Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Religion vs. gender equality: Muslim girls must swim with boys in Switzerland

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Religion vs. gender equality: Muslim girls must swim with boys in Switzerland

    European judges throw out parents' claim that requirement violates freedom of religion
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7518981.html

    What's your take on this? I am immediately reminded that we had a case where a Christian political party did not want to give voting rights or positions to women within their party, but it was ruled that they could not be a political party (and thus eligible for state funding, like all parties).

    AFAIK in our constitution the first articles on fundamental rights are not necessarily hierarchical, so the freedom of religion is not superior nor inferior to the equal treatment of all genders. So it is never a clear-cut case.

    The judges argued the mixed-gender swimming classes are an important element of integration, which in this case seems to have been given a heavier weight than the freedom of religion.
    “The Court observed that school played a special role in the process of social integration,

  • #2
    Good to hear the news about this ruling. Separate but equal inherently becomes unequal in the long run.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by OrangeWolf View Post

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7518981.html

      What's your take on this? I am immediately reminded that we had a case where a Christian political party did not want to give voting rights or positions to women within their party, but it was ruled that they could not be a political party (and thus eligible for state funding, like all parties).

      AFAIK in our constitution the first articles on fundamental rights are not necessarily hierarchical, so the freedom of religion is not superior nor inferior to the equal treatment of all genders. So it is never a clear-cut case.

      The judges argued the mixed-gender swimming classes are an important element of integration, which in this case seems to have been given a heavier weight than the freedom of religion.
      Freedom of religion is always way below other points of constitutions - as soon as it goes against the law, its not ok anymore.

      Comment


      • #4
        If the purpose of religious gender segregation is to secure top dollar for selling your daughters off as livestock, I think, I may have to side with the courts.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by EiB L/T View Post
          Freedom of religion is always way below other points of constitutions - as soon as it goes against the law, its not ok anymore.
          Yet, as we live in 2017, it's still a freedom thay leads to quite hefty judicial debates.

          I don't know where you're from, but in the Netherlands the official legal line is that the fundamental rigths are horizontal and equally valuable. In practice that's not the case, luckily. If anything the freedom of religion clause is very liable to be used as an excuse for discrimination (against women, they gayz).

          Comment


          • #6
            Imho too much focus on equality too little focus on functionality. But that's the problem of the 21st century. Enforcing social horizontality onto everything, and then expecting things to work out.

            Comment


            • #7
              /\ /\ what sort of functional inequality do you support?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by OrangeWolf View Post

                Yet, as we live in 2017, it's still a freedom thay leads to quite hefty judicial debates.

                I don't know where you're from, but in the Netherlands the official legal line is that the fundamental rigths are horizontal and equally valuable. In practice that's not the case, luckily. If anything the freedom of religion clause is very liable to be used as an excuse for discrimination (against women, they gayz).
                You seem to misunderstand what freedom of religion in your constitution means. Everybody is free to have and practice any religion and cannot be discriminated and punished based on it. But religion doesnt stand above the law or other parts of constitution. So everywhere its goes against the law or rules - well religion loses out.(Which leads to extra rules and laws being made, to gave some religions some extra parts, like when it comes to slaughter of animals. But where no such exeptions are done - your freedom of religion ends when you go against law or it hurts somebody.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Fargin View Post
                  If the purpose of religious gender segregation is to secure top dollar for selling your daughters off as livestock, I think, I may have to side with the courts.
                  Sell me your children !

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by OrangeWolf View Post

                    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7518981.html

                    What's your take on this? I am immediately reminded that we had a case where a Christian political party did not want to give voting rights or positions to women within their party, but it was ruled that they could not be a political party (and thus eligible for state funding, like all parties).

                    AFAIK in our constitution the first articles on fundamental rights are not necessarily hierarchical, so the freedom of religion is not superior nor inferior to the equal treatment of all genders. So it is never a clear-cut case.

