Law and the wearing of religious symbols
| Published date | 01 December 2012 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1358229112468377 |
| Date | 01 December 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Book review |
Book review
Law and the wearing
of religious symbols:
European bans on the
wearing of religious
symbols in education
Myriam Hunter-Henin
Reviewed by: Erica Howard, Routledge 2012, Myriam Hunter-Henin, University College London, UK
All over the world, the challenges of defining the scope and boundaries of the degree of
public recognition and accommodation that ought to be given to religious faiths and
practices have come to occupy a place at the forefront of the public debate (Shachar,
2011: 1).
These challenges are particularly acute in respect of religious symbols – one of the
most visible manifestation of religion – and take a particular importance in the school
context (Hunter-Henin, 2012a: 10). State schools are both the bedrock of a nation’s
values and the means by which it helps to form good citizens. Education, moreover,
clearly belongs to the public sphere, which includes the state education system. State
schools represent emblematically the chosen national model of Church/State relation-
ships – and that model is often the result of historical conflicts in which schools were
the battleground. Schools, from the state and independent sectors alike, are vital places
for the building of a cohesive society and for the transmission of the nation’s cultural
heritage – including its religious traditions (Ha¨ußler, 2001: 465). Consequently, any
challenge to a given legal solution aimed at accommodating religious freedoms in school
is often perceived as a direct threat to a nation’s identity.
The recent radicalisation of the debatein certain European jurisdictions with legislation
banning the wearing of full-face veils in the whole of the public sphere
1
has increased the
sensitivity of the chosen topic.
In this rather confrontational context, Erica Howard’s monograph provides a welcome
note of moderation, conciliation and negotiation.
In this conciliatory tone and in a very accessible style, Howard takes her reader to an
impressive number of various jurisdictions, whether at national or supra-national level.
The breadth of her analysis thus includes England, France, Belgium, the Netherlands,
Germany, Sweden, the United States and Canada as well as the jurisprudence of the Eur-
opean Court of Human Rights and EU law. The focus of the book is on judicial activity
and therefore also usefully covers a wealth of case law. The starting point of the analysis
International Journalof
Discrimination and theLaw
12(4) 243–250
ªThe Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1358229112468377
jdi.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial