{"title":"穿瘦:对伊斯兰头巾和其他宗教标志的限制","authors":"B. Saul","doi":"10.5040/9781472564283.ch-007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper critically examines three key recent cases of superior courts concerning restrictions on religious symbols: a prohibition on wearing headscarves in Turkish universities, upheld by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Sahin v Turkey)(2005); a restriction on a particular kind of Islamic dress in an English school, upheld by the British House of Lords (R (on the Application of Begum) v Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School)[2006]; and an absolute ban on wearing a Sikh kirpan (a symbolic dagger) in a Quebecois school, struck down by the Canadian Supreme Court (Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys)[2006]. Each case focused on similar arguments about freedom to manifest one's religion, and dealt with subsidiary arguments about the impact of the respective restrictions on the right to education. While each case proceeded from different factual circumstances, there are considerable differences in their approaches to what were essentially the same human rights law questions. The decision of the European Court of Human Rights is the least satisfactory in both its reasoning and its result; the House of Lords arguably reached the correct result but its reasoning was abbreviated; and the Canadian Supreme Court properly reasoned its way to a correct result.","PeriodicalId":358833,"journal":{"name":"University of Sydney Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Wearing Thin: Restrictions on Islamic Headscarves and Other Religious Symbols\",\"authors\":\"B. Saul\",\"doi\":\"10.5040/9781472564283.ch-007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper critically examines three key recent cases of superior courts concerning restrictions on religious symbols: a prohibition on wearing headscarves in Turkish universities, upheld by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Sahin v Turkey)(2005); a restriction on a particular kind of Islamic dress in an English school, upheld by the British House of Lords (R (on the Application of Begum) v Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School)[2006]; and an absolute ban on wearing a Sikh kirpan (a symbolic dagger) in a Quebecois school, struck down by the Canadian Supreme Court (Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys)[2006]. Each case focused on similar arguments about freedom to manifest one's religion, and dealt with subsidiary arguments about the impact of the respective restrictions on the right to education. While each case proceeded from different factual circumstances, there are considerable differences in their approaches to what were essentially the same human rights law questions. The decision of the European Court of Human Rights is the least satisfactory in both its reasoning and its result; the House of Lords arguably reached the correct result but its reasoning was abbreviated; and the Canadian Supreme Court properly reasoned its way to a correct result.\",\"PeriodicalId\":358833,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Sydney Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Sydney Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472564283.ch-007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Sydney Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472564283.ch-007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
摘要
本文批判性地审查了高等法院最近关于限制宗教符号的三个关键案例:禁止在土耳其大学戴头巾,由欧洲人权法院大法庭支持(Sahin v Turkey)(2005年);英国上议院(R (on Application of Begum) v denhigh High school的校长和管理者)[2006]支持对英国学校特定伊斯兰服装的限制;加拿大最高法院(Multani v . Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys)[2006]推翻了一项绝对禁止在魁北克学校佩戴锡克教kirpan(一种象征性匕首)的规定。每个案件都集中在关于表明宗教信仰自由的类似论点上,并处理了关于各自限制对受教育权的影响的附属论点。虽然每一案件都是从不同的事实情况出发的,但它们对基本上相同的人权法问题的处理方法却有相当大的差异。欧洲人权法院的判决在其推理和结果上都是最不令人满意的;上议院可以说得出了正确的结果,但它的推理是简短的;加拿大最高法院通过合理的推理得出了正确的结果。
Wearing Thin: Restrictions on Islamic Headscarves and Other Religious Symbols
This paper critically examines three key recent cases of superior courts concerning restrictions on religious symbols: a prohibition on wearing headscarves in Turkish universities, upheld by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Sahin v Turkey)(2005); a restriction on a particular kind of Islamic dress in an English school, upheld by the British House of Lords (R (on the Application of Begum) v Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School)[2006]; and an absolute ban on wearing a Sikh kirpan (a symbolic dagger) in a Quebecois school, struck down by the Canadian Supreme Court (Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys)[2006]. Each case focused on similar arguments about freedom to manifest one's religion, and dealt with subsidiary arguments about the impact of the respective restrictions on the right to education. While each case proceeded from different factual circumstances, there are considerable differences in their approaches to what were essentially the same human rights law questions. The decision of the European Court of Human Rights is the least satisfactory in both its reasoning and its result; the House of Lords arguably reached the correct result but its reasoning was abbreviated; and the Canadian Supreme Court properly reasoned its way to a correct result.