European Court of Human Rights rules on French veil ban

[CoteDAzur]

European Court of Human Rights ruled has upheld a law in France that bans Muslim women covering their faces with veils while in public places.

The ruling came after a woman brought a case arguing her freedom of religion was being violated.

The Strasbourg-based court's ruling was the first of its kind since France passed the law in 2010.

The law, which came into effect in 2011, forbids anyone from hiding his or her face in a range of public places, including the street.

A statement said: "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."

[BackOnlyBriefly]

I was pleased that the court accepted the point that this was about wearing masks in public and not about religious symbols.

Still I'm not used to the EU applying common sense - are they feeling ok I wonder.

[Seriouslyffs]

Back, and besides the echr is nothing to do with the EU.
I advanced searched for this as I've only just caught up with the news. It's quite a fundamental catagory error that societies' needs trump human rights,

[CoteDAzur]

Societies' needs trump the individuals' rights all the time.

Young men get drafted to the army during wartime and often sent to missions that mean certain death, with no respect for their right to life, for example.

[Seriouslyffs]

Of course. But the point of the echr is to uphold the individual's rights. To ensure that the individual doesn't get trampled by the state again after WWII.
It's really not fit for purpose.
Bit depressed also that there doesn't seem anyone else but us interested côte

[CoteDAzur]

I don't think the veil ban is a singular example of society telling people what they can wear in public.

Society tramples on my right to walk around town naked all the time

[niminypiminy]

Surely there must be an appeal? This seems like a bizarre judgement, weighing the right of 'people to live in a space in which unfettered socialisation is possible' against the individual's freedom of conscience and religion. The latter are fundamental principles of human rights whereas the former isn't. That is unsound legal reasoning, since as seriouslyffs say, the court was set up to protect individual human rights against the actions of society.

[BackOnlyBriefly]

the echr is nothing to do with the EU. Edmond's Court of Human Rights?

error that societies' needs trump human rights, That works if you think of society as a 'thing' like a flag, but societies are made up of humans who all have rights that must also be considered.

If we rule that the individual's freedom of conscience and religion trumps all else then someone could say "my religion requires me to kill you (you infidel!) and the police mustn't stop me because that would infringe my rights.

All rights must take into account the rights of others.

[BackOnlyBriefly]

That was the appeal. The elected government of a democratic country passed a law and someone appealed to the ECHR who ruled that it was fine.

[Seriouslyffs]

Back the European court of human rights is separate from the EU, it predates it. Explanation here
It's not the most operant issue here, but an earlier poster held this up as the EU showing common sense.
'Society' is a construct: in this bizarre ruling society's rights are prioritised by a body formed to uphold the rights of the individual.

[GiantIsopod]

The individuals make up the society...when we start ignoring the individual, for the good of society as a whole, I think it's completely wrong. I've worked in some countries with extremists in, which has changed my views a lot of course, but although I personally disagree with wearing one, but I'd prefer gradual changes in attitude rather than taking away that person's right to choose.

[CoteDAzur]

Individuals don't have the right to live exactly as they would like, though. If you were to decide to live as an occasional cannibal one day, you wouldn't be left alone to munch on crunchy human fingers, even if you find someone who is happy to give you some of his fingers to eat.

[niminypiminy]

It's a complicated area, because not all laws are premised on rights. The law against murder is not premised on the right to life but on the moral principle that to kill is wrong. The laws governing warfare, which accept that killing is an inevitable part of war, are still guided by moral principles about which acts can be considered right and wrong in a state of war. So it isn't the case that you don't have the right to live as an occasional cannibal but that society considers that cannibalism is wrong.

[CoteDAzur]

Exactly.

France's veil ban is another example of society considering something is wrong - the whole premise that women must be hidden away behind black curtains lest men get sexual thoughts.

[niminypiminy]

Indeed. But the point at issue here is to resolve the question of which should be given more weight: a society that considers wearing a veil wrong, or an individual's right to freedom of conscience. Once you have decided in favour of society then it sets a precedent that might have all sorts of regrettable unintended consequences.

This case sets an alarming precedent about way that a society might legally limit the individual's freedom of conscience.

[CoteDAzur]

What exactly is freedom of conscience in this context?

My conscience says it's perfectly fine for me to operate a brothel out of my apartment. Yet, I'd be prosecuted if I did this.

My conscience says it's perfectly fine to walk around town stark naked, as nature intended me to be. Yet, I'd be prosecuted for this, too.

My conscience says I shouldn't have to cover myself up because men are 'weak' and might have a sexual thought upon seeing my hair and arms . Yet who knows what would happen to me if I went out without loose clothing all over my body and a headscarf in some parts of the world.

There is no such thing as 'freedom of conscience' where your thoughts/feeling clashes with what society says is right. Why should the veil be any different?

