Geert Wilders’ PVV Party believes that Islam is a totalitarian ideology and not a religion, and thus Muslims are not equally entitled to the same freedom of religion or belief as other believers. This view is incompatible with liberal democracy.
Read the whole blogpost here: http://leidenlawblog.nl/articles/something-fundamental-is-at-stake-in-the-dutch-parliamentary-elections.
Posted in Comparative Constitutional Law, Democracy, Dutch Politics, Law and Religion, Religion and Politics, Whither Europe?
Tagged Freedom of religion or belief, Freedom Party, Geert Wilders, islam, liberal democracy, Muslims, Netherlands, parliamentary elections, pvv, religion, religious discrimination, Trump
‘”How should we deal with religious pluralism in contemporary Europe from a human rights perspective and where should we draw the line, if any?” This was the central question of an expert seminar held in 2006 at Utrecht University to celebrate the inaugural address of Abdullahi An-Na’im, who occupied the G.J. Wiarda Chair at the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM) in 2005/2006. (…)
Though religious pluralism in itself is anything but new in Europe, the influx of large groups of non-Christians, especially Muslims, and the political climate after recent terrorist attacks have profoundly changed the terms of the debate on how to deal with it. Should all religions be treated the same, or is it legitimate to take European Christian heritage into account?
Does religion deserve more protection than culture? What does it mean if we say the State has to be secular and/or neutral? How should freedom of religion be dealt with if it conflicts with other fundamental rights such as sex equality? And how should one approach limitations on the freedom of expression that are related to religion, such as hate speech bans or criminalisation of glorifying terrorism?
The questions are set against the background of modern notions of citizenship and the European human rights framework.’
About the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights:
‘SIM is the key centre of expertise of human rights research and education at Utrecht University.
The Netherlands Institute of Human Rights offers internationally oriented study programmes, conducts interdisciplinary research and organises a range of activities in the field of human rights.
Established in 1981 as a research support institute for a group of Dutch human rights NGOs, SIM has become integrated into Utrecht University over time. SIM was one of the founders of the Netherlands School of Human Rights Research and is the home of the Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights. Famous human rights researchers have headed SIM since its creation, including Hans Thoolen, Manfred Nowak, Peter Baehr, Cees Flinterman and Jenny Goldschmidt. Antoine Buyse is SIM’s current director. With a rich tradition and a keen eye voor current and future developments in the field of human rights, SIM is a leading academic research institute and the home base of a vibrant, interdisciplinary and international group of researchers, lecturers, and PhD students.’
– See more at: http://sim.rebo.uu.nl/en/over-ons/#sthash.Klf2stYo.dpuf.
Posted in Comparative Constitutional Law, Democracy, Law and Religion, Religion and Politics, Whither Europe?
Tagged Christian heritage, citizenship, culture, europe, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, fundamental rights, hate speech, human rights, Muslims, neutrality, religions, religious pluralism, secularism, sex equality, state, terrorism
‘In hoeverre vinden oordelen van de Commissie gelijke behandeling (CGB) inzake godsdienst navolging in de rechtspraak? Veel voorbeelden van dergelijke oordelen die tevens voor de rechter kwamen, zijn er het afgelopen decennium niet. De casus van de gewetensbezwaarde trouwambtenaar en het handenschudden vormen de uitzonderingen. In het geval van de gewetensbezwaarde trouwambtenaar ging de eerste procedure voor de rechter over een andere rechtsvraag, terwijI dezelfde rechter in de tweede procedure niet inhoudelijk op het oordeel van de CGB inging. Dit gebeurde oak in een uitspraak over het handenschudden. Uit twee andere rechterlijke uitspraken over dit laatste onderwerp kwam een inhoudelijk verschil in benadering met de CGB naar voren, waarmee men kan leven.’
Lees dit artikel, dat verscheen in het Tijdschrift voor Religie, Recht en Beleid, hier verder:
‘The opinions of the Dutch Equal Treatment Commission (CGB) in religious cases have been followed only partially by the courts. Thus from two judicial rulings on the shaking of hands by Muslims, an interesting difference in approach with the CGB becomes clear. Although it agrees with elements of the reasoning by the CGB, amongst others the Dutch Administrative High Court in contrast with the CGB puts uniformity above diversity with respect to this way of exchanging greetings. However, one can live with this difference in outcome, since in the past the CGB itself took the same approach of uniformity in the subject-matter. As it does today with respect to Christian registrars who refuse to conduct same-sex marriages.’
Posted in Democracy, Dutch Politics, Law and Religion, Religion and Politics
Tagged beleid, CGB, Commissie gelijke behandeling, diversiteit, diversity, Dutch Equal Treatment Commission, gewetensbezwaarde trouwambtenaar, godsdienst, handenschudden, Muslims, recht, rechterlijke uitspraak, rechtspraak, registrars, religie, same-sex marriages, uniformiteit, uniformity