Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:08:27.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Taking Religion Seriously”? Human Rights and Hijab in Europe— Some Problems of Adjudication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2015

Peter Cumper  and
Tom Lewis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is a view widely held amongst psychologists that human beings have a basic need to create a positive social identity for themselves, either as individuals or as members of a group. In this regard, choice of dress is likely to be particularly important. A person's clothes can reveal much about their identity, in relation to their gender, class, sexual orientation, and religious beliefs. Yet what an individual wears can also attract great controversy, as evidenced by the fact that, in Europe of late, there have been few issues more controversial than that of religious dress.

Today in towns and cities across Europe a significant proportion of Muslims—in particular Muslim females—have eschewed conventional western clothes in favor of garments (such as veils and headscarves) traditionally associated with Islam. With a new generation of “European Muslims” keen to cultivate a distinct identity for themselves as members of the continent's second largest religion, Islamic dress often has an “emblematic status” as a “powerful and overdetermined marker of difference.” Yet the right to wear religious dress varies significantly in Europe. In some countries there are clear restrictions on what can (or cannot) be worn in public (e.g., France and Turkey), whereas in other parts of the continent (e.g., the U.K.) young people are relatively free to wear the religious dress of their choice. Mindful of this state of affairs, the European Court of Human Rights has chosen to tread warily, letting governments retain considerable discretion in the field of religious dress. Consequently, states enjoy a wide “margin of appreciation” when determining whether their curbs on religious symbols or related garments are compatible with Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Law and Religion , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , 2008 , pp. 599 - 627
Copyright
Copyright © Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See e.g. Tajfel, Henri & Turner, John C., An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict, in The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations 33–48 (Austin, William G. & Worchel, Stephen eds., Brooks-Cole 1979)Google Scholar.

2. See generally Davis, Fred, Fashion, Culture, and Identity (U. Chi. Press 1994)Google Scholar.

3. See generally Huisman, Kimberly & Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette, Dress Matters: Change and Continuity in the Dress Practices of Bosnian Muslim Refugee Women, 19 Gender & Socy. 44 (02 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. See generally Crane, Diana, Fashion and Its Social Agendas: Class, Gender, and Identity in Clothing (U. Chi. Press 2001)Google Scholar.

5. See generally Schofield, Kate & Schmidt, Ruth Ä., Fashion and Clothing: The Construction and Communication of Gay Identities, 33 Intl. J. Retail & Distrib. Mgt. 310 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. See Bigger, Stephen, Muslim Women's Views on Dress Code and the Hijaab: Some Issues for Education, 27 J. Beliefs & Values 215 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. See generally McGoldrick, Dominic, Human Rights and Religion: The Islamic Headscarf Debate in Europe (Hart 2006)Google Scholar.

8. Whilst religious dress is most commonly associated with female Islamic identity, it should not be forgotten that dress also influences the lives of young Muslim men. See Hopkins, Peter, Young Muslim Men in Scotland: Inclusions and Exclusions, 2 Children's Geographies 257, 262 (08 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Whilst Islamic dress clearly conveys a woman's religious identity, it can also convey her cultural and ethnic identity. See generally Dwyer, Claire, Contradictions of Community: Questions of Identity for British Muslim Women, 31 Env. & Plan. A 53 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. See generally Ramadan, Tariq, To Be a European Muslim: A Study of Islamic Sources in the European Context (Islamic Found. 1999)Google Scholar; Modood, Tariq, Triandafyllidou, Anna & Zapata-Barrero, Ricard, Multiculturalism, Muslims and Citizenship: A European Approach (Routledge 2006)Google Scholar.

11. Franks, Myfanwy, Crossing the Borders of Whiteness? White Muslim Women Who Wear the Hijab in Britain Today, 23 Ethnic & Racial Stud. 917, 919–920 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. Dwyer, Claire, Veiled Meanings: Young British Muslim Women and the Negotiation of Difference, 6 Gender, Place & Culture 5, 5 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. See generally Shadid, W. & van Koningsveld, P.S., Muslim Dress in Europe: Debates on the Headscarf, 16 J. Islamic Stud. 35 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14. See Poulter, Sebastian, Muslim Headscarves in School: Contrasting Legal Approaches in England and France, 17 Oxford J. Leg. Stud. 43, 43–44, 73 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms art. 9, cl. 2 (Nov. 4, 1950), 213 U.N.T.S. 222 [hereinafter ECHR].

