
[ Home] [ Criminal] [ Discrimination] [ International] [ Reports/Articles] [ My Services] [ Books] [ Links]
[AUSTRALIA] [PAKISTAN] [USA] [CASES]
www.ReligionLaw.co.uk - International Cases
(This page provides case references and links to relevant court judgements or news reports.
See also the pages dealing with Criminal, and Civil Cases.
Blackmore v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2009 BCSC 1299 (CanLII)
An interesting case where it has been suggested by a Court that the Canadian Law prohibiting Polygamy may be contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights. This is based on earlier cases in Canada, Reference re Same-Sex Marriage [2004] 3 S.C.R. 698, 2004 SCC 79 which agreed that the common law definition of marriage as being the Union of One Man and One Woman discriminated against same sex couples. The unintended consequence of that decision is that it leads wide open the question "what is marriage" and if a Union between one man and one woman is not lgally valid what is wrong with a union between one man and numerous women ?
Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2009] UKPC 17
A strange case where the Privy Council agreed with an earlier decision of the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago that a particular award "The Trinity Cross of the Order of Trinity" was discriminatory to Muslims and Hindus under the provisions of sections 4(b), (d) and (h) of the Trinidadian Constitution on the basis that the Cross is a Christian Symbol. The name "Trinidad" is of course itself Christian being the Spanish for "Trinity" and therefore a reference to the Holy Trinity. The case could conceivably have implications for British awards such as the Victoria Cross, George Cross, Military Cross etc. Interestingly both the Trinidadian Court and the Privy Council took a very different approach to that of the US Courts in the case of American Atheists Inc v Utah Highway Patrol Association (US District Court November 20 2007) where an attempt to have memorial crosses declared "unconstitutional" because they represented a Christian Symbol was rejected, the court holding that the cross was not an exclusively religious symbol
CONSPICUOUS RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS (FRANCE) (17 July 2009) BAILII: [2009] ECHR 1142
A compendium decision by the European Court of Human Rights merely confirming the earlier case of Dogru and Mann Singh and accepting the French Ban on the wearing of religious symbols or clothing in schools or in certain other public situations
Dogru
v France - BAILII: [2008] ECHR 1579
The European Court of Human Rights
rejected a claim by a French Schoolgirl that a ban on the wearing of religious
symbols in school, including the Islamic Hijab, was a breach of Article 9
Mann
Singh v. France - BAILII:[2008] ECHR 1523
The European Court of Human Rights
rejected a claim under Article 9 brought by a
French Sikh who was refused a photographic driving licence because he refused to
remove his Turban for the photograph
Webb v Philadelphia Police Department (US District Court June 27
2007)
An Interesting case where an
American Muslim Police Officer was refused permission to wear an Islamic Khitmar
as part of her Police Uniform. She lost her case for Religious
Discrimination
Leyla
Sahin v. Turkey - BAILII: [2005] ECHR 819 (10 November 2005)
Leyla
Sahin v. Turkey - BAILII: [2004] ECHR 299 (29 June
2004)
(A Ban preventing the wearing of
an Islamic Headscarf in Istanbul University was compatible with Article 9 of the European Convention on
Human Rights )
Dahlab v.
Switzerland, Application No.42393/98, (PDF Judgement)
(A Swiss primary school teacher
dismissed for refusing to work without her hijab. The court decided that this
dismissal was not a breach of Article 9 because it was aimed at
"protecting the rights and freedoms of others", namely young children. The hijab
was a 'powerful external symbol',
connected to proselytism and irreconcilable with gender
equality)
Kokkinakis v. Greece - BAILII: [1993] ECHR 20
(Greek Legislation prohibiting a
Jehovahs Witness from proselytising was in Breach of Article 9. NB This case is regarded as
one of the leading cases on Article 9)
Refah Partisi v Turkey - BAILII: [2003] ECHR
87
Refah
Partisi v Turkey - BAILII: [2001] ECHR 495
( A European Court of Human Rights
Case supporting the banning of an "Islamist" political party in Turkey. In para
123 of the 2003 decision the Court agreed with the following statement, in para
72 of the 2001 decision, regarding Sharia Law and Democracy "It is difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human
rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on Sharia, which clearly
diverges from Convention values")
Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax - AustLII: [1983] HCA 40
Is an Australian decision which has been quoted in British judgements and is regarded as a leading case involving a lengthy discussion as to what exactly is a "Religion" in law.
The Islamic Council of Victoria v Catch the Fire Ministries [2004]
VCAT 2510
(Remedy Decision) [2005] VCAT 1159 (22 June
2005)
(A controversial Australian case
under the Religious Vilification law of Victoria. An Evangelical Christian
Church was sued by the Islamic Council for a seminar it organised which was held
to have vilified Islam. The Church was ordered to publish an apology and if it
refused then the Pastors could have been sent to Jail)
Catch the Fire
Ministries Inc & Ors v Islamic Council of Victoria Inc [2006] VSCA 284 (14
December 2006) A decision by the Victoria Supreme Court
overturning the earlier Tribunal judgement and directing that the case be
retried (The case has since been dropped by the ICV)
American Atheists Inc v Utah Highway Patrol Association (US District Court November 20 2007)
An attempt to have memorial crosses
declared "unconstitutional" because they represented a Christian Symbol, the
court held that the cross was not an exclusively religious symbol and it
depended on the circumstances in which it was used. (An interesting sideline
mentioned in the judgement was the fact that in Utah the majority Christian
faith is Mormonism and the Mormon Church does not use the Cross as part of its
religious symbols or worship.)
Van Orden v. Perry USSC June 27, 2005
McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union
USSC June 27, 2005
(Two confusing
United States Supreme Court decisions on displays of the Ten Commandments. In
the Texas case of Van Orden the Court supported a Ten Commandments monument that
has been on the state capitol grounds for about forty years but in the Kentucky
case of McCreary, the Court upheld a ban on a display of the Ten
Commandments.)
Simpson v.
Chesterfield County
(A case where the US Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit held that a
County could refuse to allow a Witch (Wiccan) to conduct prayers before the
Council meeting)
Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878)
(An historically interesting case
where the US Supreme Court held that the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution
did not protect Mormons who wished to practice Polygamy in accordance with their
religion)
Wingrove v UK - BAILII:[1996] ECHR 60
( English Blasphemy law was
compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights
)
Contact NEIL ADDISON
at Religion
Law