| R (on the application of Playfoot) v. Millais School Governing Body | |
|---|---|
 A purity ring. | |
| Court | Administrative Court |
| Decided | 16 July 2007 |
| Citation(s) | [2007] EWHC 1698 (Admin), [2007] LGR 851, [2007] 3 FCR 754 |
| Case opinions | |
| Deputy Judge Michael Supperstone QC | |
| Keywords | |
| Religious discrimination | |
R (on the application of Playfoot) v Millais School Governing Body [2007] EWHC 1698 (Admin) is an English discrimination law case concerning freedom of religion. It was decided under the Human Rights Act 1998.
A girl insisted that wearing a purity ring at school was a manifestation of her religious beliefs as a Christian. Her school had a policy against jewellery, and she was told she was not allowed to wear it. [1] She claimed that it violated her right to freedom of religion, under Art.9 ECHR. She was represented by Paul Diamond.
Michael Supperstone QC held in the Administrative Court that not only was the wearing of the ring not linked to a belief in chastity before marriage, but that it was not any requirement of the Christian faith. The uniform policy, which she had accepted by going to the school, did not create any undue hardship. The policy was prescribed by law in the legitimate pursuit of creating equality and cohesion, minimising pressure from markings of difference in wealth or status. So any interference with her Art.9 rights was justified. [2]
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".
Religious intolerance is intolerance of another's religious beliefs, practices, or lack thereof.
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.
Religious discrimination is treating a person or group differently because of the particular beliefs which they hold about a religion. This includes instances when adherents of different religions, denominations or non-religions are treated unequally due to their particular beliefs, either by the law or in institutional settings, such as employment or housing.
The right to freedom of religion in the United Kingdom is provided for in all three constituent legal systems, by devolved, national, European, and international law and treaty. Four constituent nations compose the United Kingdom, resulting in an inconsistent religious character, and there is no state church for the whole kingdom.
R (Begum) v Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] is a House of Lords case on the legal regulation of religious symbols and dress under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.
In the United States, freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right provided in the religion clauses of the First Amendment. As stated in the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". Freedom of religion is linked to the countervailing principle of separation of church and state, a concept advocated by Colonial founders such as Dr. John Clarke, Roger Williams, William Penn, and later Founding Fathers such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.
Hijab and burka controversies in Europe revolve around the variety of headdresses worn by Muslim women, which have become prominent symbols of the presence of Islam in especially Western Europe. In several countries, the adherence to hijab has led to political controversies and proposals for a legal partial or full ban in some or all circumstances. Some countries already have laws banning the wearing of masks in public, which can be applied to veils that conceal the face. Other countries are debating similar legislation, or have more limited prohibitions. Some of them apply only to face-covering clothing such as the burqa, boushiya, or niqab; some apply to any clothing with an Islamic religious symbolism such as the khimar, a type of headscarf. The issue has different names in different countries, and "the veil" or hijab may be used as general terms for the debate, representing more than just the veil itself, or the concept of modesty embodied in hijab.
Eweida v United Kingdom[2013] ECHR 37 is a UK labour law decision of the European Court of Human Rights, concerning the duty of the government of the United Kingdom to protect the religious rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court found that the British government had failed to protect the complainant's right to manifest her religion, in breach of Article 9 of the European Convention. For failing to protect her rights, the British government was found liable to pay non-pecuniary damages of €2,000, along with a costs award of €30,000.
Redfearn v Serco Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 659 and Redfearn v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 1878 is a UK labour law and European Court of Human Rights case. It held that UK law was deficient in not allowing a potential claim based on discrimination for one's political belief. Before the case was decided, the Equality Act 2010 provided a remedy to protect political beliefs, though it had not come into effect when this case was brought forth.
Stedman v United Kingdom (1997) 23 EHRR CD 168 is a UK labour law case, which deals with religious freedom, and the duty of an employer to let religious people have Sundays off.
Human rights in Canada have come under increasing public attention and legal protection since World War II. Prior to that time, there were few legal protections for human rights. The protections which did exist focused on specific issues, rather than taking a general approach to human rights.
In modern usage, ḥijāb (hijab) generally refers to the various headcoverings frequently worn by Muslim women. Wearing hijab is mandatory in some Muslim countries, and optional or restricted in other majority Muslim and majority non-Muslim countries. In the Indonesian Aceh province, Muslim women are required to wear the hijab and all women are required to do so regardless of religion in Iran and Afghanistan. In countries such as Saudi Arabia, the hijab is not required. Meanwhile, in Gaza, Palestinian school officials have voted to require young girls to wear hijab, while Palestinian jihadists belonging to the Unified Leadership (UNLU) have rejected a hijab policy for women. They have also targeted those who seek to impose the hijab.
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."
Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357 is a UK labour law case concerning discrimination against same sex couples by a religious person in a public office.
South Africa is a secular state, with freedom of religion enshrined in the Constitution.
Freedom of religion in Australia is allowed in practice and protected to varying degrees through the constitution and legislation at the Federal, state and territory level. Australia is a pluralist country with legislated principle of state neutrality and with no state religion. The nation has over 13.5 million people who identify as religious and 7.1 million who identify as irreligious.
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.
Freedom of religion is recognized as a legal right in Hungary. The Fundamental Law of Hungary establishes the country as being founded on Christian values but guarantees the right to freedom of religion and freedom from religious discrimination. The history of religious freedom in Hungary has varied, with freedom of religion first recognized in 1919 before being restricted by Communist rule in the mid-20th century. Religious rights were restored following the end of Communism in Hungary, but the government under Viktor Orbán has been criticized for its restriction of religious freedoms.