Freedom and Religion - Essay Example

FREEDOM AND RELIGION By Location Introduction There has been a debate in Europe, particularly The UK on the right of various religious people to wear their symbols. Islam is the religion that is most affected by the Act on earning one’s religious symbol. Female Muslims are required by the law of their religion to cover themselves up from head to toe. Their dress code has become a multi-faceted and complex issue that people often raise in public debate in most European States. The most affected areas are the education and employment areas. In this essay, we talk about The Right to Wear Religious Symbols and the development of human rights laws supporting one’s right to express their religious rights. Body The legal approach concerning religious symbols has always differed from one region to another over time. There was, however, a constitutional revolution when the human rights act of 1988 came into play. The legal action is the HRA. There are a lot of articles that involves the rights of a person and freedom of religion. Section 9 is particular in covering freedom of religion and wearing religious symbols. The decision of HRA conforms to European Commission, Human Rights. The rights and privileges from ECHR and the HRA ensure that people who have religious clothes are free to wear them in Europe (Gibson 2007). There are rules however that prevent people from expressing their religious views in the name of maintaining security. There is however a positive freedom of religion or belief, and there is also a negative freedom of religion according to Rapporteur. There is also the issue of displaying religious symbols in public places, including courthouses, classes, polling stations, public squares, among others. Some aspects of the above situations are the subject of different national legal judgments at its highest level. The HRA gives a person the right to their thought, beliefs, and religion. The right includes the freedom of an individual to practice their religion, and that includes symbols and religious clothing. The issue of the ban on religious clothing and religious symbols has however become increasingly prominent in the twenty-first century. The prohibition of clothing and symbol is only necessary when it endangers people who are not part of the religion or the religious people themselves (Şahin v Turkey 2005). The ban is common in learning institutions. There has been a question of whether students together with their teachers are allowed to wear religious clothing in European countries. The European Act on human rights suggests that people have the right to practice their religion of choice. The issue of dressing is part of much bigger issues regarding the right of an individual to “manifest” their freedom of thought, conscience, and religion in practice or observance and their right to free expression. The issue about the religious rights of speech pertains to various religious clothing and religious symbols. It includes the Sikh turban and kirpan, the Jewish yarmulke, and the Christian people cross. Among all the religious clothing and symbol, the most salient and the arguable issue has become the Islamic dress for women that have a reference to as hijab (Gibson 2007). It has been more than twenty years where the place of the Islamic women wears their headscarf in education is the subject of debate across Europe. Some States in the United Kingdom have undertaken several measures to ban the wearing of religious clothing and religious symbols. They rarely follow the law and use loopholes in the restriction sector of the law to prohibit students as well as the teachers from putting on religious clothing and symbols. It happens mostly in the State primary schools and secondary schools, and also in the universities. There has been relevant legislation in some States that applies to both sexes, but it affects Muslim women unfairly who observe wearing of the religious veil as a religious obligation. Islam has no fixed standards regarding dress code; it is a broad belief of Muslims that the Islamic religion obliges women to veil when in the presence of men they have no relation to or they are married. Some feminist scholars argue that the veil is “a sign of male domination over womens bodies and lives” as well as “a tool of oppression, alienation, discrimination” (Buren 2007). The feminist insist that it is not by accident that men do not wear veils. The religious leaders and Islam do not however support the views of the feminists. There is an example of some Muslim women living in the UK who say that in May 2006 that the media dehumanizes Muslim women that put on a veil. The reality at the end of the day is that the Muslim women do not get oppression. However, wearing the hijab is part of the identity of being a Muslim woman. It is a person’s spiritual or personal choice to practice different religions. There have been several cases that have raised the issue of whether or not women should wear the Islamic dress and hijab in public places. There is a case where a student in the primary school got restrictions from attending school because she chose a modest veil instead of the school uniform. The school administration in such a situation broke the law on freedom of expression and religion. Human Rights Acts suggest that everyone, including Muslim women is free to wear any symbolic clothing that allows them to practice their religion. There is, however, no primary legislation in the United Kingdom that has an exclusive concern with religious symbols (Sandberg 2011). Therefore, most of the cases that have concerns with the religious symbols are brought under either the law concerning human rights or either legislation concerning religious discrimination. The law in the United Kingdom that has human rights concerns is in the Human Rights Act 1998 and in the European Convention on Human Rights to which the HRA gives effect. Article 10 of ECHR, talks about freedom of expression, is relevant to use of religious symbols. There have been several cases that concern religious symbols that are under Article 9 (Parker 2006). The article expresses different concerns regarding freedom of conscience, thought, and religion that sometimes have an association with Article 14, which in turn prohibits certain forms of discrimination. There is an Italian Corte constitutional that