Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T05:18:59.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Double Standards? Veils and Crucifixes in the European Legal Order

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2013

Christian Joppke
Christian Joppke*
Affiliation:
Department of Social Sciences, University of Bern [joppke@soz.unibe.ch].
Get access

Abstract

Comparing the treatment of Islamic veils and Christian crucifixes by the European Court of Human Rights, this paper re-examines the charge of “double standards” on the part of this guardian of the European legal order, which is seen as disadvantaging Islam and favoring Christianity. While this is proved partially correct, the paper calls for a more differentiated treatment of the issue. For one, there is a modicum of consistency in the European Court’s decisions, because they are all meant to further “pluralism”. Only, Islam and Christianity fare differently in this respect, as “threat” to and “affirmation” of pluralism, respectively. This distinction hinges on Islam’s compatibility with the liberal-secular order, on which the jury is out. A possible way out of the “pluralism v. pluralism” dilemma, I argue, is signaled in the European Court’s recent decision in Lautsi v. Italy (2011), which pairs a preference for “culturalized” Christianity with robust minority pluralism.

Résumé

Un examen attentif de l’idée reçue selon laquelle la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme pratiquerait, en matière de religion, un double standard au détriment de l’Islam conduit à confirmer tout en nuançant. En effet une visée de cohérence s’affirme dans la référence de toutes les décisions au pluralisme. Mais celui-ci est entendu différemment, pour les chrétiens de façon positive, pour l’Islam de façon négative. La compatibilité de l’Islam avec l’ordre démocratique libéral n’est pas tenu pour acquis. On peut peut-être apercevoir une sortie du dilemme pluralisme contre pluralisme dans une décision de 2011(Lautsi contre Italie).

Zusammenfassung

Die Urteile des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (EGMR) über christliche Kreuze und das islamische Kopftuch werden daraufhin untersucht, ob der unter (kritischen) Juristen geläufige Vorwurf einer Ungleichbehandlung zugunsten der christlichen Religion berechtigt ist. Der Vorwurf eines „Doppelstandards“ ist tatsächlich nicht von der Hand zu weisen. Trotzdem sind die Urteile des EGMR zumindest in einer Hinsicht konsistent: sie alle geben vor, den „Pluralismus“ zu befördern. Nur werden Christentum und Islam unterschiedlich zum Pluralismus verortet: als „Bestätigung“ (im Falle des Christentums) oder als „Gefahr“ (im Falle des Islam). Die Triftigkeit dieser unterschiedlichen Positionierung von Christentum und Islam im Hinblick auf „Pluralismus“ hängt davon ab, ob der Islam tatsächlich mit einer liberal-säkularen Rechtsordnung kompatibel ist. Darüber besteht keine Klarheit, selbst nicht aus islamfreundlicher Perspektive. Ein möglicher Ausweg aus dem „Pluralismus vs. Pluralismus“ Dilemma deutet sich an in dem jüngsten Lautsi-Urteil der Grossen Kammer des EMGR, das eine Präferenz für ein „kulturalisiertes“ Christentum mit einem robusten Minderheitenpluralismus paart.

Keywords

secularismreligionliberalismsociology of lawIslamChristianityEuropeLaïcitéReligionLibéralismeSociologie du droitIslamChristianismeEuropeLaizismusReligionLiberalismusRechtssoziologieIslamChristentumEuropa
Type
Legal Order and The Public Sphere
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , April 2013 , pp. 97 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © A.E.S. 2013 

