Search

This chapter examines the ways in which the tensions around proselytization and conversion highlight some of the conceptual difficulties of liberal theory formulations of religious freedom and the way in which different cultures and religious groups are reinterpreting the traditional conception of religious freedom to better fit their own cultural context. Using case-studies from India and Malaysia, the chapter demonstrates the way in which the indeterminate and open-ended language of international conventions on religious freedom can be both a strength (allowing for areas of cultural difference in a flexible way) and a weakness (with no strong determinate boundaries around acceptable behaviour). The language of ‘public order’ in particular, generally included in both international law and in domestic constitutions as a legitimate limitation to religious freedom, is often invoked to legitimize a religious/ethnic majoritarian agenda.

This article examines the way in which the legal systems in two jurisdictions resolve the tension between the protection of the religious autonomy rights of religious employers and the labour law rights of their employees. In the United States, both the courts and the legislatures have been grappling with the issues raised by religious employment for many years. The European Court of Human Rights, by contrast, has only recently begun to see cases arising in this context, but it is now faced with the need to develop case law in this area very quickly in response to a growing number of cases. The complexity of the competing rights arguments has led each jurisdiction to some solutions that are not optimal and each could learn from the other in working towards more nuanced methods for resolving these legal disputes.

The Evolution of Religious Freedom in the European Court of Human RightsArticle 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects religious freedom, looked for many decades as though it was going to be effectively a dead letter. The European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) did not find a violation of Article 9 until the case of Kokkinakis v. Greece which was decided only seventeen years ago, in 1993. Even after that seminal decision, religious freedom cases were still relatively rare for several years; in 2001, there had been fewer than thirty Court cases on Article 9. However, in the last decade the case law has expanded significantly; and from 2001 to 2010 there have been more than sixty additional cases. Thus, in a relatively short period, the Court has been pushed to develop a jurisprudence of religious freedom to deal with increasingly complex and controversial cases. As the case law has multiplied and the issues have diversified, however, it has become clear that the Court has not yet developed a sufficiently coherent and principled approach to this area. So far, its approach has proved of very limited utility to individuals making claims of religious freedom.This is not to suggest that the Court has played no role in the protection of religious freedom in Europe. Indeed, in recent years, it has arguably played an increasingly positive role, particularly in cases involving group religious rights. However, this jurisprudence has not translated into greater protection for religious individuals in many instances.

The Australian Constitution provides for the protection of religious freedom and prohibits establishment in very similar terms to the United States Constitution. Yet while Australian judges have often stated the importance of religious freedom in a democratic state and have defined religion in a broad, culturally sensitive way, they have taken a narrow approach to the scope of religious freedom and to the meaning of establishment. The end result is that the courts have played very little role in determining the boundaries of acceptable government or legislative behaviour in the regulation of religion. Instead, the key decisions have been left to the political branches of government, which have been given a broad scope of power to engage in all but the most direct and egregious breaches of religious freedom. This article begins with an overview of the history of the drafting of the religion clauses of the Australian Constitution and then gives a detailed analysis of the way in which those clauses ...

The question of whether and how public schools in Europe (and, indeed, in liberal democracies more generally) should introduce religion into the classroom has become increasingly important. Children need to be given the tools to understand the role of religion in their society and in the world, but they must be protected from indoctrination by their teachers or school officials. This article takes international human rights principles as a standard against which different approaches to incorporating education about religion into public school curricula can be judged. It argues that 'plural religious education' is the approach to religion in public schools that best complies with international human rights standards. The recently drafted Toledo Guidelines are recommended as providing useful guidance to States that seek a rights consistent approach to this issue. Both these guidelines and the relevant case-law of European and United Nations human rights bodies are analysed and the key guiding principles relating to religious education in public schools are examined to demonstrate both the utility of the international human rights approach and its current limitations. © The Author [2008]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Trade between countries could fall short of trade within a country because (1) the volume of international trade is less than the volume of domestic trade for a given product (the intensive margin); or (2) some goods that are sold domestically are simply not exported (the extensive margin). My theoretical model illustrates that either of these two factors could explain a given aggregate `border effect.' I examine the empirical relevance of this distinction by isolating the fraction of total domestic production attributable only to exporters, finding that around one-half of the border effect may be attributed to each explanation.

