What If? An Experiment to Include a Religious Narrative in the Approach of the European Court of Human Rights
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21235232 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Anicée Van Engeland (0000-0002-7259-1423, Cranfield University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2019 |
| Volume | 7 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 213-241 |
| Publication date | 2019-04-04 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Law, Religion and State (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2212-6465 • E-ISSN: 2212-4810 |
| Publisher | Amsterdam University Press (PUBLISHER • NL) |
| DOI | 10.1163/22124810-00702004 |
| OpenAlex | W2980437784 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 5 |
According to some interpretations of Islam supported by gender activists, the veil can be perceived as a passport that enables women to participate in public affairs. This argument has been overlooked by the courts, including the European Court of Human Rights. The latter has adopted a discourse that considers the veil to be a threat to public order and gender equality, and more recently, an obstacle to social cohesion. By doing so, the Court has excluded veiled European Muslim women from the public sphere. The Court has justified curbing freedom of religion by granting states a wide margin of appreciation on the basis of the concept of “living together.” I argue that the Court needs to take the “passport veil” into account to be consistent with its argument on living together. A shift of approach and discourse would constitute a new way of understanding integration through the veil
Fundamental rights · Human rights · Islam · Margin of appreciation · Narrative · Political science · Politics · Public sphere · Sociology · Gender and Women's Rights · Gender Politics and Representation · History · Law · Philosophy · Religious Freedom and Discrimination
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |