In 2009, Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff, an Austrian anti-Islam activist, made ‘degrading’ statements about the Prophet Muhammad during a lecture. According to the Austrian judges, these statements could not go unpunished. In 2018, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in E.S. v. Austria that the conviction by the Austrian judges did not violate Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff’s freedom of expression. In this article, the author critically analyses this ruling of the European Court of Human Rights and takes a closer look at the possible criminalisation of ‘hurting religious feelings’ in Dutch law.

If the parliament agrees to it in second reading, the Dutch Constitution will be introduced by a general provision: ‘The Constitution guarantees fundamental rights and the democratic constitutional state.’ This concludes a discussion that mainly concerned a preamble. Christian politicians regularly argued for a reference to God in a preamble. Bart Verbrugh argued in the state commission-Cals/Donner for recognition of God‘s authority in the Constitution. The later Thomassen State Commission did not propose a preamble, but a general provision, which was adopted by the government in an abbreviated form.

Over the past twenty years the Netherlands and Flanders have developed policies aiming to prevent radicalization among Muslim youth. To what extent have Muslim communities been involved in these policies and has there been sufficient attention for the ideological and theological aspects of Islamic extremism? Overlooking the experiences and lessons learned it is clear that in both countries there is more and more attention for the individual dynamics of processes of radicalization. This is not only because of the prevailing interpretations of what is the most effective approach, but also because policy makers have encountered important set-backs and obstacles when aiming for a group-based approach in which Muslim communities and Islamic faith were being targeted.

Patrick Deneen’s book Why Liberalism Failed states that liberalism is centered around individual autonomy, and norms, manners and morals were abolished in the name of liberation, leading to individualism and ultimately the demise of liberal democracy itself. In the search for a new moral framework, this paper evaluates the theories of natural law liberalism and common good constitutionalism as formulated by Christian Wolfe respectively Adrian Vermeule. By analysing the constitutional law of the United States, Ireland and the Netherlands, the question is answered to what extent these different moral frameworks can be weighed against individual autonomy.