with the requirements listed above.

EU Court OK's Neutral Ban on Employees Wearing Any Symbol of Belief

In Request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the tribunal du travail de Liège (Labour Court, Liège, Belgium), (EUCJ, Nov. 28, 2023), the European Union Court of Justice, interpreting Council Directive 2000/78 (Equal Treatment in Employment) held:

an internal rule of a municipal authority prohibiting, in a general and indiscriminate manner, the members of that authority’s staff from visibly wearing in the workplace any sign revealing, in particular, philosophical or religious beliefs may be justified by the desire of the said authority to establish, having regard to the context in which it operates, an entirely neutral administrative environment provided that that rule is appropriate, necessary and proportionate in the light of that context and taking into account the various rights and interests at stake....

The Court also issued a press release summarizing the decision.

European Court OK's Company Rule Neutrally Banning Wearing of All Signs of Religious Belief

 In L.F. v. S.C.R.L., EU EDJ, Oct. 13, 2022), the Court of Justice of the European Communities, in a request from Belgium for a preliminary ruling, held that a private company may prohibit employees from wearing all visible signs of political, philosophical or religious belief in the workplace.  This would not constitute direct discrimination on the ground of religion or belief in violation of Council Directive 2000/78 so long as the company's policy covers any manifestation of religious, philosophical or spiritual beliefs without distinction and treats all employees alike by requiring them in a general and undifferentiated way to dress neutrally. Such a rule might constitute indirect discrimination if it had a disparate impact on persons of one religion, but would not if it were objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim were appropriate and necessary. The question arose in the context of a company's refusal to employ a Muslim woman as an intern because she insisted on wearing a hijab. The Court issued a press release announcing the decision. Law & Religion UK also has coverage.

Belgian Regional Parliament Votes Down Ban On Kosher and Halal Slaughter

JTA reports that in the only portion of Belgium where kosher and halal slaughter is still legal, an attempt to ban those forms of slaughter (i.e. slaughter without first stunning the animal) failed:

The vote Friday in the parliament of the Brussels-Capital Region ... was on whether to scrap a bill proposing a ban. The bill, submitted by liberal and environmentally-centered parties, had been voted down in a committee that kicked it back to parliament.

Out of the 89 lawmakers in the region’s parliament, 42 voted in favor of scrapping, 38 voted against scrapping, eight abstained and one was not present, preserving for now the legality of kosher and halal slaughter in Brussels....

European Court Says Jehovah's Witnesses Were Wrongly Denied Tax Exemption

In Affaire Assemblée chrétienne des Témoins de Jéhovah d’Anderlecht et autres c. Belgique, (ECHR, April 5, 2022), the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of a Jehovah's Witnesses congregation in Belgium that was denied a property tax exemption for property they used for religious worship. The regional tax law gave exemptions only to "recognized religions".  Jehovah's Witnesses were not recognized. According to the Court's press release:

The Court held that since the tax exemption in question was contingent on prior recognition, governed by rules that did not afford sufficient safeguards against discrimination, the difference in treatment to which the applicant congregations had been subjected had no reasonable and objective justification. It noted, among other points, that recognition was only possible on the initiative of the Minister of Justice and depended thereafter on the purely discretionary decision of the legislature. A system of this kind entailed an inherent risk of arbitrariness, and religious communities could not reasonably be expected, in order to claim entitlement to the tax exemption in issue, to submit to a process that was not based on minimum guarantees of fairness and did not guarantee an objective assessment of their claims.

EU Court of Justice Advocate General Says Ban On Ritual Slaughter Is Invalid

The Court of Justice of the European Union last week released an Advocate General's opinion concluding that a decree of Belgium's Flemish region effectively banning kosher and Halal slaughter violates European Union law.  In Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België and Others, (Sept. 10, 2020), Belgium's Constitutional Court requested a preliminary ruling on whether the Flemish region can require stunning of animals prior to slaughter.  The Advocate General concluded that the questions referred to the Court of Justice be answered as follows:

Point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article  26(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No  1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, read together with Article 4(1) and 4(4) thereof, and having regard to Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 13 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that Member States are not permitted to adopt rules which provide, on the one hand, for a prohibition of the slaughter of animals without stunning that also applies to the slaughter carried out in the context of a religious rite and, on the other hand, for an alternative stunning procedure for the slaughter carried out in the context of a religious rite, based on reversible stunning and on condition that the stunning should not result in the death of the animal.

