This article investigates if and in what manner international human rights treaties provide a mandate for state parties to combat hateful homophobic and transphobic speech. It is concluded that under the ICCPR, the path to inclusive readings of its incitement provision is principally paved by state parties. The UN Human Rights Committee welcomes states’ going beyond the codified (Art. 20) prohibition grounds of ‘national, racial or religious hatred’, thus including such grounds as sexual orientation and gender identity. Within the regional context of the ECHR, it is the European Court of Human Rights that functions as a catalyst. In recent jurisprudence, the latter court has developed a positive duty to investigate instances of hateful homophobic speech. Under both regimes a similarly steadfast approach to combating transphobic speech cannot yet be detected.

This article deals with recent developments in legislation and court rulings concerning churches. These developments are divergent in terms of the issues they concern and the outcome they show. The article sketches the background of each of these developments and analyses and explains them in the perspective of the principle of church autonomy. It concludes with recommendations to the legislature and the courts as well as churches themselves.

Buddhism has very specific ideas about an idealized form of government in Asia. These ideas may be ancient but they very often play a part in the background of politics up to modernity. Even within republics where religious monarchy has long since disappeared, a certain supernatural foundation on the basis of which a government functions may still be present. Opposition to a government can often imply resistance to a world order that is actually of supranatural origin. This article focuses on historical dimensions of this phenomenon (the position of the Buddha, the origin of the monarchy and Emperor Ashoka), but also on modern forms (Sri Lanka, Thailand and Myanmar). Concerning Myanmar, the recent developments around the Rohingyas are placed in a cultural perspective.

In Europe, female circumcision has been considered a grave violation of human rights. However, many European countries fail to combat this illegal practice. This article answers the question why criminal law enforcement with regard to female circumcision seems to fail in various European states, with the exception of France. To answer this question, this article analyses various models of citizenship.

Certain radical public acts of expression, those which for instance incite hatred or recruit participants for armed conflict, are punishable under criminal law, even when these pronouncements are religiously motivated. This study examines which statements incur punishment, and the role freedom of religion and freedom of expression play when making this assessment.

Some months after the German occupation of the Netherlands, the Reichskommissar inroduced a Germanlike system of collecting finances for the poor people, soon followd by an equal system of social work. These initiatives at the same time aimed at urge the national-socialistic ideology, as such dismissed by the society and the churches. The occupying authorities avoided a clash with the churches.

In this article, the question is raised which constitutional answer to immigration is most sustainable with a view to future multicultural societies. I focus on the constitutional answers to immigration in France, Italy and Canada. In France, in 2010, legislation was adopted prohibiting the wearing of face-covering clothing in public. With this ban, the French intended to enhance the equal participation of citizens in society and to protect the equality of the sexes. In Italy, a heated debate took place about the display of crucifixes in (public) schools, which resulted in a restoration of the predominance of the Catholic religion. Across the ocean, in the Canadian province of Québec, the National Assembly of Québec has been discussing a ‘Charter’, whose prevailing idea is to enhance the neutrality of the state, among others by prohibiting religious clothing in public institutions. The question is which of these approaches is best defensible to regulate a society, which will undoubtedly become even more diverse in the near future.