The concept of equality Essay

Due to the constantly shifting dynamics in various cultures, the idea of equality is widely accepted today. Since change is a constant in life, people must learn to adapt because, among other things, new ideas and reforms are anticipated circumstances. Additionally, equality is a contentious topic because people’s views on it vary depending on how society interprets the problem. It is challenging to have a consistent viewpoint about equality that benefits everyone in light of the different rules, such as anti-discrimination laws, workplace dress codes, or codes of conduct, among other regulations. For this reason, this report will critically explore ways the European Convention on Human Rights, Equality Act 2010, and EU law assist express their religion or belief by dress codes and uniform rules.

Defining ECHR, EU Law, and Equality Act 2010

After World War II, the Council of Europe formed the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in 1949 with the aim of protecting fundamental human rights of people from countries that belonged to the Council of Europe (European Convention on Human Rights). Furthermore, the convention is comprised of different Articles and Protocols that identify and characterize the specific rights and freedoms of people it protects. Consequently, Article 8 and Article 9 contribute effectively to safeguard the rights of a population regarding their religion and beliefs. Another regulation responsible for protecting human rights is the European Union Law, which also has a set of rules that govern nations that form part of the EU and some of the regulations fight work related injustice (EU law par. 1). Finally, according to Government Equalities Office and Equality and Human Rights Commission, Equality Act 2010 protects employees from workplace discrimination by the implementation of a single act that replaces previous anti-discrimination laws (par. 1). Overall, these three rules provide a platform for workers to understand their rights and can use them to fight against injustice such as once that deny employees to express their religion or belief based on dress code or uniforms. In this report, several different cases and policies will be utilized to explore the issue of religious freedom based on workplace dress code or uniforms. It becomes essential that readers understand the concepts from an objective point of view and get a more comprehensive perspective on the role of the laws.

Eweida v the United Kingdom and Chaplin v the United Kingdom App.

In the case of “Eweida v the United Kingdom and Chaplin v the United Kingdom App,” the ECHR plays significant roles in protecting people’s right to religion based on uniform rules. In this case, EHCR ensures that affected victims receive damages from their employees if their case meets the EHCR’s guidelines. The case documents a public dispute between a British Airways (BA) and one of the company’s staff over uniform policies. As a Christian, Eweida argued that her faith required her to wear a chain that had a small cross around her neck all the time even in her workplace. According to article 9 of ECHR, the rule discourages the discrimination of an individual based on the person’s religious beliefs and that appeared to be the case of Eweida (European Convention on Human Rights 10). For this reason, ECHR by the laws of ECHR awarded the plaintiff damages because the government of the United Kingdome failed to protect the employee’s right (Biddulph 183). The ECHR argues that every individual has the right to practice their religion and that should not be a factor for consideration. Moreover, if a company uses that as an argument to terminate the worker’s role, then it is unjustifiable since it is unlawful to compare people’s performance based on their religious background because people have different belief systems and preferences (Pitt 400). Consequently, awarding Eweida, the damages proved that ECHR valued human rights and ensured that people could work and receive equal treatment like the rest of the staff without being limited by their faith or beliefs.

Similarly, the ECHR valued and protected people’s right to religion by playing a vital role in BA’s decision to change its policies to accommodate uniform systems that support staffs beliefs and faith. When BA placed Eweida on unpaid leave accusing the employee of breaching the organization’s contract, Eweida disputed BA’s policy arguing that such a policy discriminated against other employees. Additionally, Eweida also claimed that the uniform policy also made BA act on double standards since it allowed other religions such as Muslims the freedom to dress in accordance to their religion but dismissed Eweida’s practice of wearing the cross as expected of her faith. Equally, ECHR supported Eweida because the UK courts focused more on the company’s image rather than striking a right balance by ensuring that the employee’s rights were respected just as the image of the firm (Case of Eweida and Others V. The United Kingdom 5). The moral of this case is that ECHR ensures that it weighs the strength of the case by focusing on ECHR’s articles and using the guiding principles to make sure that workers’ rights are upheld as desired. It seems that after ECHR dismissed UK courts arguments and asked the state to pay the worker damages for not protecting her rights, BA revisited its policies and amended them to meet all religious freedom concerning uniform policy. Currently, BA allows staffs to exercise their freedom of religion by dressing by what their faith mandates (Eweida and others v The United Kingdom: ECHR par. 10). However, the employee has to prove the validity of their claim that particular dress code is part of the staff’s faith or the company has a right to dismiss false allegations and punish the employee for fraud cases.

Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council [2007] IRLR 484 (EAT)

Article 9 of European Convention on Human Rights permits individuals the freedom of conscience, religion, and thought (10). Every individual has the freedom to worship, and the article suggests that not even the state can deny a civilian that right. In “Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council [2007] IRLR 484 (EAT),” this case helps elaborate how ECHR should protect persons prevented from expressing their religion based on their dress codes. Azmi, a staunch Muslim requested the school to allow her to wear a veil when interacting with male teachers since her faith did not permit women to show their faces in the presence of men (Thomson Reuters 10). However, Azmi’s request to stay veiled was disregarded by the school, which argued that covering the face limited the support workers teaching performance. Equally, the Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council upheld court findings that asking Azmi to unveil while teaching was a necessity to facilitate effective communication between the support worker and the students. Consequently, based on this recommendation, it becomes clear that the institutions demanded Azmi unveil irrespective of her religious belief. Given this argument, the court failed to consider the spiritual demand of the teacher and focused on other factors that met the interest of the school alone. For this reason, ECHR has the potential of helping people like Azmi safeguard their religion instead of supporting or upholding regulations that ban people Muslims from covering their faces where needed. If ECHR validates such bans as it did with the case of a 24-year-old woman who argued that the sanctions that deterred her from veiling violated her religious rights, then shows a bias (BBC News par. 21).

Equally, ECHR should challenge regulations that prevent people from practicing their faith and guide the persons against religious acts such as covering the face to come up with other options that support freedom of religion. For instance, Azmi requested the institution to partner with female teachers only since her faith allows her to remove her veil when around other women. If the school considered this option, then it could have reduced the pressure of forcing Azmi to unveil while in the school premises. Even though the findings of Azmi’s teaching experience suggests that her veiling limited effective communication, that could have changed if the institution agreed to reshuffle the timetable and ensure that the teacher had female partners or teaching assistance alone while carrying out her work duties. However, even though ECHR protects people’s freedom of religion, courts also consider other factors so does ECHR. Azmi’s case might not be different as ECHR rules that unveiling while in the workplace does not discriminate against religious beliefs (Should the Face Veil Be Banned Across The EU? Par. 3). Therefore, it becomes essential that people like Azmi understand the regulations of the school and if they cannot abide by the rules they should consider looking for other jobs that meet their religious demands.

S.A.S. V France, App. No. 43835/11, ECtHR Judgment 1 July 2014

In “S.A.S. v France” the case application analyses ECHR’s contribution to protecting employees from discrimination based on their religion by policies relation to dress code in the workplace. The S.A.S. v France case analyses the case of France banning the idea of covering faces while in the workplace (S.A.S v France 1). After the ban, a woman referring to herself as S.A.S. complained that the ban not only affected her in the workplace but also in public areas. When analyzing the case, it can be argued that people who practice the idea of covering their faces in public places were persons of Muslim culture. Using this argument as seems to separate religion and state and force people t adapt to a secular culture for the common good (Savić 680). In this case, the two out of seventeen judges on this matter that disagreed with the ban believed that the policy was unbiased as it targeted the Islam since they belong to the group that covers their faces as part of their religious customs.

Similarly, the Equality Act 2010 also protects people like S.A.S from discrimination laws like the French ban of covering of heads while in the workplace or public places (Equality Act 2010: Guidance para. 10). As stated earlier, the ban targets women from Muslim cultures and that alone shows that the state of France put more weight on popular culture, which represented a form of discrimination against women. However, S.A.S complaint is protected by Equality Act 2010 when analyzed by sex discrimination as portrayed by the ban. Moreover, article 14 of the EHCR also supports the Equality Act 2010 because it prohibits discrimination. For this reason, Khoury concluded that the Equality Act and ECHR’s guidelines depict that the French ban on full-face veiling represented unlawful treatment that hindered Muslim women from manifesting their beliefs through their dress code (610).

Dakir v Belgium, App. No. 4619/12 and Belkacemi and Oussar v Belgium

Just like the S.A.S. v France case, Dakir v Belgium case also gauges the face covering policy in Belgium. The face veil ban appears to exclusively affect Islamic face veils, which is a form of discrimination. Equally, another provision of the Belgian ban depicts that the penalties associated with this ban only affect the people who veil themselves but not the person who forces another individual to exercise the prohibition (Human Rights Centre of Ghent University 2). With retrospect to this provision, the ban targets women of the Islamic culture, which according to the Equality Act 2010 shows a level of sex discrimination among women based on their discord as part of their way to manifest their religious beliefs. Dakir, the plaintiff, in this case, was fined for dressing in a full veil cloth based on the public face-covering ban. In response to this act, the appellant filled for the annulment of the adaptation of a pre-exiting municipal by-law claiming that the policy breached Article 8 and 9 of the ECHR on the right to respect private life and freedom of religion, thought, and conscience respectively (European Convention on Human Rights 10). The ECHR protects such women because it bases its arguments on the individual as a victim of policies such as a municipal ban that precisely argues that putting on full veil among the Mulsim religion comes as a result of being forced to do so. However, the policy fails to realise that some people do it as based on choice, preference and as a way to manifest their religion.