It had been argued that it should be at least permitted to require stunning that is reversible just prior to slaughter.  The Advocate General rejected this claim, saying in part:

There has also been some debate before the Court as to whether the prior reversible stunning which does not lead to the death of an animal or post-cut stunning of vertebrates satisfies the particular methods of slaughter prescribed by religious rites of both the Muslim and Jewish faiths. In that regard, it would seem that there are divergent views on the matter within both faiths. As I pointed out in my Opinion in Case C-243/19 A. v. Veselibas Ministrija, a secular court cannot choose in relation to the matters of religious orthodoxy:

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

Belgian Kosher Slaughter Ban Referred To European Court of Justice

As previously reported, in January Belgium's Council of State-- the country's highest court-- heard oral arguments on challenges to laws in Wallonia and Flanders that effectively ban kosher and halal slaughter by requiring animals be stunned before slaughter. Jewish News reported yesterday that the Belgian court has now referred the case to the European Court of Justice for a non-binding opinion on whether the bans are consistent with European Union law.

Belgium's Top Court Hears Arguments On Kosher/ Halal Slaughter Ban

Hamodia reports on lengthy oral arguments yesterday before Belgium's Council of State-- the country's highest court-- on laws that effectively ban kosher and halal slaughter by requiring animals be stunned before slaughter.  The ban has been enacted in Wallonia and Flanders regions. Separate suits were filed challenging each of the laws. (See prior posting). Jewish and Muslim groups claim that the laws violate Belgium's constitution and the European Union's Charter of Rights. According to Hamodia's report:

During the session, attorneys summarized the arguments submitted in briefs in December 2017, when the case was filed. Key points that Jewish groups have made are that, in addition to the law’s violation of freedom of religion, the law inhibits the professions of shochtim and kosher butchers and discriminates against Jews and Muslims. Briefs also cite fishermen and hunters as examples of groups who kill animals in different ways but are unfettered by the law....

The high court will likely release some response on the case in the coming months, but it might avoid a decision for the time being by referring the matter to the EU’s Court of Justice in Luxemburg. Should they take this route, a final decision could be delayed by more than a year.

European Court Says Hijab Must Be Allowed In Courtroom

In Lachiri v. Belgium, (ECHR, Sept. 18, 2018) (full text in French), the European court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that a Belgian court's excluding an ordinary citizen-- not a state employee-- from the courtroom because she refused to remove her hijab infringed her right to freedom of religion guaranteed by Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. One member of the 7 judge panel dissented and two judges filed a concurring opinion.  A press release from the Court in English provides more details. [Thanks to Paul de Mello Jr. for the lead.]

Suit In Belgium Challenges Kosher Slaughter Ban

In Belgium yesterday, three organizations filed suit challenging legislation in the Flemish Region of the country that bans kosher and halal slaughter beginning in 2019. As reported by The Daily Mail, the lawsuit contends that the legislation in Flanders violates the freedom of religion protections found in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Belgian Constitution. The Coordinating Council of Islamic Institutions has separately filed suit challenging the law. A suit filed last November challenged a similar law enacted by the Walloon Region. (See prior posting.)

European Court Advocate General Opines On Eid al-Adha Slaughterhouses

In Moskeeën v. Gewest, (ECJ Adv. Gen., Nov. 30, 2017), the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice concluded in his recommendation to the court that Belgian authorities had not infringed the religious freedom of Muslims by ending the practice of creating temporary slaughterhouses to be used for Eid al-Adha.  His opinion reads in part:

90.      Inasmuch as it cannot, in my opinion, be held that any limitation of freedom of religion results from the general obligation to use approved slaughterhouses, the question of whether such a limitation is justified does not arise.

91.      Nevertheless, in the event that the Court of Justice does not support that conclusion and considers that the obligation to use approved slaughterhouses, which alone is being challenged in this case, constitutes an interference with freedom of religion in that it prevents practising Muslims from fulfilling their religious obligation during the Feast of the Sacrifice, I am of the opinion that there would then be no legitimate objective in the public interest such as might justify the existence of a limitation of that freedom.

The Court issued a press release summarizing the Opinion.