16. See Jahangir, Asma, U.N. Econ. & Soc. Council, Commn. on Human Rights, Civil and Political Rights, Including the Question of Religious Tolerance U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.4, ¶¶ 36-38 (03 2006) [hereinafter Jahangir March Report]Google Scholar.

17. “The Special Rapporteur refers to [this] as positive freedom of religion or belief….” Jahangir, Asma, U.N. Econ. & Soc. Council, Commn. on Human Rights, Civil and Political Rights, Including the Question of Religious Tolerance U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/5,36 ¶¶ (01 2006) [hereinafter Jahangir Jan. Report]Google Scholar.

18. It should not be forgotten, however, that a person's freedom to wear the garments of their choice may be constrained by cultural or social pressures (e.g., notions of modesty, honor and shame). See generally Alexander, Claire E., The Asian Gang: Ethnicity, Identity, Masculinity (Berg 2000)Google Scholar.

19. See ECHR, supra n. 15; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art 18, cl. 3 (Dec. 16, 1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171; United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child art. 14, cl. 3 (Nov. 20, 1989), 1577 U.N.T.S. 3.

20. We use the term “headscarf” in this article to mean the Islamic headscarf which covers the hair and neck. The term hijab is often used as a synonym for Islamic headscarf, but we use it here to denote Islamic dress more generally. In the Qur'an “hijab” is used to refer to the “spatial curtain that divides or provides privacy.” See Anwar, Ghazala & McKay, Liz, Veiling, in Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World 721 (Martin, Richard ed., Macmillan 2004)Google Scholar.

21. See generally Çinar, Alev, Modernity, Islam, and Secularism in Turkey: Bodies, Places, and Time 53–98 (U. Minn. 2005)Google Scholar.

22. See generally Ahmed, Leila, Women and Gender in Islam (Yale U. Press 1992)Google Scholar.

23. See Abu-Odeh, Lama, Post-Colonial Feminism and the Veil: Considering the Differences, 26 New Eng. L. Rev. 1527, 1527 (1992)Google Scholar; see generally Hassan, Riffat, Rights of Women within Islamic Communities, in Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Religious Perspectives 361 (Witte, John Jr. & van der Vyver, Johan eds., Martinus Nijhoff Pub. 1996)Google Scholar.

24. Lyon, Dawn & Spini, Deborah, Unveiling the Headscarf Debate, 12 Feminist Leg. Stud. 333, 344 (2004)Google Scholar.

25. See Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, (12 18, 1979), 19 I.L.M. 33Google Scholar.

26. On claims that “fundamentalist” religions seek to control women more generally, see Yuval-Davis, Nira, Fundamentalism, Multiculturalism and Women in Britain, in Race, Culture and Difference 278 (Donald, James & Rattansi, Ali eds., Sage 1992)Google Scholar.

27. See generally Choueiri, Youssef, Islamic Fundamentalism (rev. ed., Continuum 2002)Google Scholar.

28. See generally Skaine, Rosemarie, The Women of Afghanistan under the Taliban 61–85 (McFarland & Co. 2002)Google Scholar.

29. See Jahangir Jan. Report, supra n. 17, at ¶ 38.

30. See Denli, Özlem, Between Laicist State Ideology and Modern Public Religion: The Head-Cover Controversy in Contemporary Turkey, in Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief: A Deskbook 497, 497–498 (Lindholm, Toreet al. eds., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31. Şahin v. Turk., 44 Eur. H.R. Rep. 5, ¶ 35, 111 (2005).

32. id. at ¶ 115, 128.

33. See generally Rahman, Afzalur, Islam, Ideology and The Way of Life (Muslim Schools Trust 1980)Google Scholar.

34. See generally Trigg, Roger, Religion in Public Life: Must Faith Be Privatised? (Oxford U. Press 2007)Google Scholar.

35. Law No. 2004-228 of Mar. 15, 2004, Journal Officiel de la République Française (J.O.) (Official Gazette of France) 5190 (Mar. 17, 2004).

36. See for example Freedman, Jane, Secularism as a Barrier to Integration: The French Dilemma, 42 Intl. Migration 5, 10 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37. See Malliard, Dominique, The Muslims in France and the French Model of Integration, 16 Mediterranean Q. 62, 75–77 (Winter 2005)Google Scholar.

38. See e.g. Comm. on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations on the Second Periodic Report of France, ¶ 25-26, CRC/C/15/Add.240 (June 4, 2004).