was a decision of 13 December 2004. It is on the issue of crucifixes symbols in schools, Swiss Tribunal where there was an opinion on 18 January 1995 regarding crucifixes in courtrooms and another report on 26 September 1990 regarding crucifixes in classrooms. The ban regarding religious symbols in such a situation may be so as to have uniformity in school. German Bundesverfassungsgericht, has a judgment of 16 May 1995 that also regards crucifixes in classrooms and the decision of 17 July 1973 that sees crosses in courtrooms (Buren 2007). One is free to wear crosses as long as they are not visible. The ban is accordance with the restrictions in the HRA that is disturbing public order. Order and consistency is necessary for public institutions (Parker 2006). There are also Hindus that display a bindi on their forehead, Buddhists putting on saffron robes, Sikhs putting on turbans or kirpans. There are also followers of Bhagwan (Osho) that wear reddish-coloured clothing. There are different levels of prohibition and regulations on the wearing of religious symbols that includes constitutional provisions, legislative acts, both at the local and at the national level. There are rules and directives that are mandatory for local or regional authorities, rules and regulations in public or private institutions or organizations and court judgments. The intensity on the ban differs in many areas. Pupils in primary and secondary school systems are at the risk of being expelled from the public school system if they wear religious symbols. The teachers are in danger of being reprimanded, being suspended and, eventually dismissed from their jobs (Sandberg 2011). At the university, the students at different schools also run the danger of being expelled from the universities or of not being given their degrees unless they abide by the rules concerning religious symbols. University lecturers in the United Kingdom are likely not to get employment in the first place. The extreme measures regarding symbols and clothing in institutions are against Article 9 of the HRA. The people have the right and freedom of religion and expressing their faith. One is not supposed to be in fear of expressing themselves because of such restrictions on their religion. In the work environment in many areas in The UK, there is a risk of getting reprimanded, suspension or even dismissal that has a direct connection to the wearing of religious symbols (Buren 2007). The rules and regulations affect employees both in the private organization and civil servants, even members of Parliament and military personnel. There are certain dress codes that apply to ID photographs. The individuals run the risk of not getting their official ID cards or of being forced to put on the required headgear on ID pictures for purposes of deportation. The ban on wearing full-face veil has justifications from several parts of the law. Feminist believe it is against the protection of women and the right to dignity and expression. They believe the women have a right to have equal opportunities as men who do not cover themselves in veils (Şahin v Turkey 2005). There was a topic in the Special Rapporteurs annual report that stated that most international judicial bodies have a consideration of the display of religious symbols as a manifestation of the people’s belief or their religion. It has opposition to being part of the internal conviction that is not subject to any limitation. There should be freedom for any person to practice and participate in their religious beliefs. Also to respect the right of any individual believers and religious communities of believers to acquire and possess, and also use their sacred books and any religious publications (Sandberg 2011). The sacred books and religious publications should be in the language of the believers’ choice and any other materials and articles that have a relation to the practice of religion. By the Human Rights Committees general comment, that was No. 22 of section 18 of the Covenant. “The observance and practice of religion or belief may include not only ceremonial acts but also such customs as [...] the wearing of distinctive clothing or head coverings" (Parker 2006). Any limitations on religious symbols should have a basis on the grounds of public safety, health, order or morals. European countries try to discourage fundamentalist Muslims, who cause a lot of disorder in the continent. There is the risk of a terror attack in the countries thus restrictions and bans on wearing hijab in public places. The grounds on the ban should also be on the fundamental freedom and the rights of others. It must also respond to a pressing social or public need, it must be due to a legitimate aim and it also should be proportionate to that aim. The burden that has an association with justifying a limitation on the freedom to manifest ones belief or religion lies with the State (Sandberg 2011). In consequence, a prohibition by the Government of wearing religious clothing or symbols. It has its basis on mere presumption or speculations instead of on demonstrable facts has regard as violating an individuals religious belief and religious freedom. The countries enjoy the ban as they get support from most of the residents who have concerns about their safety. Conclusion An individual’s religious freedom and religious belief should be considered by any government or by any organization. The public and private institutions should not restrict a person from wearing or practicing their religion using religious symbols or clothing. Restricting someone from wearing the religious symbols is a violation of the human rights. The symbols should however not be in use if they will be a threat to other people or a destruction of property. References Buren, GV 2007, “Child Rights in Europe”, Convergence and Divergence in Judicial Protection, pp.165. Gibson, N 2007, “An Unwelcome Trend: Religious Dress and Human Rights Following Leyla Sahin v Turkey”, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 25(4), pp. 616 Parker, MT 2006, “The Freedom to Manifest Religious Belief: An Analysis of the ICCPR and the ECHR’, Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 91(7), pp.91 Şahin v Turkey 2005, 44774/98, Eur Court HR, Grand Chamber, pp. 165. Sandberg, R 2011, Law and Religion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 86 – 87. Read More