The Special Rapporteur holds the key United Nations mandate for the protection of freedom of religion and belief. This article gives an overview of the establishment and developing role of the Rapporteur and considers the way in which the three individuals who have held the office so far have carried out their mandate. It assesses the effectiveness of the methodologies used by the Rapporteur and, in particular, questions the shift of emphasis from prevention to protection. It then analyses the way in which the Rapporteurs have dealt with some of the substantive issues required by their role. The example of religious defamation is given to demonstrate the dangers of Rapporteurs taking overly simplistic approaches to complex issues. Finally a number of areas where further consideration is needed—in particular with respect to funding, the development of a treaty on religious freedom and the relationship with States—are briefly overviewed. The article concludes that the performance of the Rapporteurs have been exceptional, particularly given the limited financial resources allocated to the mandate and the complexities of the problems with which the mandate deals.

(2005). Papers from the Fulbright Symposium on Peace and Human Rights Education. Australian Journal of Human Rights: Vol. 11, Symposium of Papers from the Fulbright Symposium on Peace and Human Rights Education, pp. 1-11.

This article discusses some of the complexities inherent in evaluating human rights education programs. The author argues that such evaluations need to be conscious and respectful of human rights v...

Australia has its first Bill of Rights with the passing of the Human Rights Act (2004), which demonstrates the growing influence in the common law world of human rights protection models that seek to distribute responsibility for protecting rights. The Act aims to balance the responsibilities of rights between the three branches of government, although it is criticised for being insufficiently comprehensive and unduly weak when it comes to enforcement.

Drawing on research relating to the Australian Federal Parliament, this chapter examines the argument that the new statutory bills of rights encourage parliaments to play a more significant role in the protection of rights. It identifies a number of constraints on the capacity of parliamentarians to undertake serious rights-based scrutiny of legislation, such as the lack of time, resources and expertise, the impact of party discipline in small legislatures, and the dominance of the executive. It reports the strong views of parliamentarians that parliaments can and should have a significant role in the protection of human rights and be able to resist the pressure to trust the executive on civil liberties. The chapter argues that empowering political representative is a crucial ingredient in the promotion of the political protection of human rights, and indicates some ways that this objective could be better achieved through the use of electronic technologies in accordance with ideas concerning e-democracy, including direct public input into public policy-making. More speculatively, the chapter suggests that parliamentary representation might be reformed to provide for a more team-based approach that could utilize a broader variety of talents.

The struggle for gender equality has often been in direct conflict with religious teachings and other forms of speech enunciated by religious leadership. This chapter addresses the issue of religious speech that offends the value of gender equality and the question of how a liberal state should respond to such speech. It develops an argument that attempts to take seriously the legitimate claims of both religious speakers and women who are committed to gender equality, while also acknowledging that these two groups are not mutually exclusive. The chapter commences with some examples of religious hate speech that is harmful to notions of gender equality. It then outlines two models of speech (one liberal and one religious) and explains why neither gives adequate support to religious women who live in communities where religious speech that undermines gender equality is commonplace. Drawing on both religious freedom principles and feminist theory, the chapter argues that the liberal state should respond to religious speech that promotes gender inequality by the adoption of certain policies that empower women inside religious communities, enabling transgressive speech and refusing to give legitimacy to women-hating speech (even if not directly banning it).

1. Introduction Carolyn Evans 2. The moral economy of religious freedom Lawrence G. Sager 3. Understanding the religion in freedom of religion Jeremy Webber 4. Why religion belongs in the private sphere, not the public square Denise Meyerson 5. Pluralism and Law and religion Margaret Davies 6. The Influence of cultural conflict on the jurisprudence of the religion clauses of the First Amendment Michael W. McConnell 7. From Dayton to Dover: the legacy of the Scopes trial Peter Radan 8. A very English affair: establishment and human rights in an organic constitution Charlotte Smith 9. Days of rest in multicultural societies: private, public, separate? Ruth Gavison and Nahshon Perez 10. Australian Legal procedures and the protection of secret Aboriginal spiritual beliefs: a fundamental conflict Ernst Willheim 11. Secular and religious conscientious exemptions: between tolerance and equality Yossi Nehushtan 12. Law's sacred and secular subjects Ngaire Naffine 13. Freedom of religion and the European Convention on Human Rights: Approaches, trends and tensions Malcolm D. Evans.