Islamophobia and the ECtHR : a test case for positive subsidiarity for the protection of Europe’s long-term migrants?
- Author
- Eva Brems (UGent)
- Organization
- Project
- Abstract
- In Chapter 9, Eva Brems, building on the same case-law on religious freedoms, and also on S.A.S. v France, raises the question of whether the Court treats the cases from long term migrants differently from cases that are brought by ‘authentic' citizens. Brems shows, in particular, that the methodology used by the Court in burqa cases is different from the one used by the Court on ‘gay propaganda’. The difference in the Court’s approach to handling these cases, the author argues, reifies the ‘otherness’ of migrants, and, more specifically, the ‘otherness’ of Muslim migrants in Europe. Brems proposes that the Court should revisit the messages it is sending to national authorities regarding their approaches to multicultural conflicts over Islamic migrant minority practices. This is situated in the framework of ‘positive subsidiarity’. It is argued that even when the margin of appreciation is a wide one, the Court has a responsibility to offer guidance to states parties on three levels: substantive, procedural, and discursive. The paper then explores the messages sent by the Court to states parties in the field of the restriction of Islamic minority practices. First it does so by comparing what is widely considered the Court’s ‘worst practice’ in this field—the face veil cases—with its ‘best practice’ in a different, but comparable field—the ‘gay propaganda’ cases.
- Keywords
- HRC, ECtHR, Positive subsidiarity, Islamophobia, racism, face veil, subsidiarity, religious freedom, minority rights
Downloads
-
(...).pdf
- full text (Published version)
- |
- UGent only
- |
- |
- 2.07 MB
Citation
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication: http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-8739678
- MLA
- Brems, Eva. “Islamophobia and the ECtHR : A Test Case for Positive Subsidiarity for the Protection of Europe’s Long-Term Migrants?” Migration and the European Convention on Human Rights, edited by Başak Çalı et al., vol. 4, Oxford University Press, 2021, pp. 196–216, doi:10.1093/oso/9780192895196.003.0009.
- APA
- Brems, E. (2021). Islamophobia and the ECtHR : a test case for positive subsidiarity for the protection of Europe’s long-term migrants? In B. Çalı, L. Bianku, & I. Motoc (Eds.), Migration and the European Convention on Human Rights (Vol. 4, pp. 196–216). https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192895196.003.0009
- Chicago author-date
- Brems, Eva. 2021. “Islamophobia and the ECtHR : A Test Case for Positive Subsidiarity for the Protection of Europe’s Long-Term Migrants?” In Migration and the European Convention on Human Rights, edited by Başak Çalı, Ledi Bianku, and Iulia Motoc, 4:196–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192895196.003.0009.
- Chicago author-date (all authors)
- Brems, Eva. 2021. “Islamophobia and the ECtHR : A Test Case for Positive Subsidiarity for the Protection of Europe’s Long-Term Migrants?” In Migration and the European Convention on Human Rights, ed by. Başak Çalı, Ledi Bianku, and Iulia Motoc, 4:196–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780192895196.003.0009.
- Vancouver
- 1.Brems E. Islamophobia and the ECtHR : a test case for positive subsidiarity for the protection of Europe’s long-term migrants? In: Çalı B, Bianku L, Motoc I, editors. Migration and the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2021. p. 196–216.
- IEEE
- [1]E. Brems, “Islamophobia and the ECtHR : a test case for positive subsidiarity for the protection of Europe’s long-term migrants?,” in Migration and the European Convention on Human Rights, vol. 4, B. Çalı, L. Bianku, and I. Motoc, Eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021, pp. 196–216.
@incollection{8739678,
abstract = {{In Chapter 9, Eva Brems, building on the same case-law on religious freedoms, and also on S.A.S. v France, raises the question of whether the Court treats the cases from long term migrants differently from cases that are brought by ‘authentic' citizens. Brems shows, in particular, that the methodology used by the Court in burqa cases is different from the one used by the Court on ‘gay propaganda’. The difference in the Court’s approach to handling these cases, the author argues, reifies the ‘otherness’ of migrants, and, more specifically, the ‘otherness’ of Muslim migrants in Europe. Brems proposes that the Court should revisit the messages it is sending to national authorities regarding their approaches to multicultural conflicts over Islamic migrant minority practices. This is situated in the framework of ‘positive
subsidiarity’. It is argued that even when the margin of appreciation is a wide one, the Court has a responsibility to offer guidance to states parties on three levels: substantive, procedural, and discursive. The paper then explores the messages sent by the Court to states parties in the field of the restriction of Islamic minority practices. First it does so by comparing what is widely considered the Court’s ‘worst practice’ in this field—the face veil cases—with its ‘best practice’ in a different, but comparable field—the ‘gay propaganda’ cases.}},
author = {{Brems, Eva}},
booktitle = {{Migration and the European Convention on Human Rights}},
editor = {{Çalı, Başak and Bianku, Ledi and Motoc, Iulia}},
isbn = {{9780192895196}},
keywords = {{HRC,ECtHR,Positive subsidiarity,Islamophobia,racism,face veil,subsidiarity,religious freedom,minority rights}},
language = {{eng}},
pages = {{196--216}},
publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},
series = {{European Society of International Law Series}},
title = {{Islamophobia and the ECtHR : a test case for positive subsidiarity for the protection of Europe’s long-term migrants?}},
url = {{http://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192895196.003.0009}},
volume = {{4}},
year = {{2021}},
}
- Altmetric
- View in Altmetric