Search results

On October 15, 2015, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of Perinçek v. Switzerland. The judgment contested a criminal provision applied in Switzerland against a Turkish politician who had publicly denied a historical fact of the Armenian genocide. Notwithstanding variations in reasoning, the outcome in the Grand Chamber is similar to the previous decision of the Chamber on this case in 2013. The Swiss criminal provision applied in the context of the denial of the Armenian genocide was again found irreconcilable with freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Zakharov v. Russia held that the Russian system of surveillance constituted a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This decision is not the first judgment concerning surveillance, but it is of note because it is a Grand Chamber judgment in which the ECtHR drew together strands of its existing case law. It comes at a time when national systems of surveillance are the subject of much scrutiny: further cases are pending before the ECtHR.

On July 1, 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court or the Grand Chamber) delivered its judgment in the case of S.A.S. v. France pertaining to the legality of the French ban on wearing full-face veils in public, introduced by Law No. 2010-1192 of October 11, 2010. The decision comes on the heels of a number of related judgments in adjacent areas of dispute circumscribing the right to privacy and religion and delimiting the circumstances that may justify interference with such fundamental human rights. In the present case, the Court for the first time had to deal with a general ban on certain clothing that arguably, for those most affected, epitomizes the manifestation of their religion. Accepting the principle of "living together (le 'vivre ensemble')" as an inherent element of the "rights and freedoms of others" in the French context and conceding a wide margin of appreciation to the respondent state in preserving that principle, the Court found no violation of the applicant's rights to respect for her private life (Article 8) and to freedom of religion (Article 9) under the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention).

Correction to "Professional Decline and Resistance: The Case of Library and Archives Canada" by Tami Oliphant and Michael McNally, published in Radical Teacher 99.

AbstractIslamic religious education has been going on since the introduction of Islam to Indonesia. From that time until now there has been dynamics of Islamic education in Indonesia. When Indonesian independence, the one that concerns the government and people of Indonesia is issues related to religious education. To find out about the religious education policy can be traced through the education law in Indonesia starting from the enactment of Law No. 4 of l950 to Act No. 20 of 2003. In the whole of the law, always there is linking it with Islamic education (PAI). It has been so born a number of religious education policies that include Islamic education.Keywords: national education system, the Law of education, Islamic Education

On November 4, 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) held in Tarakhel v. Switzerland, in a 14 to 3 decision, that Swiss authorities would violate Article 3 (prohibition of torture/inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights (European Convention) if the applicants were to be expelled to Italy, in application of the Dublin Regulation, without Switzerland having first obtained assurances from the Italian authorities that "the applicants would be taken charge of in a manner adapted to the age of the children and that the family would be kept together."

On May 27, 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights rendered its judgment in the case of Marguš v. Croatia. The applicant, who had served in the Croatian Army, was convicted of war crimes in 2007, following an earlier decision in 1997 to grant him amnesty for these crimes. A majority of the Grand Chamber drew on Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention) and general international law to argue that Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 of the Convention (the right not to be tried or punished twice) was inapplicable in these circumstances and that the applicant's claim on this point was inadmissible. The Grand Chamber also ruled that there had been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial).

In our critique of a recent article by Sudha Pai (CIS vol. 34, no. 2) we argue that she provides inadequate evidence to support her case that there has been a dramatic change in dominance relationships in western UP. We identify problems of evidence in her claims about the significance of rising education of Chamars, and in the consequences of the changes that have taken place. We also suggest that her account of dominance needs to consider the erstwhile dominant as well as the dominated, and that she ignores evidence of the extent to which previously dominant castes have merely changed the ways in which they enforce compliance when necessary. Her evidence of change is inadequate: she provides perceptions of changes instead. We also question the generalisability of her predictions, and use data from our own ongoing research in Bijnor district to suggest a modified picture of increasing access to schooling among the Chamars of western UP, and its likely effects.