Suit In Belgium Challenges Wallonia's Ban On Kosher Slaughter

In Belgium yesterday, the Coordinating Committee of Jewish Organizations of Belgium (CCOJB) filed suit in the country's Constitutional Court challenging a law passed in May by the parliament of the Walloon Region that effectively bans kosher and halal slaughter.  A similar lawsuit is likely to be filed early next year challenging a similar law passed in July by the parliament of Flanders-- where half of Belgium's Jews live and where many kosher slaughtering facilities are located.  Reporting on the lawsuit, European Jewish Press quote the president of CCOJB who said:

Irrespective of its justification, a ban on kosher meat production sends a message to Belgian Jews that they can choose between living in Belgium and practicing their religion, but they cannot do both. It sends a clear message to Belgium’s Jewish and Muslim communities that they are not welcome here. This is a violation of Belgian constitutional principles,  EU law, and the freedom of religion enshrined as a fundamental right - we will challenge it as such, in Wallonia and in Flanders.”

While the law was pending, a regional court had questioned its constitutionality. (See prior posting.)

Belgian Court Rules Kosher Slaughter Is Protected Religious Right

Jerusalem Post reported yesterday that a court in Belgium has ruled that restricting kosher slaughtering of animals "excessively and unreasonably restricts freedom of religion and seriously harms the fundamental laws of human rights and religious rights in Belgium."  The Conference of European Rabbis announced yesterday that the constitutional court of Belgium’s southern Wallonia region handed down the ruling after several legislators in the parliament of Wallonia introduced legislation to subject kosher slaughtering to the general requirement of Belgian law that animals be stunned before slaughter. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Belgian Council of State Says Proposed Ban On Ritual Slaughter Is Unconstitutional

JTA reported yesterday that in Belgium, the Council of State has issued an advisory opinion that proposed legislation to ban ritual slaughter would be overturned by the country's constitutional court as a violation of religious freedom.  The bill to end halal and kosher techniques in which animals are not stunned before slaughter was filed last month by the Green Party of the Flemish Region and is strongly supported by animal welfare minister, Ben Weyts of the New Flemish Alliance. It is largely a reaction to a legal fight by Muslim leaders in the Flemish region seeking to overturn the region's ban on the mobile temporary slaughtering areas that have been set up in previous years ahead of Eid al-Adha (the Festival of the Sacrifice). (Background.)

Belgium's Constitutional Court Invalidates Required Religious Education Courses

Flanders Today reported earlier this month that Belgium's Constitutional Court has struck down the requirement that all students in elementary or secondary school take either a religious education course in one of the six recognized religions, or take a course in ethics.  In a religious freedom challenge to the requirement, the Court held that parents can now opt out of the requirement for their children, without being required to explain the reasons for their decision. [Thanks to Paul de Mello for the lead.]

Belgian Court Sentences French Comedian For Anti-Semitic Remarks

Last Wednesday, a Belgian court sentenced French comedian Dieudonne M’bala M’bala to prison for two months, and imposed a fine equivalent to $9,500 (US) on him for his anti-Semitic remarks during a comedy show in Belgium in 2012.  According to The Forward:

Judges said that the remarks, made in front of an audience of 1,100 people in the town of Herstal, were clearly calls to hatred and violence. By calling on Christians and Muslims to unite to kill Jews, he had incited genocide.

He was also ordered to pay for the entire text of the judgment against him to be printed in two leading French-language Belgian newspapers.

Dieudonne has prior convictions in France.  Earlier this month the European Court of Human Rights refused to reverse Dieudonne's conviction in France for Holocaust denial stemming from a different performance. (See prior posting.)

Belgium's Top Administrative Court Invalidates School Bans On Religious Headwear

Strasbourg Observers blog reported yesterday on two Oct. 14 decisions by Belgium's Council of State (its highest administrative court) invalidating school regulations that banned students from wearing religious headwear or other religious insignia. The bans at issue were imposed by the Flemish Community Education Board. One of the cases decided by the court involved a Sikh turban or patka and the other involved a Muslim headscarf-- the main target of the regulations. The Court held:

Taking into account the proportionality requirement, a justification is all the more necessary as the litigious ban might lead to a denial of access to education for students for the sole reason that they exercise a fundamental right, without it being adequately demonstrated that they disrupt the public order or endanger the rights and freedoms of others.

The full text of the decisions (Case 228.751 and Case 228.752 ) are available in Dutch. [Thanks to Paul deMello for the lead].