39. See Jahangir March Report, supra n. 16, ¶¶ 98-101.

40. See supra n. 19.

41. See Jahangir Jan. Report, supra n. 17, at ¶ 53 (footnote omitted).

42. See generally Evans, Carolyn, Freedom of Religion under the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford U. Press 2001) (discussing Art. 9 of the ECHR)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43. See e.g. Larissis v. Greece, 27 Eur.H.R.Rep. 329, ¶ 46, 344 (1998).

44. See e.g. Handyside v. U.K., 1 Eur.H.R.Rep. 737 (1976); Wingrove v. U.K., 24 Eur. H.R. Rep. 1, 20 (1996).

45. See e.g. Murphy v. Ir., 38 Eur.H.R.Rep. 13, ¶ 67 234, (2004).

46. See Arai-Takahashi, Yutaka, The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR (Intersentia 2002)Google Scholar.

47. The other ECHR articles which follow this two paragraph structure are Art. 8 (respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Art. 10 (freedom of expression) and Art. 11 (peaceful assembly and association).

48. See Evans, supra n. 42, at 200-202.

49. Elton, G.R., Reformation Europe 1517–1559, at 16 (Fontana 1963)Google Scholar.

50. Collinson, Patrick, The Reformation 155–171 (Phoenix 2005)Google Scholar.

51. Kant, Immanuel, Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone 100–105 (Greene, Theodore M. & Hudson, Hoyt H. eds. & trans, Harper & Brothers 1960)Google Scholar; see also The Enlightenment: A Sourcebook and Reader (Hyland, Paul, Gomez, Olga & Greensides, Francesca eds., Routledge 2003)Google Scholar.

52. Mahmood, Saba, Secularism, Hermeneutics and Empire: The Politics of the Islamic Reformation, 18 Pub. Culture 323, 341 n. 48 (2006)Google Scholar.

53. See generally Ishay, Micheline R., The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era 63–66 (U. Cal. Press 2004)Google Scholar (discussing the contribution of the Enlightenment to contemporary human rights norms).

54. See Perry, Michael J., The Morality of Human Rights: A Non-Religious Ground?, 54 Emory L.J. 97 (2005)Google Scholar.

55. See e.g. U.N. Off. of the High Commr. for Human Rights, General Comment 22: The Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion (Article 18) UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, ¶ 4 (July 20, 1993); U.N. Intl. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Communication No. 931/2000 [Hudoyberganova v. Uzbekistan] CCPR/C/82/D/931/2000 (2004); Jahangir Jan. Report, supra n. 17, at ¶ 36.

56. Kokkinakis v. Greece, 17 Eur. H.R. Rep. 397, ¶31, 418 (1993).

57. See X v. Austria, App. No. 1753/63, Feb. 15, 1965, Yearbook 8, 174.

58. See X v. U.K., App. No. 7992/77 (1978), 14 D+R 234.

59. The Commission was abolished by Protocol 11, which came into force in 1998 and allowed individuals to take cases directly to a newly reformed European Court of Human Rights. See Ovey, Clare & White, Robin, Jacobs and White, European Convention on Human Rights 8–11 (4th ed., Oxford U. Press 2006)Google Scholar.

60. Karaduman v. Turk., 1993 European Ct. Human Rights App. No. 16278/90, http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/portal.asp?sessionId=14646422&skin=hudoc-en&action=request, at 103.

61. Id. at ¶ 108.

62. Id. at ¶ 109.

63. Dahlab v. Switz., 2001 European Ct. Human Rights App. No. 42393/98, http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=42393/98&sessionid=14646422&skin=hudoc-en (accessed Jan. 23, 2009).

64. Id. at 15.

65. Id. at 13.

66. See Lyon & Spini, supra n. 24, at 337-345.

67. Ovey & White, supra n. 59, at 310.

68. Şahin v. Turk., 44 Eur. H.R. Rep. 5, ¶ 111, 127, (2005).

69. She also claimed that her right to education under Art. 2 Protocol 1 ECHR had been breached, as well as her rights under Articles 8, 10 & 14 of the ECHR. The case was initially considered by the Chamber of the Court which found there had been no violations: See Şahin v. Turk., 41 Eur. H.R. Rep. 8 (2004). The applicant then requested, successfully, that the case be referred to Grand Chamber (under Art. 43 of the ECHR). Şahin v. Turk., 44 Eur. H.R. Rep. 5, ¶ H2, 99 (2005).