[niminypiminy]

"There is no such thing as 'freedom of conscience' where your thoughts/feeling clashes with what society says is right. "

Do you really mean that? What are the implications of saying that for principled dissent? If society says, for example, that anybody who doesn't agree with the government should be silenced, is there really no such thing as freedom of conscience?

[CoteDAzur]

I haven't said anything about being silenced.

We are talking about actions, not thoughts or speech - women who want to wear the veil are told in France that they can't.

You said that is freedom of conscience. I'm not really sure what you mean by that but gave you several examples that show this sort of 'freedom' doesn't exist already in areas where an individual's wishes venture into areas that society has deemed unacceptable - public nudity and cannibalism, for example.

[BackOnlyBriefly]

The point of the echr is to uphold the individual's rights is not the same as saying they must always ensure that every individual who applies to them gets their own way. The other people in the country are individuals too and they have rights.

[niminypiminy]

I think saying that speech isn't an action is splitting hairs an utterance might well count as an action, legally speaking but in any case freedom of speech obviously extends to such actions as distributing leaflets or publishing something on the Internet.

I can't see how the examples you gave are examples where freedom of conscience is at stake: they are instead cases in which you want to do something that is against the law. There isn't a matter of principle at stake that requires you to open a brothel, walk around naked or commit cannibalism. Matters of conscience occur when matters concerning deeply held beliefs about right and wrong clash with the strictures of the law. A good example would be atheists being required to swear an oath on the Bible (which in this country, of course, they are not required to do).

On the one hand one doesn't have a right to commit acts that are against the law -- you don't have the right to commit acts of cannibalism though you may strongly desire to do so. But on the other hand human rights are also part of the law. The role of the ECHR is to arbitrate on those cases where a the laws of a state are in conflict with the rights of the individual. In this case the rights that are being violated are the right of individuals to freedom of conscience and expression of religious belief.

If we are simply to say that the law of the state should over-rule the human rights of the individual that does set a dangerous precedent in which states can silence dissent, for example, by saying that the security of the state makes it necessary to make dissent illegal.

And, of course, the courts can only look at individual cases (or groups of individuals joining together to bring a single case as a party). It is the role of the legislature to consider the needs, duties and rights of all the people; and it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, adjudicate in disputes and to make judgements in the cases of individuals.

[CoteDAzur]

"I think saying that speech isn't an action is splitting hairs an utterance might well count as an action, legally speaking "

Not at all. Nobody could persecute you for saying that Hitler was right to kill Jews, but you would get sent to jail rather quickly if you were to kill any. There is no such thing as thought crime and there is something called freedom of speech. Laws legislate against actions, not speech, unless you are using words to incite someone else to commit a crime.

"I can't see how the examples you gave are examples where freedom of conscience is at stake: they are instead cases in which you want to do something that is against the law. "

Just like wearing a burqa in France right now would be.

"Matters of conscience occur when matters concerning deeply held beliefs about right and wrong clash with the strictures of the law."

Covering ones' face isn't a deeply-held belief about what's right and wrong, though. It is the interpretation of a very small minority of a snippet of speech (Mohammad's hadith) brought to us through Chinese whispers. There is no face covering in the Quran, and another hadith of Mohammad's clearly says that a woman's face and hands should be visible. This is not a matter of conscience comparable to "what is right and wrong" imho.

[niminypiminy]

Ok have it your own way. I expect you're right -- you always are.

[CoteDAzur]

I sense a disturbance in the force Please don't sulk. You're giving your pov and I'm giving mine.

I'd be interested to hear if you think the individual should always get his way in matters of conscience - i.e. If I truly believe something is right, as defined by my profound belief/understanding of what is right & wrong, should I be allowed to keep doing it even if the society feels it is wrong?

[mousmous]

this court ruling is not about religion.
and I don't think wearing a face covering is about religion, really. it's about hiding in essence. bank robbers wear masks to hide, as do (some) terrorists.

[Seriouslyffs]

It's such a small infringement in other people's rights though- covering your face. I accept that it can make other people uncomfortable, but it's not like demanding segregation or needing food killed a particular way. My objection to the French Burqa ban is that it is islamophobia dressed up as concern for the individual. And the ECHR shouldn't have upheld it.

[GiantIsopod]

I don't think it's like cannibals...what is the worst that wearing a veil does? Make you a bit uncomfortable, but then you go on about your lives fine? It isn't infringing on your human rights. Personally, I hate the idea of a burqa. BUT I don't think this is the right way to go about trying to get rid of it...many women chose to wear it, after all (and many also didn't, but have to), Their 'choice' was of course heavily influenced and, imo, they were almost brainwashed into it (I don't know the right word, sorry). I think banning it will be the wrong thing to do as it would push those women even further away.