In the Preamble to the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”), the 47 European countries constituting the membership of the Council of Europe (COE) profess a common allegiance to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“Universal Declaration”) and covenant to uphold certain of the fundamental rights provided for therein. The Universal Declaration provides for the right to religious liberty in its Article 18. Except for an inconsequential reordering of three words, Article 9(1) of the Convention is a verbatim adoption of Article 18’s religious liberty language. Hence, it is clear that in picking and choosing among the fundamental rights provided for in the Universal Declaration, the signatories to the Convention meant to include the right of religious liberty. Nonetheless, the quality of religious liberty enjoyed by residents of the various COE states is uneven. Whereas Muslims residing in Scandinavian countries can manifest their religious beliefs through modes of attire, Muslims residing in France or Switzerland are prohibited such overtly visible modes of religious expression. There is also disparate treatment within the COE community of Jehovah Witnesses. For instance, those residing in Greece do not fare well raising conscientious objection claims to avoid military service and they are prohibited from publicly bearing witness for their religious beliefs. In the eyes of the Greek courts, such proselytization is deemed to be interference with the religious freedom of others (such as members of the Greek Orthodox Church).
First - bad reference - check you tube/ George Carlain on religion (it is stand up but i like the argument)
Second - reality of human rights - human rights have more than one dimension (not only legal but also political - when something is political it is subject of compromising - and for sure it is not universal
Third - freedom of religion and your question as i understand it: Freedom of religion will be politically interpreted that anyone can choose own religion without any limitations (only those protecting other human rights - so if one wants to religiously scarify people - right of others to stay alive is over religious right). And even if one does not want to violate any of other human rights, state can always understand freedom of religion in privacy.It means that anyone is free to chose and practice own religion in private, but state can decide that public expression of religion can be considered offence of other religions and consequently prohibited. In the civilisation context the main problem is that Christians have not evident signs of belonging (Roman empire thought them to hide themselves). But i would say if Muslims would complain about Jewish signs (wearing Yamaka) the court should prohibit it as well - if not than i would see this as obvious discrimination. But as long as they prevent just covering the full face as a security measure i am biased (since i understand the potential danger of masking face- not only form state but also from public perspective).
However I turn the argument, the ending point is that one way or another states will find a way to violate any right when it suits them. We have basic right to personal integrity but they treat us at the airports as potential terrorists at each security check - for no other reason but just for choosing this type of transport.
Hi Uros,
Thank you for taking a stab at answering this question! Also, thank you for the YouTube reference.
However, let's cut to the chase. Is your answer to my question "yes" or "no"?
Gwen
Q: Does the absence of true religious liberty in the newly integrated Europe refute COE’s declaration that it is "a democratic union of states"?
A: No. technically due to the fact that being democratic means that you have fair periodic option to change the government. I would say that most of modern states are democratic (they have fair,presumably free election by secret ballot), but all of them violate human rights (All the states with death penalty violate basic right of person to live), all states using secret police methods on general population (untargeted and unverified by court order) violate basic human rights of ones' privacy and personal integrity.
Ancient Greek argument: Ancient Athens were considered to be democracy at its best but they considered as completely normal that some categories of people are not free.
Sorry for my previous answer - i was more concentrated on the question of freedom of religion.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication