Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T22:23:54.459Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Religious Freedom and Newly-Established Religions in Dutch Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

B.C. Labuschagne
Get access

Extract

In recent years the religious skyline of Dutch cities has changed considerably. Besides traditional Protestant and Catholic churches new buildings of worship (e.g., mosques, Hindu and Buddist temples) have been built. Newly-established religions have contributed considerably to a religious diversification in society. How does law reflect these changes? Does it take this pluralism into account? Generally speaking, law always lags behind developments in society. There is a good reason for this: society as a whole has to adapt to these changes, and law, which is an institutional form of basic social norms, must moderate this adaptation. The presence of these newly or not established religions puts tolerance to the test: both the tolerance of society as a whole and the tolerance expressed in the law.

Type
Research Article
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , August 1997 , pp. 168 - 185
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1997

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.)

Footnotes

*

Lecturer, Department of Legal Philosophy, Faculty of Law, Leiden University.

References

1. This article is mainly based on my doctoral thesis, Labuschagne, B.C., Godsdienstvrijheid en niet-gevestigde religies. Een grondrechtelijk-rechtsftlosofische studie naar de betekenis en grenzen van religieuze tolerantie (Groningen, 1995).Google Scholar

2. Art. 18, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Res. 217 A (III), 10 December 1948, UNGA.

3. General Commentno. 22 (48) (Art. 18), adopted on 20 July 1993, CCPR/C/21/Rev.l/Add.4, 27 September 1993, p. 1.

4. Res. 36/55. See Walkate, J.A., ‘The Right of Everyone to Change his Religion or Belief – Some Observations, 30 NILR (1983) pp. 157–160 for the full text of this declaration.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Cited in van Boven, Th.C., De volkenrechtelijke bescherming van de godsdienstvrijheid (Assen, 1967) p. 193.Google Scholar

6. ‘Ieder heeft net recht zijn godsdienst of levensovertuiging, individueel of in gemeenschap met anderen, vrij te belijden …” (emphasis added)

7. Geertz, C., ‘Religion as a Cultural System’, in Lessa, W.A. and Vogt, E., eds., Reader in Comparative Religion (New York, 1979) pp. 79–80.Google Scholar

8. Lessa, and Vogt, , op. cit. n. 7, p. 78.Google Scholar

9. Cited in Hoens, D.J., Kamstra, J.H. and Mulder, D.C., Inleiding tot de studie van godsdiensten (Kampen, 1985) pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

10. See the ‘Wicca’ case, decided by the European Commission for Human Rights on 4 October 1977, case no. 7291/25, Decisions and Reports 11, p. 56. A prisoner's wish for facilities by which to manifest his religion during his detention can only be honoured if the religion is identifiable. The prisoner did not mention any facts which made it possible to establish the existence of the Wicca religion. Note, however, that it is possible that a highly secret or esoteric religion has less chance of protection than a more public religion. From a legal point of view the distinction between private and esoteric can hardly be made.Google Scholar

11. This is an aspect of the forum internum, which will be dealt with in section 2.2 infra.

12. Dutch High Court decision of 31 October 1986, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1987, no. 173.

13. Note the fact that the Canaanite fertility religion, against which measures were taken by Deuteronomic law, included temple prostitution.

14. A/2929, Ch. VI, para. 106. See Bossuyt, M.J., Guide to the ‘Travaux Préparatoires’ of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Dordrecht, 1987) p. 355.Google Scholar

15. CCPR/C/21/Rev./Add.4, p. 2, para. 5.

16. That is: modern, secularized, individualized (Western) society.

17. See Vermeulen, B.P., ‘Artikel 6’, in Akkermans, P.W.C. and Koekkoek, A.K., De Grondwet Een artikelsgewijs commentaar (Zwolle, 1987) p. 119.Google Scholar

18. CCPR/C/21/Rev.l/Add.4, p. 2, para. 4.

19. E/CN.4/21, Annex F, Art. 20.

20. CCPR/C/21/Rev.l/Add.4, p. 3, para. 8.

21. ‘De wet kan ter zake van de uitoefening van dit recht buiten gebouwen en besloten plaatsen regels stellen ter bescherming van de gezondheid, in het belong van het verkeer en ter bestrijding of voorkoming van wanordelijkheden.’

22. Act of 25 July 1919, Stb. 1919, 524.

23. Order in Council: a delegated form of legislation by a minister, based on a formal legal delegation clause, such as Art. 18 of the Meat Inspection Act.

24. Koninklijk Besluit (Royal Decree, the official form in which an Order in Council is enacted and published) of 14 January 1957, Stb. 1957, 29.

25. ‘De bepalingen omtrent bedwelming zijn niet van toepassing op slachtdieren waarvan het vlees bestemd is voor consumptie door Israëlieten of door Islamieten en welke in verband daarmede worden bestemd voor halssnede volgens de Israëlitische of volgens de Islamitische ritus.’

26. The State Secretary for Welfare, Health and Culture.

27. These decisions are published several times during the year in the Staatscourant, the Government Gazette.

28. Although most regulations are here concerned with conditions relating to the animal, ‘health’, that is human health, is more or less indirectly protected by these measures. One may think, for example, of less adrenaline in the meat of non-distressed animals. Recently, however, more attention has been paid to the health of the animals themselves. See infra.

29. See also Art. 9(2) European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

30. Act of 24 September 1992, Stb. 1992,585, final modification by the Act of 6 February 1997, Stb. 1997, 63. This Act is slowly entering into force.

31. ‘Bij algemene maatregel van bestuur worden in het belong van de bescherming van het slachtdier regelen gesteld omtrent het slachten volgens de israëlitische of de islamitische ritus.’

32. Order of 6 November 1996, Stb. 1996, 573, providing for the execution of Art. 44(9) of the Health and Welfare of Animals Act.

33. Act of 20 April 1988, Stb. 1988, 157.

34. ‘Klokgelui ter gelegenheid van godsdienstige en levensbeschouwelijke plechtigheden en lijkplechtigheden, alsmede oproepen tot het belijden van godsdienst en levensovertuiging, zijn toegestaan. De gemeenteraad is bevoegd ter zake regels te stellen met betrekking tot duur en geluidsniveau.’

35. ‘as well as summoning to profess religion and belief’.

36. ‘As well as verbal summoning to profess religion and belief’ (emphasis added), Bijl. Hand. II, 1987–1988, 19 427, No. 17.Google Scholar

37. Bijl. Hand. II, 1987–1988, 19 427, No. 19.Google Scholar

38. Shadid, W.A.R. and van Koningsveld, P.S., Moslims in Nederland. Minderheden en religie in een multiculturele samenleving (Alphen a/d Rijn, 1990) pp. 56–58.Google Scholar

39. See Arts. 18(3) CCPR and 9(2) ECHR.

40. Act of 7 March 1991, Stb. 1991, 133.

41. Order of 3 May 1991, Stb. 1991, 252, containing regulations for the execution of the Act on the Disposal of the Dead.

42. ‘De lijkbezorging geschiedt overeenkomtig de wens of de vermoedelijke wens van de overledene, tenzij dat redelijkerwijs niet gevergd kan worden.’

43. Order of 9 October 1968, Stb. 1968, 499.

44. ‘Lijkbezorging geschiedt door begraving, verbranding of op andere bij ofkrachtens de wet voorziene wijze.’

45. Art. 32 of the Act on the Disposal of the Dead contains a delegation clause, stipulating that by Algemene Maatregel van Bestuur (Order in Council) more detailed rules on the manner of burial can be prescribed by the Minister.

46. That is, adequate for the purpose of burial or cremation.

47. One could argue whether such a custom is a direct expression of religion or belief or not.

In most cases the view of the believers themselves is taken into account.

48. Staatscourant 1997–1998, 13 January 1997, accorded by the Council of Ministers on 10 January 1997.

49. ‘Hinduism does not prescribe a strict cult experience’. Decision of the Cantonal Judge of Zevenbergen of 3 Februari 1982, NJCM-Bulletin (1982) pp. 418–425.Google Scholar

50. Dutch High Court decision of 30 March 1984, Nederlandse Jurisprudence 1985, no. 350. The holiday was in fact the Islamic Iedul-fitr, the feast marking the end of Ramadan.

51. The Solicitor-General advised the High Court to allow the matter be investigated.

52. The person concerned was an Indian-born Sikh, who became more religiously conscious after rioting had started between Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab during the first half of the 1980s.

53. Decision of the Cantonal Judge of Amsterdam of 24 January 1986, Rechtspraak Vreemdelingenrecht 1986, no. 83.

54. See B.C. Labuschagne, ‘Law, Religion and Tolerance: The Freedom of Religion and the Religionof Freedom’, Archiv für Rechts-und Sozialphilosophie, Beiheft58, Peczenik, A. and Karlsson, M.M., eds., Law, Justice and the State (1995) pp. 256–262, where I elaborated on this subject.Google Scholar

55. Including other members of these religious communities themselves.

56. In the case of these others being members of the same community: their ultimate right to autonomy, implying always the possibility to ‘opt out’ of this community. Cf., the discussion on the freedom to change one's religion, an important aspect of the forum internum.