Freedom of Religious Expression and Gender Equality: Sahin v Turkey
| Published date | 01 May 2006 |
| Date | 01 May 2006 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2006.00591_1.x |
The judgment in Hirst is alsowelcome because it downgrades the role of public
opinionwhich has been a majori n£uence on penal policyin the UK.The percep-
tion of the importance of public opinion, and the fear of alienating the public
have been key factors in increasing the populist punitiveness of successive Gov-
ernments, but the Cou rt rightly concluded that these should be given a low
weighting where rights iss ues are concerned.
56
The UK Government’s claim that
¢nding the ban disproportionate would be o¡ensive to the majority met with
short shrift from the Court. As Judge Ca£isch noted, even if this were to o¡end
the public, ‘decisions taken by the court are not made to please . . . members of
public but to uphold huma n rights principles’.
57
However, the court in Hirst could have given more guidance on appropriate
measures torestore prisoner enfranchisement. By giving some leeway to states to
devise appropriatesystems of disquali¢cations, the decision in Hirst meansthatwe
still could end upwith a hierarchy of voting quali¢cations. As noted earlier, the
Government is consideringwhether to restore voting rights to selectedcategories
of prisoners. It is not yet clear how they might be selected but given the Govern-
ment’s emphasis on the punitive role of the measure it is likely that they would
reserve abar on votingfor those convictedof more serious o¡ences, but againthis
wouldbe open to the objections discussed above andwould not meetthe require-
ments fora risk-based rationale.
By not being more speci¢c on what is acceptable, we now face the prospect of
ad hoc solutions and further problems of arbitrariness, when the better solution
would be to restore the vote to all prisoners. It is ironic that the Government has
declared a commitment to promoting universal su¡rage,
58
is concerned about
underregistration among the electorate, and has introduced a new bill this ses-
sion,
59
which,is designed inter aliato improve electoral registration,but at the same
time it continues to exclude convicted prisoners.
Freedom of Religious Expression and Gender Equality:
Sahin vTu r k e y
Jill Ma rshall
n
It . . . appears di⁄cult to reconcile the wearing of an Islamic headscarf with the mes-
sage of tolerance,respect for others and, above all, equality and non-discrimination
that all teachers in a democratic society must convey tothe ir pupils.Da hlab vSwit-
zerland at p 13.
56 HirstvUK (No.2),Application No.74 025/01, para 71.
57 ibid., para 4.
58 See H. Harman, Speech to Electoral Administrators, September 2005.
59 The Electoral Administration Bill, published11th October20 05.The Bill al so includes new mea-
sures to combatelectoral fraud.
n
Department of Law,Queen Mary, University of London.
Religious Freedom and Ge nder Equality
452 rThe ModernLaw Review Limited 2006
To continue reading
Request your trial