                    The judges argued the mixed-gender swimming classes are an important element of integration, which in this case seems to have been given a heavier weight than the freedom of religion.
                    From what i have read it's not about gender equality but about the well being of the child and its right to be treated like other kids and have socializing activities.
                    Which is perfect in my book and must be above any religious consideration

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by EiB L/T View Post
                      You seem to misunderstand what freedom of religion in your constitution means. Everybody is free to have and practice any religion and cannot be discriminated and punished based on it. But religion doesnt stand above the law or other parts of constitution. So everywhere its goes against the law or rules - well religion loses out.(Which leads to extra rules and laws being made, to gave some religions some extra parts, like when it comes to slaughter of animals. But where no such exeptions are done - your freedom of religion ends when you go against law or it hurts somebody.
                      Nope, I do not. Why do you assume that I would not understand the concept of freedom of religion in my own constitution?

                      The Dutch Constitution does not create a hierarchy of rights; all fundamental rights are guaranteed on an equal footing. In and through legislation, the balance between these liberties must be established for the particular issue at hand and where it concerns horizontal relationships, i.e., relationships in the private sector.
                      on other words Case-by-case judgements & the fundamental rights are horizontal. (Source: https://www.iclrs.org/content/blurb/...etherlands.pdf RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND CHURCH AUTONOMY IN THE NETHERLANDS )

                      The example I referred to
                      Political parties
                      which are convicted for discrimination may lose their state subsidies.69 In 2010,
                      the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that political parties may not exclude women when
                      drawing up lists of candidates for parliamentary elections.70 The party concerned is
                      the SGP, an orthodox Christian political party, which, on the basis of biblical interpretation,
                      assumes women to have a vocation outside the political sphere.
                      (Source: State and religion, a multidimensional relationship: Some comparative law remarks).

                      So yes, in practice the freedom of religion has limitations. And while what you said is true, that freedom of religion does not stand above the law (you are repeating what I already said, horizontal is non-hierarchical) neither do the other fundamental rigths in relation to the freedom of religion. Which is why cases where conflict of fundamental right are concerned the limitations are not as obvious as some religious zealout murdering a gay guy because his religion is ok with it.

                      The Dutch Equal Treatment Act is perhaps the most notable in preventing religious people from practicing absurd elements within their religion in real life. But it would be best to see this as a limitatation of the freedom of religion, not as standing above it as the anti-discrimination act does not repeal the freedom of religion but rather balances it in accordance with other fundamental rights.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Mordoror View Post

                        From what i have read it's not about gender equality but about the well being of the child and its right to be treated like other kids and have socializing activities.
                        Which is perfect in my book and must be above any religious consideration
                        Exactly this. The judge say that education must be equal for everyone and so everyone must be with the same rules for better integration.
                        I'm clearly with the court.

                        Interestingly the european law create case law, so this judgement may be use by european countries to enforce the rules.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mordoror View Post

                          From what i have read it's not about gender equality but about the well being of the child and its right to be treated like other kids and have socializing activities.
                          Which is perfect in my book and must be above any religious consideration

                          I must concede, the wording was wrong. I think gender roles would have been different, as the sex of the children was the issue for the parents involved.

                          Originally posted by urielventis View Post

                          Exactly this. The judge say that education must be equal for everyone and so everyone must be with the same rules for better integration.
                          I'm clearly with the court.

                          Interestingly the european law create case law, so this judgement may be use by european countries to enforce the rules.
                          I don't know how to say it correctly, but not only that, the judgements of the human rights court will "trickle down" to the ECJ as well as they have to be taken into consideration for comparable cases.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Religion in public places should be oppressed wherever possible.

                            Not regulated, straight up oppressed.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by thanamestolga View Post
                              Religion in public places should be oppressed wherever possible.

                              Not regulated, straight up oppressed.
                              This. Along with Mordoror comment.

                              A state, multiple religions and beliefs which seems normal but everybody should be treated equally. Neither Islam, Christianity or whatever are above the Law.

                              There has been issues with the canteens at school and whether the meals should be halal, meaning that many children from Muslim families only eat vegetables or avoid the canteen the day when meal is on the menu. It's giving numerous mayors and schools director headaches.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X