Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T02:11:55.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Religion and culture in the discourse of the European Court of Human Rights: the risks of stereotyping and naturalising

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2014

Lourdes Peroni
Lourdes Peroni*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law of Ghent University, Belgium. Email: MariaDeLourdes.Peroni@UGent.be
*
MariaDeLourdes.Peroni@UGent.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper critically examines the ways in which the European Court of Human Rights represents applicants' religious and cultural practices in its legal discourse. Borrowing tools from critical discourse analysis and incorporating insights from the anti-essentialist critique, the paper suggests that the Court has most problematically depicted the practices of Muslim women, Sikhs and Roma Gypsies. The analysis reveals that, by means of a reifying language, the Court oftentimes equates these groups' practices with negative stereotypes or posits them as the group's ‘paradigmatic’ practice / way of life. The thrust of the argument is that these sorts of representation are problematic because of the exclusionary and inegalitarian dangers they carry both for the applicants and for their groups. In negatively stereotyping applicants' practices and in privileging certain group practices over others, these types of assessment underestimate what is at stake for the applicants and potentially exclude them from protection. Moreover, these types of reasoning risk sustaining hierarchies across and within groups. The paper concludes by sketching out an approach capable of mitigating stereotyping and essentialising risks.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 195 - 221
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

Abrams, Kathryn (1994) ‘Title VII and the Complex Female Subject’, Michigan Law Review 92: 2479–2540.Google Scholar
Abrams, Kathryn (1996) ‘Complex Claimants and Reductive Moral Judgments: New Patterns in the Search for Equality’, University of Pittsburgh Law Review 57: 337–362.Google Scholar
Abu-Lughod, Lila (2013) Do Muslim Women Need Saving? Cambridge MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Appiah, Kwame Anthony (2005) The Ethics of Identity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Baer, Susanne (2010) ‘A Closer Look at Law: Human Rights as Multi-level Sites of Struggle Over Multi-dimensional Equality’, Utrecht Law Review 6: 56–76.Google Scholar
Beaman, Lori G. (2012) ‘The Missing Link: Tolerance, Accommodation … and Equality’, Canadian Diversity 9(3): 16–19.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla (2002) The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Benwell, Bethan and Stokoe, Elizabeth (2006) Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Billig, Michael (2008) ‘The Language of Critical Discourse Analysis: The Case of Nominalization’, Discourse and Society 19: 783–800.Google Scholar
Brems, Eva (2009) ‘Human Rights as a Framework for Negotiating/Protecting Cultural Differences: An Exploration of the Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights’, in Foblets, Marie-Claire, Gaudreault-DesBiens, Jean-François and Renteln, Alison Dundes (eds), Cultural Diversity and the Law: State Responses from Around the World. Brussels: Bruylant, 663–715.Google Scholar
Bunting, Annie (1993) ‘Theorizing Women's Cultural Diversity in Feminist International Human Rights Strategies’, Journal of Law and Society 20(1): 6–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carbado, Devon W. and Gulati, Mitu (2003) ‘The Law and Economics of Critical Race Theory’, The Yale Law Journal 112: 1757–1828.Google Scholar
Cook, Rebecca and Cusack, Simone (2010) Gender Stereotyping: Transnational Legal Perspectives. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Cowan, Jane K., Dembour, Marie-Benedicte and Wilson, Richard A. (2001) ‘Introduction’, in Cowan, Jane K., Dembour, Marie-Benedicte and Wilson, Richard A. (eds), Culture and Rights: Anthropological Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–26.Google Scholar
Dembour, Marie-Bénédicte (2006) Who Believes in Human Rights? Reflections on the European Convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Douzinas, Costas (2000) The End of Human Rights. Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Douzinas, Costas (2002) ‘Identity, Recognition, Rights or What Can Hegel Teach Us About Human Rights?’, Journal of Law and Society 29: 379–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dovidio, John F., Hewstone, Miles, Glick, Peter and Esses, Victoria M. (2010) ‘Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination: Theoretical and Empirical Overview’, in Dovidio, John F., Hewstone, Miles, Glick, Peter and Esses, Victoria M. (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington, DC: Sage, 3–28.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Avigail (2009) Reasons of Identity: A Normative Guide to the Political and Legal Assessment of Identity Claims. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
European commission against racism and intolerance (2000) ECRI General Policy Recommendation No. 5 ‘On Combating Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims’. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Evans, Carolyn (2006) ‘The “Islamic Scarf” in the European Court of Human Rights’, Melbourne Journal of International Law 7: 52–73.Google Scholar
Evans, Carolyn (2010–2011) ‘Individual and Group Religious Freedom in the European Court of Human Rights: Cracks in the Intellectual Architecture’, Journal of Law and Religion 26: 321–343.Google Scholar
Farget, Doris (2010) Le Droit au Respect des Modes de Vie Minoritaires et Autochtones dans les Contentieux Internationaux des Droits de l'Homme. Unpublished PhD thesis, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Farget, Doris (2012) ‘Defining Roma Identity in the European Court of Human Rights’, International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 19: 291–316.Google Scholar
Fowler, Roger (1991) Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fowler, Roger, Hodge, Bob, Kress, Gunther and Trew, Tony (1979) Language and Control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy (2000) ‘Rethinking Recognition’, New Left Review 3: 107–120.Google Scholar
Fuss, Diana (1989) Essentially Speaking: Feminism, Nature and Difference. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grillo, Ralph and Shah, Prakash (2012) ‘Reasons to Ban? The Anti-Burqa Movement in Western Europe.’ Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Working Paper 12-05.Google Scholar
Group of eminent persons of the council of europe (2011) ‘Living Together: Combining Diversity and Freedom in 21st-centry Europe.’ Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Hammarberg, Thomas (2011) Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Human Rights in Europe: No Grounds for Complacency.’ Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Harris, Angela P. (1990) ‘Race and Essentialism in Feminist Legal Theory’, Stanford Law Review 42: 581–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hekman, Susan J. (2004) Private Selves, Public Identities: Reconsidering Identity Politics. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, Allan C. (1991) ‘Inessentially Speaking (Is there Politics after Postmodernism?)’, Michigan Law Review 89: 1549–1573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Paul (2010) ‘An Essentially Private Manifestation of Human Personality: Constructions of Homosexuality in the European Court of Human Rights’, Human Rights Law Review 10: 67–97.Google Scholar
Karst, Kenneth L. (1995) ‘Myths of Identity: Individual and Group Portraits of Race and Sexual Orientation’, University of California Law Review 43: 263–348.Google Scholar
Malik, Maleiha (2012) ‘The “Other” Citizens: Religion in a Multicultural Europe’, in Ungureanu, Camil and Zucca, Lorenzo (eds), Law, State and Religion in the New Europe: Debates and Dilemmas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 93–114.Google Scholar
Minow, Martha (1997) Not Only for Myself: Identity, Politics and the Law. New York: New York Press.Google Scholar
Munro, Vanessa E. (2006) ‘Resemblances of Identity: Ludwig Wittgenstein and Contemporary Feminist Legal Theory’, Res Publica 12(2): 137–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otto, Dianne (2006) ‘Lost in Translation: Re-Scripting the Sexed Subjects of International Human Rights Law’, in Orford, Anne (ed.), International Law and Its Others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 318–356.Google Scholar
Parliamentary assembly of the council of europe (PACE) (2010) Resolution 1743 (2010) ‘Islam, Islamism and Islamophobia in Europe’. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Peroni, Lourdes (2014) ‘The European Court of Human Rights and Intragroup Religious Diversity: A Critical Review’, Chicago-Kent Law Review (forthcoming 2014).Google Scholar
Phillips, Anne (2007) Multiculturalism without Culture. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, Anne (2010) ‘What's Wrong with Essentialism?’, Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory 20: 47–60.Google Scholar
Razack, Sherene H. (2008) Casting Out: The Eviction of Muslims from Western Law and Politics. Toronto, Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Ringelheim, Julie (2012) ‘Chapman Redux: The European Court of Human Rights and Roma Traditional Lifestyle’, in Brems, Eva (ed.), Diversity and European Human Rights: Rewriting Judgments of the ECHR. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 426–444.Google Scholar
Rorive, Isabelle (2009) ‘Religious Symbols in the Public Space: In Search of a European Answer’, Cardozo Law Review 30: 2669–2698.Google Scholar
Timmer, Alexandra (2010) ‘Missed Chance at Condemning Paternalism: S.H. and others v. Austria, Part Two’, Blog ‘Strasbourg Observers’, online: <http://strasbourgobservers.com/2010/04/26/missed-chance-at-condemning-paternalism-s-h-and-others-v-austria-part-two/>..>Google Scholar
Timmer, Alexandra (2011) ‘Toward an Anti-Stereotyping Approach for the European Court of Human Rights’, Human Rights Law Review 11: 707–738.Google Scholar
Tirosh, Yofi (2007a) ‘Adjudicating Appearance: From Identity to Personhood’, Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 19: 101–174.Google Scholar
Tirosh, Yofi (2007b) ‘Protecting Transgressive Identities: A Contemporary Challenge for Antidiscrimination Law.’ Paper presented at Seminar at New York University Law School, New York.Google Scholar
Van dijk, Teun (2001) ‘Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis’, in Wetherell, Margaret, Taylor, Stephanie and Yates, Simeon J. (eds), Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington, DC: Sage, 300–317.Google Scholar
Van leeuwen, Theo (2008) Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vojdik, Valorie K. (2010) ‘Politics of the Headscarf in Turkey: Masculinities, Feminism, and the Construction of Collective Identities’, Harvard Journal of Law and Gender 33: 661–685.Google Scholar
Volpp, Leti (2001) ‘Feminism versus Multiculturalism’, Columbia Law Review 101: 1181–1218.Google Scholar
Warne, Randi R. (2000) ‘Gender’, in Braun, Willi and McCutcheon, Russell T. (eds), Guide to the Study of Religion. London and New York: Continuum, 140–154.Google Scholar
White, James Boyd (1985[1973]) The Legal Imagination. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wong, Jane (1999) ‘The Anti-Essentialism v. Essentialism Debate in Feminist Legal Theory: The Debate and Beyond’, William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law 5: 273–296.Google Scholar
Yovel, Jonathan (2010) ‘Language and Power in a Place of Contingencies: Law and the Polyphony of Lay Argumentation.’ Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship Series, Paper 32.Google Scholar