Ahmad v United Kingdom

Last updated

Ahmad v United Kingdom
Court European Commission on Human Rights
Citation(s)(1982) 4 EHRR 126
Case history
Prior action(s)Ahmad v Inner London Education Authority [1978] QB 38
Keywords
Judicial review, human rights, religious discrimination

Ahmad v United Kingdom (1982) 4 EHRR 126 is a UK labour law and UK constitutional law case on race and religious discrimination. It upholds the view that special allowances do not need to be made by employers for people who want to follow particular religious practices, because people are free to choose their jobs. However, it suggests that employers should give genuine and serious consideration about ways to accommodate their employees requests, even if they cannot ultimately do so.

Contents

Facts

A teacher, Iftikhar Ahmad was a British citizen born in India in 1940 and a Muslim. He had worked at an inner London primary school, run by the Inner London Education Authority, for maladjusted children from 1968 to 1972. He took study leave and, given the opportunity to change schools, he chose one closer to a mosque. The headmaster allowed him extra time to pray on Fridays at lunch break. He then moved again to Chisern School, Bethnal Green, where his job was to do individual reading with children. The headmistress objected to him being away for an extra 50 minutes. He moved again to Bonner Primary School, Bethnal Green. The headmaster there also refused extra time off, and he went anyway. He moved again to Bethnal Green Primary School. Then he moved again to the Roman Catholic primary school in Mile End. Here he took time off in spite of being told not to. He was told he could take part-time teaching, but he refused and instead he resigned. At this time part-time jobs were not protected by equal pay laws, and often, part-time contracts were paid less per hour than full-time ones.

At tribunal, Dr Pasha said Friday prayer was so important that in Saudi Arabia, three times not attending leads to beheading. One of the main questions was whether under Article 9 ECHR (the right to freedom of religion and conscience) the school ought to have given Mr Ahmad the time off.

Judgment

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal (Scarman LJ dissenting) dismissed the case. [1] Lord Denning MR held,

The convention is not part of our English law, but, as I have often said, we will always have regard to it. We will do our best to see that our decisions are in conformity with it. But it is drawn in such vague terms that it can be used for all sorts of unreasonable claims and provoke all sorts of litigation. As so often happens with high-sounding principles, they have to be brought down to earth. They have to be applied in a work-a-day world. I venture to suggest that it would do the Muslim community no good - or any other minority group no good - if they were to be given preferential treatment over the great majority of the people. If it should happen that, in the name of religious freedom, they were given special privileges or advantages, it would provoke discontent, and even resentment among those with whom they work. As, indeed, it has done in this very case. And so the cause of racial integration would suffer. So, whilst upholding religious freedom to the full, I would suggest that it should be applied with caution, especially having regard to the setting in which it is sought. Applied to our educational system, I think that Mr. Ahmad's right to "manifest his religion in practice and observance" must be subject to the rights of the education authorities under the contract and to the interests of the children whom he is paid to teach. I see nothing in the European Convention to give Mr. Ahmad any right to manifest his religion on Friday afternoons in derogation of his contract of employment: and certainly not on full pay.

Scarman LJ said there was a duty to accommodate devout Muslims, even if it involved additional cost, because Art.9 required the right of worship to be unimpeded.

European Commission

The European Commission of Human Rights held that there was not even interference with his freedom of religion under Art.9(1) (at 23). Freedom of religion is not absolute and 'it may as regards the modality of a particular religious manifestation, be influenced by the situation of the person claiming that freedom' (para 11). It also noted that United Kingdom society was with its increasing Muslim community in a period of transition.' But they also made the point that there was no failure to consider better working arrangements.

See also

Notes

  1. [1978] QB 38

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Religious pluralism</span> Stance of supporting peaceful coexistence and diversity of spiritual belief

Religious pluralism is an attitude or policy regarding the diversity of religious belief systems co-existing in society. It can indicate one or more of the following:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of religion</span> Human right to practice, or not, a religion without conflict from governing powers

Freedom of religion or religious liberty is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. It also includes the freedom to change one's religion or beliefs, "the right not to profess any religion or belief", or "not to practise a religion".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Religious intolerance</span> Intolerance of anothers religious beliefs or practices

Religious intolerance is intolerance of another's religious beliefs, practices, or lack thereof.

The separation of church and state is a philosophical and jurisprudential concept for defining political distance in the relationship between religious organizations and the state. Conceptually, the term refers to the creation of a secular state and to disestablishment, the changing of an existing, formal relationship between the church and the state. Although the concept is older, the exact phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from "wall of separation between church and state", a term coined by Thomas Jefferson. The concept was promoted by Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke.

The Uniform Civil Code is a proposal in India to formulate and implement personal laws of citizens which apply on all citizens equally regardless of their religion, gender and sexual orientation. Currently, personal laws of various communities are governed by their religious scriptures. Implementation of a uniform civil code across the nation is one of the contentious promises pursued by India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. It is an important issue regarding secularism in Indian politics and continues to remain disputed by India's political left wing, Muslim groups and other conservative religious groups and sects in defence of sharia and religious customs. Personal laws are distinguished from public law and cover marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption and maintenance. Meanwhile, article 25-28 of the Indian constitution guarantees religious freedom to Indian citizens and allows religious groups to maintain their own affairs, article 44 of the constitution expects the Indian state to apply directive principles and common law for all Indian citizens while formulating national policies.

The 2019 transitional constitution of Sudan guarantees freedom of religion and omits reference to sharia as a source of law, unlike the 2005 constitution of Sudan's deposed president Omar al-Bashir whose government had outlawed apostasy and blasphemy against Islam. Bashir's government had also targeted Shia Muslims and those engaging in proselytization to faiths other than Islam. Christians had also faced restrictions in matter of religious freedom.

Freedom of religion is enshrined in the Malaysian Constitution. First, Article 11 provides that every person has the right to profess and to practice his or her religion and to propagate it. Second, the Constitution also provides that Islam is the religion of the country but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools</span>

The French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools bans wearing conspicuous religious symbols in French public primary and secondary schools. The law is an amendment to the French Code of Education that expands principles founded in existing French law, especially the constitutional requirement of laïcité: the separation of state and religious activities.

Apostasy in Islam is commonly defined as the abandonment of Islam by a Muslim, in thought, word, or through deed. An apostate from Islam is referred to by using the Arabic and Islamic term murtād (مرتدّ). It includes not only explicit renunciations of the Islamic faith by converting to another religion or abandoning religion altogether, but also blasphemy or heresy, through any action or utterance which implies unbelief, including those who deny a "fundamental tenet or creed" of Islam.

Aqidah is an Islamic term of Arabic origin that literally means "creed". It is also called Islamic creed and Islamic theology.

Religious intellectualism in Iran reached its apogee during the Persian Constitutional Revolution (1906–11). The process involved philosophers, sociologists, political scientists and cultural theorists.

The Constitution of Cameroon provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respected this right in practice. Government policy contributes to the generally free practice of religion. There were no reports of societal abuses and discrimination based on religious belief or practice. The country is generally characterized by a high degree of religious tolerance.

Freedom of religion in Comoros is addressed in the constitution. However, there are limitations to this right in practice. While government authorities continued to prohibit Christians from proselytizing, there were no known instances where the local authorities and population restricted the right of Christians to practice other aspects of their faith. There was societal discrimination against non-Muslims in some sectors of society; however, accounts of social pressure were anecdotal. Proselytizing for any religion except Islam is illegal, and converts from Islam may be prosecuted under the law. However, such prosecutions are rare and have not resulted in any convictions in recent years. In the past, there were reports of family and community members excluding non-Muslim converts from schools or villages for "evangelizing Muslims".

The Constitution of Bangladesh includes secularism as one of the four fundamental principles, despite having Islam as the state religion by 2A. Islam is referred to twice in the introduction and Part I of the constitution and the document begins with the Islamic phrase Basmala which in English is translated as “In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful” and article (2A) declares that :"Islam is the state religion of the republic". Bangladesh is mostly governed by secular laws, set up during the times when the region was ruled by the British Crown. The constitution also states that "the State shall ensure equal status and equal right in the practice of the Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and other religions". "Freedom of religion" is its basic structure guaranteed by the Bangladeshi constitution in which it calls for equal rights to all its citizens irrespective of their religious differences and it also bans discrimination on the grounds of religion on various platforms. Bangladesh is one of the few secular Muslim-majority nations and "proselytizing" i.e. conversions from one religion to another are generally accepted and is legalized by law under article 41 of the constitution, subject to law, public order, and morality. Bangladesh was founded as a secular state, but Islam was made the state religion in the 1980s. But in 2010, the High Court held up the secular principles of the 1972 constitution. The High Court also strengthened its stance against punishments by Islamic edict (fatwa), following complaints of brutal sentences carried out against women by extra-legal village courts.

The 2008 Constitution of Maldives designates Sunni Islam as the state religion. Only Sunni Muslims are allowed to hold citizenship in the country and citizens may practice Sunni Islam only. Non-Muslim citizens of other nations can practice their faith only in private and are barred from evangelizing or propagating their faith. All residents are required to teach their children the Muslim faith. The president, ministers, parliamentarians, and chiefs of the atolls are required to be Sunni Muslims. Government regulations are based on Islamic law. Only certified Muslim scholars can give fatawa.

The constitution of the Syrian Arab Republic guarantees freedom of religion. Syria has had two constitutions: one passed in 1973, and one in 2012 through the 2012 Syrian constitutional referendum. Opposition groups rejected the referendum; claiming that the vote was rigged.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article 15 of the Constitution of Singapore</span> Guarantee of the freedom of religion

Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore guarantees freedom of religion in Singapore. Specifically, Article 15(1) states: "Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it."

<i>The Criterion for Religions</i> Religious book

The Criterion for Religions, the English rendering of Mi‘yarul Madhahib, was written and published in 1895 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. This English edition was published in 2007, by Islam International Publications

Freedom of religion in Montenegro refers to the extent to which people in Montenegro are freely able to practice their religious beliefs, taking into account both government policies and societal attitudes toward religious groups. Montenegro's laws guarantee the freedom of religion and outlaw several forms of religious discrimination, as well as establishing that there is no state religion in Montenegro. The government provides some funding to religious groups.

The status of religious freedom in Africa varies from country to country. States can differ based on whether or not they guarantee equal treatment under law for followers of different religions, whether they establish a state religion, the extent to which religious organizations operating within the country are policed, and the extent to which religious law is used as a basis for the country's legal code.