The emerging counter-defamation of religion discourse: a critical analysis

The emerging counter-defamation discourse is a morally but above all legally flawed development. The concept has stirred politicians and academics alike. In the political bodies of the UN, it has divided state representatives into two vehemently opposing camps. In academia, it has largely resulted in critical if not alarming responses. This comes as no surprise if we consider that behind a seemingly benign row over matters of terminology, in actual fact, an attempt at triggering a far-reaching paradigm shift may be hiding. The traditional mechanisms of international human rights law are fairly straightforward: the principal duty-bearer is the state, while the principal rights-holder is the individual. States may be held accountable for either actively infringing upon a person’s fundamental rights, or, occasionally, for failing to pro-actively seek to prevent that certain rights are transgressed. The counter-defamation discourse essentially ushers in -through the back door- a new set of rights-holders: religions per se. Although on the face of it, it may sound as a praiseworthy endeavour to try to awaken or generate a degree of respect for the different religions that are present in a state; this particular approach, however, should be dismissed for the simple reason that it forces individuals to engage in a rather unhealthy competition with religions when it comes to claiming one’s rights and having them guaranteed. In this article it will be argued that, from a human rights perspective, the counter-defamation discourse should be dismissed as a misleading, unnecessary and, ultimately, rather counter-productive development

Rethinking Adjudication under the European Convention

This chapter comments on the Lautsi judgements as a prelude to the core problem the case reveals. In the author views, the Lautsi case demonstrate that it is time for the Court to develop a new mode of adjudication-a form of review which makes it possible to act as a countermajoritarian institution and set a European standard, without infringing state sovereignty. The Chamber’s decision will be analyzed and the tournure of the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in its reference to the margin of appreciation-a doctrine which masks the real basis for its decision. The position of rights under the convention is assessed. The chapter deals with the position of the ECtHR and the question whether the Court can truly be considered a countermajoritarian institution. It also assesses the different modes of judicial review and proposes a new mode of adjudication

Norway: Religion in the Prison System

This chapter provides a basic overview of the regulation of religion in the Norwegian prison system. After a brief introduction, the chapter maps the role of religion in Norwegian correctional facilities from a historical perspective and examines the changing demography of the prisoner population. In the main section of the chapter, the legal and institutional framework for the management of religion in Norwegian correctional facilities is examined in some detail, with an emphasis on how the regulation of religion during imprisonment interacts with other regulations of religion in Norway, what specific international and domestic provisions regulate religion during incarceration, the role of clergy and other religious leaders, and the management of religion as an operational issue for prison staff, including the growing concern with prisons as hotbeds of radical and violent extremism