Threat of full-face veil to "open, personal relationships" trumps human rights
Utl.: Threat of full-face veil to "open, personal relationships"
trumps human rights =
Vienna (OTS) - By upholding a French ban on wearing full-face veils,
a common Muslim practice, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
has failed to protect the religious freedom of Islamic women who
choose the veil as an expression of their faith, according to the
Forum for Religious Freedom-Europe (FOREF), an independent
nongovernmental monitoring group.
A French law banning wearing a full-face veil has been in force
since 11 April 2011. According to a press release issued by the
Registrar of the Court, the ECHR "emphasized that respect for the
conditions of 'living together' was a legitimate aim" for the French
law, given that "the State had a 'wide margin of appreciation' as
regards this general policy question..."
"By giving priority to a vague social goal over the fundamental
human right to manifest one's religious beliefs, the ECHR has
undermined the freedom of religion with this ruling, " according to
Dr. Aaron Rhodes, president of FOREF.
According to the Registry statement, "the Court accepted that the
barrier raised against others by a veil concealing the face in public
could undermine the notion of "living together". In that connection,
it indicated that it took into account the State's submission that
the face played a significant role in social interaction... The Court
was also able to understand the view that individuals might not wish
to see, in places open to all, practices or attitudes which would
fundamentally call into question the possibility of open
interpersonal relationships, which, by virtue of an established
consensus, formed an indispensable element of community life within
the society in question. The Court was therefore able to accept that
the barrier raised against others by a veil concealing the face was
perceived by the respondent State as breaching the right of others to
live in a space of socialisation which made living together easier."
(emphasis added)
"Living together, in a pluralistic society where individual rights
are respected, means tolerating differences, not prohibiting them
because others 'might not wish to see them'", Aaron Rhodes said.
"Since the Court evidently thinks promoting 'social interaction'
and 'easier living together' is more important than protecting one of
the most basic human rights, then we can expect further erosion of
respect for other human rights if exercising them is arbitrarily
deemed unsocial," he said.
FULL TEXT: http://www.ots.at/redirect/foref
OTS-ORIGINALTEXT PRESSEAUSSENDUNG UNTER AUSSCHLIESSLICHER INHALTLICHER VERANTWORTUNG DES AUSSENDERS - WWW.OTS.AT | NEF