70. Art. 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey (1992) states: “the Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular (laik) and social state based on the rule of law, respectful of human rights in a spirit of social peace” (quoted in Şahin v. Turk., 44 Eur. H.R. Rep. 5, ¶ 29, 127 (2005)).

71. Şahin v. Turk., 44 Eur. H.R. Rep. 5, ¶ 113, 127 (2005).

72. Şahin v. Turk., 41 Eur. H.R. Rep. 8, ¶ 91, 129-130 (2004). The Turkish government reiterated the arguments that it had put before the Chamber at the Grand Chamber hearing.

73. McGoldrick, supra n. 7, at 149.

74. Şahin v. Turk., 44 Eur. H.R. Rep. 5, Ş 115, 128 (2005) (quoting Şahin v. Turk., 41 Eur. H.R. Rep. 8, ¶¶ 107-109 (2004)).

75. Id.

76. Id. at 129-130.

77. Id. at 129 (quoting Şahin v. Tarit., 41 Eur. H.R. Rep. 8, ¶ 109, 133 (2004)). The Court referred to its earlier decision in Refah Partisi (Welfare Party) v. Turk., 37 Eur. H.R. Rep. 1, 1 (2003), where a ban on a political party that had been elected to government and whose members had criticized democracy and called for the introduction of shari'a law, did not breach Art. 11 of the ECHR. In Refah Partisi, the Court stated that the prohibition of the headscarf may be legitimate if necessary for the protection of public order, or for the rights and freedoms of others. Id. at ¶ 92, 33.

78. Şahin v. Turk., 44 Eur. H.R. Rep. 5 ¶ 116, 129 (2005).

79. Id.

80. Id. at ¶ 121, 130.

81. Id. at 141 (Tulkens, J., dissenting).

82. There was found to be no breach of her right to education under Art. 2 of Protocol 1, or of Articles 8, 10 or 14. Id. at ¶¶ 163-166, 135-138.

83. McGoldrick, supra n. 7, at 250-251.

84. See generally Cesari, Jocelyne & McLoughlin, Seán, European Muslims and the Secular State (Ashgate 2005)Google Scholar.

85. On the influence of faiths such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism on international human rights law, see generally Religion and International Law (Janus, Mark & Evans, Carolyn eds., Martinus Nijhoff 1999)Google Scholar.

86. Evans, Malcolm, Religion, Law and Human Rights: Locating the Debate, in Law and Religion in Contemporary Society, at 182 (Edge, Peter & Harvey, Graham eds., Ashgate Publg. Co. 2000)Google Scholar.

87. Raday, Frances, Culture, Religion and Gender, 1 Intl. J. Constitutional L. 663, 663 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88. Id. (quoting Ariell, Yehoshua, The Theory of Human Rights, its Origin and Impact on Modem Society, in Mishpạt ye-hiṣtoryah (Law and History) 25 (Gutwein, Daniel & Mautner, Menachem eds., Merkaz Zalman Shazar le-toldot 1999) (Hebrew))Google Scholar.

89. Berger, Benjamin, The Limits of Belief: Freedom of Religion, Secularism, and the Liberal State, 17 Canadian J.L. & Socy. 39, 49 (2002)Google Scholar.

90. Ahdar, Rex & Leigh, Ian, Religious Freedom in the Liberal State 74 (Oxford U. Press 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91. Şahin v. Turk., 44 Eur. H.R. Rep. 5, ¶ 107, 125-126 (2005).

92. Id.; see also Hassan & Chaush v. Bulg., 34 Eur. H.R. Rep. 55 ¶ 78, 1362 (2000); Serif v. Greece, 31 Eur. H.R. Rep. 20 ¶ 57, 569-570 (1999).

93. See generally An-Na'im, Abdullahi Ahmed, Globalization and Jurisprudence: An Islamic Law Perspective, 54 Emory L.J. 25–50 (2005)Google Scholar.

94. Shepherd, William, Islam and Ideology: Toward a Typology, 19 Intl. J. Middle E. Stud. 308, 308 (1987)Google Scholar.

95. See generally Harte, David, Defining the Legal Boundaries of Orthodoxy for Public and Private Religion in England, in Law and Religion vol. 4, 471–495 (O'Dair, Richard & Lewis, Andrew eds., Oxford U. Press 2001)Google Scholar.

96. Feldman, David, Civil Liberties and Human Rights in England and Wales 9 (Oxford U. Press 2002)Google Scholar.

97. See generally Raz, Joseph, The Morality of Freedom (Clarendon Press 1986)Google Scholar; see also Dworkin, Ronald, Taking Rights Seriously 272–278 (Duckworth 1977)Google Scholar; Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice 17–22 (Clarendon Press 1999)Google Scholar.

