Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Extreme Speech and Democracy$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Ivan Hare and James Weinstein

Print publication date: 2009

Print ISBN-13: 9780199548781

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2009

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 19 July 2019

Endorsing Discrimination Between Faiths: A Case of Extreme Speech?

Endorsing Discrimination Between Faiths: A Case of Extreme Speech?

Chapter:
(p.430) 21 Endorsing Discrimination Between Faiths: A Case of Extreme Speech?
Source:
Extreme Speech and Democracy
Author(s):

John Finnis (Contributor Webpage)

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.003.0022

The question whether government and law can discriminate between different religious faiths (or their adherents as such) is given a resounding affirmative answer by a unanimous Grand Chamber (seventeen judges) of the European Court of Human Rights in Refah Partisi (No. 2) v Turkey (2003), upholding the dissolution of the largest political party in Turkey's legislature on the grounds that, as a dominant member of the governing coalition, it intended to introduce sharia law either for everyone or as part of a plural system of laws for citizens of different faiths. For sharia, the court held, is inherently incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the conceptions of democracy and the rule of law which the Convention enshrines. That is, shariah (‘which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by [a] religion’ and ‘is stable and invariable’) would be incompatible with human rights, democracy and the rule of law even if adopted democratically and without threats of force. This ruling in Refah in turn grounds the same Court's decision in Sahin v Turkey (2005), upholding the prohibition of the wearing of head scarves in universities in Turkey. And Sahin is, inconspicuously but clearly enough, at the foundation of the House of Lords' decision in R (Begum) v Denbigh High School Governors [2006] UKHL 15, [2007] 1 AC 100. This chapter argues that despite its unpersuasive reasoning (in which essential premises such as those displayed in Sahin and Refah are never sufficiently articulated), Begum was rightly decided, and that — especially in relation to immigration — it is neither extremist, nor a case of extreme speech to propose discrimination analogous to that endorsed by the Strasbourg Court in those cases.

Keywords:   shariah, immigration, speech, Begum, Refah Partisi, Islam, human rights litigation

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .