Ahmad v United Kingdom | |
---|---|
Court | European Commission on Human Rights |
Citation | (1982) 4 EHRR 126 |
Case history | |
Prior action | 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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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 right not to profess any religion or belief or "not to practise a religion".
Religious intolerance is intolerance of another's religious beliefs, practices, faith 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. The concept originated among early Baptists in America. In 1644, Roger Williams, a puritan minister and founder of the state of Rhode Island and The First Baptist Church in America, was the first public official to call for "a wall or hedge of separation" between "the wilderness of the world" and "the garden of the church." Although the concept is older, the exact phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from "wall of separation between Church & State," a term coined by Thomas Jefferson in his 1802 letter to members of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut. 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. Currently, personal laws of various communities are governed by their religious scriptures. Implementation of a uniform civil code across the nation is pursued by India's governing Bharatiya Janata Party. Personal laws cover marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption and maintenance. While articles 25-28 of the Indian Constitution guarantee religious freedom to Indian citizens and allow religious groups to maintain their own affairs, article 44 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 criminalized 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 matters of religious freedom.
While freedom of religion is de jure symbolically enshrined in the Malaysian Constitution, it de facto faces many prohibitions and restrictions. A Malay in Malaysia must strictly be a Muslim, and they cannot convert to another religion. Islamic religious practices are determined by official Sharia law, and Muslims can be fined by the state for not fasting or refusing to pray. The country does not consider itself a secular state and that Islam is the state religion of the country, and individuals with no religious affiliation are viewed with hostility.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an Islamic absolute monarchy in which Sunni Islam is the official state religion based on firm Sharia law. Non-Muslims must practice their religion in private and are vulnerable to discrimination and arrest. While no law requires all citizens to be Muslim, non-Muslim foreigners attempting to acquire Saudi Arabian nationality must convert to Islam. Children born to Muslim fathers are by law deemed Muslim.
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. It includes not only explicit renunciations of the Islamic faith by converting to another religion or abandoning religion, but also blasphemy or heresy by those who consider themselves Muslims, through any action or utterance which implies unbelief, including those who deny a "fundamental tenet or creed" of Islam. An apostate from Islam is known as a murtadd (مرتدّ).
Religious intellectualism in Iran is a process that involves philosophers, sociologists, political scientists and cultural theorists.
The Egyptian identification card controversy is a series of events, beginning in the 1990s, that created a de facto state of disenfranchisement for Egyptian Baháʼís, atheists, agnostics, and other Egyptians who did not identify themselves as Muslim, Christian, or Jewish on government identity documents.
The United Nations categorizes Bangladesh as a moderate democratic Muslim country. Sunni Islam is the largest and most dominant religion practiced in the country. In the Constitution of Bangladesh, Islam is referred to twice in the introduction and Part I of the constitution. The document begins with the Islamic phrase Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem 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".
Freedom of religion in Comoros is addressed in the constitution which proclaims equality of rights and obligations for everyone.
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.
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."
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
E.S v. Austria was a case held before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case where the court upheld a domestic court's fine on an Austrian woman who had called Mohammed a pedophile.
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.