98. Raz, supra n. 97, at 398.

99. Id. at 395-399.

100. See Serif, 31 Eur. H.R. Rep. at 573; Şahin v. Turk., 44 Eur. H.R. Rep. 5, ¶ 107, 126 (2005).

101. See Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin & Argyle, Michael, The Psychology of Religious Behaviour, Belief and Experience 97–113 (Routledge 1997)Google Scholar.

102. For example, the literal meaning of “Islam” is “‘surrender’ to the will of God.” Armstrong, Karen, The Battle for God 375 (Alfred A. Knopf 2000)Google Scholar. Some commentators have argued that the whole notion of individual rights sits uneasily with some religious cultures. For example, the Islamic concept of ummah or community raises potential difficulties for Muslims bringing individual human rights claims. See Anthony Bradney, Law and Religion in Great Britain at the End of the Second Christian Millennium, in Law and Religion in Contemporary Society, supra n. 86, at 24-26.

103. Qur'an, , The Light, 24:31 (Haleem, M.A.S. Abdel trans., Oxford U. Press 2004)Google Scholar.

104. Qur'an, , The Clans, 33:59 (Haleem, M.A.S. Abdel trans., Oxford U. Press 2004)Google Scholar.

105. Vakulenko, Anastasia, Islamic Dress in Human Rights Jurisprudence: A Critique of Current Trends, 7 Hum. Rights L. Rev. 717, 729 (2007)Google Scholar.

106. Mahmood, supra n. 52, at 343-344 (footnote omitted).

107. Şahin v. Turk., 44 Eur. H.R. Rep. 5, ¶ 115, 128 (2005).

108. Id. at 143-144 (Tulkens, J., dissenting).

109. Id.

110. Article 8 of the ECHR provides that:

  1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

  2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

ECHR, supra n. 15.

111. Dudgeon v. U.K., 4 Eur. H.R. Rep. 149, ¶ 52, 165, (1981).

112. Goodwin v. U.K., 35 Eur. H.R. Rep. 18, ¶ 90, 476, (2002); see also Keenan v. U.K., 33 Eur. H.R. Rep. 38 ¶ 92, 958 (2001); Pretty v. U.K., 35 Eur. H.R. Rep. 1 ¶ 61, 35-36 (2002).

113. See Cumper, Peter, Freedom of Religion, in Harris, David, O'Boyle, Michael, Warbrick, Colin, Bates, Ed & Buckley, Carla, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights ch. 10, 425–441 (2d ed., Oxford U. Press 2009)Google Scholar.

114. Article 10 of the ECHR also follows the two paragraph structure of Articles 8 and 9: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority ….

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

ECHR, supra n. 15.

115. United Communist Party Turk. v. Turk, 26 Eur. H.R. Rep. 121, ¶ 45, 148 (1998).

116. See Castells v. Spain, 14 Eur. H.R. Rep. 445, 458 (1992); Lingens v. Austria, 8 Eur. H.R. Rep. 407, 418 (1986).

117. VgT Verein g gegenTierfabriken v. Switz., 34 Eur. H.R. Rep. 4 (2001).

118. Murphy v. Ire., 38 Eur. H.R. Rep. 13 (2003).

119. Id. at ¶ 38, 226.

120. Id. at ¶ 67, 234.

121. See Andrew Geddis, You Can't Say “God” on the Radio: Freedom of Expression, Religious Advertising and the Broadcast Media after Murphy v. Ireland, 2 European Human Rights L. Rev. 181, 181 (2004). See also Lewis, Tom, What Not to Wear: Religious Rights, the European Court and the Margin of Appreciation, 56 Intl. & Comp. L.Q. 395, 398–399 (2007)Google Scholar.

122. See Rekvényi v. Hung., 30 Eur. H.R. Rep. 519, ¶ 26, 543-544 (2000); Oberschlick v. Austria, 19 Eur. H.R. Rep. 389, ¶ 68, 405 (1991); Lingens v. Austria, 8 Eur. H.R. Rep. 407, ¶ 42, 419 (1986).

123. Geddis, supra n. 121, at 189.

124. Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russ., 44 Eur. H.R. Rep. 46 (2007) [hereinafter Moscow Branch]; see also Biserica Adevarat Ortodoxa din Moldova v. Moldova, 2007 European Ct. Human Rights App. No. 592/03, http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=moldova&sessionid=14651578i&skin=hudoc-en; Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russ., 46 Eur. H.R. Rep. 16 (2007). See Lewis supra n. 121, at 410-411.

