Fraternalism as a Limitation on Religious Freedom: The Case of S.A.S. v. France

In upholding France’s ban on public face coverings, the European Court of Human Rights accepted that the manifestation of religious beliefs could legitimately be restricted in the interests of ‘vivre ensemble’—literally, ‘living together’—or what I label ‘fraternalism’. I will argue that fraternalis...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Daly, Eoin (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Brill, Nijhoff 2016
In: Religion and human rights
Year: 2016, Volume: 11, Issue: 2, Pages: 140-165
Further subjects:B France religious freedom fraternalism European Court of Human Rights
Online Access: Volltext (Verlag)
Description
Summary:In upholding France’s ban on public face coverings, the European Court of Human Rights accepted that the manifestation of religious beliefs could legitimately be restricted in the interests of ‘vivre ensemble’—literally, ‘living together’—or what I label ‘fraternalism’. I will argue that fraternalism, in the French setting, is closely linked to the idea of a duty of civility in political theory: it is understood as a duty to practice a certain kind of fraternal sociability. This paper relates the Court’s judgment to France’s justificatory, ‘republican’ discourse. It argues that civility must be understood as a habitus—a set of learned orientations and bodily techniques—rather than as a set of discursive or speech constraints. In turn, this demonstrates the danger in the idea of civility (or fraternalism) as limiting religious liberties: far from simply fostering republican virtues, it will reinforce cultural and social power dynamics.
ISSN:1871-0328
Contains:In: Religion and human rights
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1163/18710328-12341302