This article reports several findings from a qualitative case study of six mosques in the Netherlands. In recent years, media, government, and society have paid increasing attention to their role, in part in relation to growing concerns of Salafist influences in the Dutch landscape. There are two major changes that can be witnessed. First, the role of the mosque as solely a religious institution is gradually shifting towards a broader interpretation. Second, there is a shift in the role of religious authority. These changes have the potential to create conflict.

The Court of Justice has ruled that the Flemish complete prohibition of the unstunned slaughter of animals according to religious laws is not contrary to EU law, notwithstanding the exception in Regulation1099/2009 and Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (religious freedom). The Court used the concept of the interpretation of human rights in the light of present day conditions, not to extend the scope of the freedom concerned, but to restrict the religious freedom of Jews and Muslims. Religious rules that have existed for millenniums may give way to very recent views on animal welfare. This contribution is a critical appraisal of the judgment.

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.

Whether homosexual teachers can work at an orthodox Protestant school in The Netherlands is regularly subject of societal debate. The Equal Treatment Law (1994) prohibits discrimination on the ground of homosexual orientation. How this works out in practice differs per denomination (type of school) and shifts over time in the direction of increasing acceptance. Within orthodox Protestant schools room is increasing to come out of the closet. Within certain schools there is increasing room for homosexual relationships, although opinions within these schools often differ and hence may also lead to conflict.

Confessional secrecy is inviolable under Catholic canon law, and violations of it are severely sanctioned. Some people see this secret as an obstacle to the legal process in society and advocate a limitation in its use. This article argues that this form of confidentiality also can be defended in civil law because of the protection of spiritual care. Confessional secrecy is analyzed here and compared with forms of official secrecy that are recognized in society. Finally, there is a plea for a clear legal framework for the application of this confessional secret by Catholic priests.

Do religious motives result in greater freedom of action? This question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. First of all, a distinction must be made between conduct that falls within the scope of the right to freedom of religion as opposed to other conduct. This distinction in turn needs some qualification. The aforementioned right can, after all, be restricted. The conduct in question could moreover fall within the purview of another fundamental right, as a result of which persons without religious motives are entitled to invoke another fundamental right. All these distinctions will be reviewed in this article. Special attention will be given to religiously motivated statements condemning homosexuality and the religiously motivated refusal to have children vaccinated.

As a special employer, the church has an interest in shaping its own personnel policy in order to achieve the mission and objective. In part, the legislator has met this need. After all, various laws in the field of appointment, terms of employment and dismissal take account of the specific interests of the church as described before. The external border consists of fundamental human rights that are included in the ECHR and the European Directive on equal treatment. It is not always clear where the external border is exactly. The Dutch legislation regarding the battle of ‘church law’ and fundamental rights is not consistent. Moreover, there we notice a tension between national law and the European directive.

According to the Coalition Agreement 2017-2021, the Dutch government intends to develop policy to prevent religious communities from receiving support from abroad if this support comes from so-called ‘unfree countries’. In the article, the author argues that restrictive measures in this area touch upon the collective freedom of religion, which is protected by the ECHR, measures that can only be justified under strict conditions in the light of religious freedom as guaranteed in article 9 ECHR.

In this article, the author criticizes a variety of views on the Christian identity of Europe in current discussions on migration. Next, he presents his own view on Christian identity, which consists of belief in a God who becomes present in the brokenness of the life of all. Applied to the issue of migration, this leads to a view of identity which develops in the encounter with migration. Then, the author defends the universal message of the Christian faith, and shows how this messages is violated as long as the suffering of migrants lasts. Thus, he holds a plea for a divine order over against the supposed order of christian identity.

For liberals religion is a private matter. This does not mean that a citizen should leave his or her religion at home. It does mean that laws and public services should not be determined by religious beliefs. The article describes how liberals have looked upon religion in their programs of principles since mid 19th century. The educational arrangement in the Netherlands of 1917, favouring religious schools, did not satisfy them. What were the liberal proposals in order to safeguard the religiously neutral, publicly-maintained schools?

Two new rulings by the European Court of Human Rights confirm earlier jurisprudence regarding the ‘burqa ban’, as such ban is justified on the basis of the principle of ‘living together’. Still, two points stand out in these rulings that need discussion. The first is that this is an example of how the Court applies its new ‘qualitative, democracy-enhancing approach’ that pays more consideration to domestic decision-making in the field of human rights. These rulings show the flipside of this laudable endeavour, however, as the Court sees no reason to evaluate, let alone critically assess, the outcome of these domestic decision-making processes. Second, the remarkable ‘concurring opinion’ by the president of the ruling judges, in which he states in very stern wordings that the ruling should not be considered a cart blanche for burqa bans elsewhere. Given the elaborate considerations why such ban would not be admissible, it is surprising that the Court has failed to elaborate why the burqa bans in France and Belgium are admissible.

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.

What divides the ECtHR in religion cases? Study of dissenting opinions in religion cases of the ECtHR sheds a light on dividing lines within the ECtHR and deepens our understanding of the methods of reasoning of the ECtHR itself. Following an analysis of dissenting opinions in religion cases in the rulings of the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR, this article focuses on the Chamber. As in the previous analysis, a clear pattern in the dividing lines is brought to light. This article discusses and evaluates this finding.

Religion cases of the European Court of Human Rights are much commented on. A systematic analysis of dissenting opinions in religion cases, however, does not exist. Such analysis can shed light on dividing lines within the ECtHR and deepen our understanding of the methods of reasoning of the ECtHR itself. This article contains analysis of dissenting opinions in the rulings of the Grand Chamber in religion cases. The analysis shows a pattern in the dividing lines. Contrary to the prior expectation, the margin of appreciation as such forms no such dividing line. The article discusses and evaluates the findings.

The European Court of Human Rights has accepted the French ban on the wearing of a full face veil (burqa) in public based on the notion of ‘living together,’ which in the particular case of France is considered an essential part of the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
In the author’s view, this ruling is problematic as it elevates local – in this case French – customs of the majority to a legal norm. The law is to protect general freedoms, including the freedom to be different from the majority; the law is not to protect certain majority customs. Prescribing what is or is not culturally suitable may be expected from a theocracy or dictatorship, but is not what a legislator in a democratic society should do.

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.

Religion-related stress is the product of a predominantly secular society in which people are confronted with diverse religious practices. The phenomenon occurs where public meets private. How can employers ensure compliance with conflicting religious and other commitments in the workplace? The concept of respectful pluralism as formulated by Douglas Hicks in his book Religion and the Workplace, may go a long way to negotiating a solution to the debate between conformity and diversity.

The chaplaincy in penitentiary institutions shows a peculiar co-operation between the state and the religious communities. The chaplains provide a safe opportunity for supporting the detainees. The growing religious individualisation as well as a political rethinking of the role of religions institutions ask for system adaptations. In particular, the denominational approach is subject to discussion.

The last decade the wearing of face hiding clothes has come up as a rather new phenomenon in the Netherlands and surrounding countries. Although not that many people wear them, a rather wide aversion exists against this phenomenon and is directed especially against the Islamic burqa. A rather intensive public and political debat is going on concerning the allowance of those clothes. In different countries, among which the Netherlands, France and Belgium, the legislator is drafting laws which aim to forbid the wearing of these clothes. This article gives an overview of the debate on this issue in especially the aforementioned countries and reflects upon it, with a special focus on the freedom of belief and religion.