125. The reasons advanced by the domestic authorities for the refusal included: an insufficient number of founding members, the absence of documents showing their residence in Russia, the paramilitary structure of the organization and an inconsistent description of the organization's religious affiliation. Moscow Branch, 44 Eur. H.R. Rep., ¶ 14-20, 916–918Google Scholar.

126. Article 11 of the ECHR, following the 2 paragraph formula of Articles 8, 9 and 10, provides that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, of the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

ECHR, supra n. 15.

127. Moscow Branch, 44 Eur. H.R. Rep., ¶ 58, 927–928Google Scholar.

128. Id. at ¶ 61, 928.

129. Id. at ¶ 76, 931-932.

130. Id. at ¶ 75, 931.

131. Id. at ¶ 61, 928.

132. The Court in Moscow Branch concluded that despite the Salvation Army's paramilitary structure and appearance “[i]t could not seriously be maintained that the applicant branch advocated a violent change of constitutional foundations or thereby undermined the integrity or security of the State.” 44 Eur. H.R. Rep., ¶ 92, 934. This is in contrast to the Article 11 claim in Refah Partisi (Welfare Party) v. Turk., where the Court found that a political party's policies were anti-democratic and thus contrary to the entire ethos of the ECHR. 37 Eur. H.R. Rep. 1, ¶ 86, 32 (2003).

133. For example, in Moscow Branch, the gathering together of people in associations was in itself regarded as being good for democracy. 44 Eur. H.R. Rep., ¶ 61, 928.

134. See Callan, Eamonn, Creating Citizens: Political Education and Liberal Democracy 10, 11 (Oxford U. Press 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

135. See Mowbray, Alistair, The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in the Promotion of Democracy, 1999Pub. L. 703, 703Google Scholar.

136. See Schauer, Frederick, Slippery Slopes, 99 Harv. L. Rev. 361, 361–362 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

137. Id. at 381-382.

138. Şahin v. Turk., 44 Eur. H.R. Rep. 5, 140 (2005) (Tulkens, J., dissenting).

139. Gündüz v. Turk., 41 Eur. H.R. Rep. 5 (2005).

140. Id. at ¶¶ 51-53, 74. The Court stressed the need to look at the context and circumstances of the case “as a whole.” Id. at ¶¶ 42 & 52, 71 & 74.

141. Id. at ¶ 43, 71.

142. Gündüz, 44 Eur. H.R. Rep. at ¶ 44, 72Google Scholar.

143. Id. at ¶ 49, 73.

144. Id.

145. Id. at ¶ 51, 73 (restating its position in Refah Partisi, 37 Eur. H.R. Rep., ¶ 110, 39Google Scholar).

146. Id. at ¶ 51, 74.

147. Id.

148. See generally An-Na'im, Abdullahi Ahmed, Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Sharˋa (Harv. U. Press 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

149. Refah Partisi, 37 Eur. H.R. Rep., ¶ 121, 43Google Scholar.

150. Gündüz, 44 Eur. H.R. Rep., ¶ 51, 73Google Scholar.

151. See e.g. the facts of Refah Partisi, 37 Eur. H.R. Rep., ¶¶ 10–39Google Scholar.

152. Indeed, a counter-slippery slope argument could be advanced on the following lines: “if you do allow censorship of such pluralistic debate on this subject matter today, what speech will you be punishing tomorrow?” See Schauer, supra n. 136, at 381.

153. See generally Hiro, Dilip, War Without End: The Rise of Islamist Terrorism and Global Response (Roli Books 2002)Google Scholar; The New Crusades: Constructing the Muslim Enemy (Qureshi, Emran & Sells, Michael A. eds., Colum. U. Press 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

154. Gareth Davies, Banning the Jilbab: Reflections on Restricting Religious Clothing in the Light of the Court of Appeal in SB v. Denbigh High School, 1 European Constitutional L. Rev. 528, 528-529 (2003).

155. See generally Trust, Runnymede, Islamophobia: A Challenge To Us All (Runnymede Trust 1997)Google Scholar.

156. See Nesser, Peter, Jihadism in Western Europe after the Invasion of Iraq: Tracing Motivational Influences from the Iraq War on Jihadist Terrorism in Western Europe, 29 Stud, in Conflict & Terrorism 323 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.