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albers, Hartmut, 1994. “Glaubensfreiheit und schulische Integration von Ausländerkindern” Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt, 1 September, pp. 984-990.Google Scholar
An-Naim, Abdullahi Ahmed, 1990. Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and International Law (Syracuse, Syracuse University Press).Google Scholar
Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang. 2001. “Kopftuchstreit auf dem richtigen Weg?”, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, n° 10, pp. 723-728.Google Scholar
Casanova, José, 1994. Public Religion in the Modern World (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Danchin, Peter, 2011. “Islam in the secular nomos of the European Court of Human Rights”, Michigan Journal of International Law, 32, pp. 663-747.Google Scholar
Dembour, Marie-Bénédicte, 2000. “The cases that were not to be: explaining the dearth of case-law on freedom of religion in Strasbourg” in Pardo, Italo, ed., Morals of Legitimacy (New York and Oxford, Berghahn).Google Scholar
Durkheim, Emil, 1984. Die elementaren Formen des religiösen Lebens (Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp).Google Scholar
Eisenstadt, Shmuel N., 2000. “Multiple modernities”, Daedalus, Winter, pp. 1-29.Google Scholar
Evans, Carolyn, 2006. “The ‘Islamic scarf’ in the European Court of Human Rights”, Melbourne Journal of International Law, 7 (1), pp. 52ff.Google Scholar
Finnis, John, 2008. “Endorsing discrimination between faiths: a case of extreme speech?” University of Oxford Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series, working paper n° 09/2008.Google Scholar
Geuss, Raymond, 2002. “Liberalism and its discontents”, Political Theory, 30 (3), pp. 320-338.Google Scholar
Gauchet, Marcel, 1997. The Disenchantment of the World (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Göle, Nilüfer, 1997. The Forbidden Modern: Civilization and Veiling (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press).Google Scholar
Hirschl, Ran, 2010. Constitutional Theocracy (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Hunter, Ian, 2005. “Religious offenses and liberal politics”. Unpublished manuscript (copy in author’s possession).Google Scholar
Joppke, Christian, 2009. Veil: Mirror of Identity (Cambridge, Polity).Google Scholar
Joppke, Christian, 2013a. “A Christian identity for the liberal state?” British Journal of Sociology (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Joppke, Christian, 2013b. “The retreat is real - but what is the alternative? Multiculturalism, Islam and the limits of ‘muscular liberalism’”, Constellations (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Joppke, Christian and Torpey, John. 2013. Legal Integration of Islam: A Transatlantic Comparison (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Koenig, Matthias, forthcoming. “Human rights, judicial politics, and institutional secularization-contentions over religious diversity at the European Court of Human Rights” in Kymlicka, Will and Bolden, Jane, eds., International Approaches to the Governance of Ethnic Diversity. (New York, Oxford University Press). (All quoted page numbers are from the typescript, in author’s possession.)Google Scholar
Laurence, Jonathan, 2012. The Emancipation of Europe’s Muslims (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Loewenstein, Karl, 1937. “Militant democracy and human rights”, American Political Science Review, 31 (3), pp. 417-432.Google Scholar
Macklem, Patrick, 2010. “Guarding the perimeter: militant democracy and religious freedom in Europe”, paper downloaded fromhttp://ssrn.com/com/abstract=1660649.Google Scholar
Mahmood, Saba, 2006. “Secularism, hermeneutics, and empire: the politics of Islamic reformation”, Public Culture, 18 (2), pp. 323-347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahmood, Saba, 2007. “Comments on Robert Post’s ‘Religion and freedom of speech’”, unpublished paper (in author’s possession).Google Scholar
Mahmood, Saba, 2009. “Religious reason and secular affect: an incommensurable divide?” Critical Inquiry,15, pp. 836-862.Google Scholar
Mahmood, Saba, 2012. Politics of Piety, 2nd ed. (Berkeley, University of California Press).Google Scholar
Mancini, Susanna, 2006. “Taking secularism (not too) seriously: the Italian ‘crucifix case’” Religion and Human Rights, 1, pp. 179-195.Google Scholar
Mancini, Susanna, 2009. “The power of symbols and symbols of power: secularism and religion as guarantors of cultural convergence”, Cardozo Law Review, 30 (6), pp. 2629-2668.Google Scholar
Mancini, Susanna, 2010. “The crucifix rage”, European Constitutional Law Review, 6, pp. 6-27.Google Scholar
March, Andrew, 2009. Islam and Liberal Citizenship (New York, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
March, Andrew, 2011. “Theocrats living under secular law”, Journal of Political Philosophy, 19 (1), pp. 28-51.Google Scholar
March, Andrew, 2012. “Speech and the sacred”, Political Theory 40 (3), 319-346.Google Scholar
Nieuwenhuis, Aernout, 2007. “The concept of pluralism in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights”, European Constitutional Law Review, 3, pp. 367-384.Google Scholar
Pin, Andrea, 2011. “Public schools, the Italian crucifix, and the ECHR”, Emory International Law Review, 25, pp. 95-149.Google Scholar
Post, Robert, 2007. “Religion and freedom of speech”, Constellations, 14 ( 1), pp. 72-90.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni, 2000. Pluralismo, multiculturalismo, e estranei (Milan, Rizzoli).Google Scholar
Stepan, Alfred, 2011, “The multiple secularisms of modern democratic and non-democratic regimes” in Calhoun, Craig, Juergensmeyer, Mark and van Antwerpen, Jonathan, eds., Rethinking Secularism (New York, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles, 1998. “Models of secularism” in Bargeeva, Rajeev, ed., Secularization and its Critics (New Delhi, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles, 2007. A Secular Age (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Tulkens, Françoise, 2009. “The European Convention on Human Rights and Church-State Relations: Pluralism vs. Pluralism”, Cardozo Law Review, 30 (6), pp. 2575-2591.Google Scholar
Witte, John Jr. and Arold, Nina-Louisa, 2011. “Lift high the cross? Contrasting the new European and American cases on religious symbols on government property”, Emory International Law Review, 25, pp. 5-55.Google Scholar