European Court of Human Rights on Shariah Law: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
no edit summary
[checked revision][checked revision]
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 61: Line 61:


The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.}}
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.}}
{{Quote||As I do every year, I will tonight outline some of the main messages which emerge from
our case-law over the past year. This year I shall talk about four cases.
The first concerned the dissolution, by the Turkish Constitutional Court, of a political
party, the Welfare Party, on the grounds that it wanted to introduce sharia law and a
theocratic regime. A Grand Chamber of the Court found unanimously that there had been
no violation of Article 11 of the Convention, which protects freedom of association. This
case gave the Court the opportunity to conduct an in-depth analysis of the relationship
between the Convention and democracy, political parties, and religion.
In its judgment1
, the Court first noted that freedom of thought, of religion, of expression
and of association as guaranteed by the Convention could not deprive the authorities of a
State in which an association, through its activities, jeopardised that State’s institutions, of
the right to protect those institutions. It necessarily followed that a political party whose
leaders incited to violence or put forward a policy which failed to respect democracy or
which was aimed at the destruction of democracy and the flouting of the rights and
freedoms recognised in a democracy, could not lay claim to the Convention’s protection
against penalties imposed on those grounds. Such penalties could even, where there was a
sufficiently established and imminent danger for democracy, take the form of preventive
intervention.
Noting that the Welfare Party had pledged to set up a regime based on sharia law, the
Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as
set forth in the Convention. It considered that “sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas
and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism
in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it”.
According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverged
from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal
procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of
private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.
There is no doubt that this judgment is one of the major judgments of the Court in which
it endeavours to define the shape and the boundaries of democracy and the rule of law. }}
==See Also==
* [[Library]] ''- WikiIslam's online library of books''
{{Hub4|Human Rights|Human Rights}}
==External Links==
==References==
{{reflist}}


{{page_title|European Court of Human Rights on Shari'ah Law}}
{{page_title|European Court of Human Rights on Shari'ah Law}}
48,466

edits

Navigation menu