In the case of Belkacemi and Oussar v, Belgium the case facts were a bit different since the two Belgians affected by the ban were fined for dressing in full-face veils while in public space. ECHR, EU Law, and Equality Act 2010 protect such people because the state courts only deal with facts and follow laws in place including once that were passed to ban full-face veils. However, ECHR, EU Law, and Equality Act 2010 fight for the protection of the person denied the right to manifest religion only because the uniform policies or dress code in public is seen as a threat to the other communities. ECHR, EU Law, and Equality Act 2010 question the need for allowing other people to dress in secular ways yet the same laws ban Muslim women from wearing attires that represent their faith. Additionally, ECHR, EU Law, and Equality Act 2010 also question courts that disregard the freedom of belief and diversity which makes policies such as the once that ban face-covering as inconsequential when it comes to protecting the entire nation Council of the European Union 1). When a group feels threatened by the state, which is when it begins to push back and cause chaos because of the feeling of discrimination. Therefore, ECHR, EU Law, and Equality Act 2010 try to establish a common ground where the state introduces policies that favor every individual rather than focusing on regulations that are seen to target a particular group and making the victims vulnerable.

C-157/15 Samira Achbita, Centrum voor Gelijkheid van Kansen en voor Racismebestrijding v G4S Secure Solutions NV,

In “C-157/15 Samira Achbita, Centrum voor Gelijkheid van Kansen en voor Racismebestrijding v G4S Secure Solutions NV,” the case evaluates the role played by private companies when it comes to deciding the dress code of an employee without interfering with the workers’ ability to manifest their faith (Krause 917). In most if not all western nations, there exists that need to assimilate people or integrate migrants to live in accordance with the way of life of the people of that nation. However, that appears to be a problem because leaving one country to another does not necessarily mean that the individual will leave behind their religious beliefs and adapt to something new. Instead, all migrant should have that freedom of religion and manifest their faith without being limited to factors such as uniform policies and how to dress while in the public eye. Additionally, private employees should not have the luxury of interfering with their staff’s religious beliefs since the business runs under a state law which also protects human rights in the workplace. In this case, the EU based its analysis on the Anti-Discrimination Directive, which supports the philosophy of equal treatment of everyone irrespective of their age, gender, race, or background. Moreover, EU council believes that when courts analyze such a case, they should employ a jury because such a group aims to weigh the case based on the rationality of the argument. Some policies may have a genuine intention, but lawyers and prosecutors can twist the meaning to the extent that it loses meaning as long as it favors their clients. Overall, the challenge faced by EU law is to ensure that the plaintiff religious background and faith is believable.

The ECHR, EU Law, and Equality Act 2010 also aid with the analysis of ideas such as who can a private employer dismissing an employee from the workplace for practicing her religion. In the “Samira Achbita & Anor v G4S Secure Solutions NV,” the case was controversial since the EU law questioned the principle of equality established in article 2(2) (a) of Council of Directive. It is expected that the section stops employers from exploiting or discriminating minorities by dismissing or terminating their employment based on religious ground. For this reason, the EU law helps victims of such circumstance to know their rights and help them fight for their freedom of manifesting their religion despite the regulations put in place by the company. Samira, a G4S employee, was dismissed for using a headscarf while in the workplace yet the firm had written guidelines that discourage such actions. However, based on the Council of directives it becomes questionable why private employers are allowed to include such restrictions that limit their employees from practicing their right. The EU law ensures that such irregularities do not exist by fighting for the victim and interpreting policies such as one that denies an employee the freedom to enjoy her religious rights. Consequently, according to EU law, private companies should not be allowed to discriminate against their workers for the benefit of the organization. Employees who face such limitations should understand that ECHR, EU Law, and Equality Act 2010 ensure that equal treatment is exercised at all cost irrespective of what some policies suggest.

C-188/15 Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole Univers SA

This case also analyses the matter of using religious symbols at work, and the role played by customers in deciding how a person should dress within the workplace. In the case of “Asma Bougnaoui,” her employer dismissed her from work after she refused to comply when one of the customers asked her to remove her head wrap. The ECHR, EU Law, and Equality Act 2010 view such a situation as discriminatory since not only the Muslims put on head raps. Even other races such as African American use head wraps to protect their hair from excessive cold or heat to avoid breakage. However, the issue of covering the head seems like a problem because it targets not only women but also persons from the Muslim culture, which makes such a policy questionable by the ECHR, EU Law, and Equality Act 2010. Equally, unlike the French ban that discourages full-face veils, Bougnaoui should not have faced the dismissal because she did not violate that rule. All she did was cover her head by her religious beliefs, and that did not deter her from carrying out her workstation duties. Another problem that represents itself, in this case, is the idea that the court considered the customer’s point of view rather than putting more emphasis on the issue of religious freedom. Therefore, it shows that the court and judge that oversaw the case had a bias opinion by not recognizing the ECHR, EU Law, and Equality Act 2010 that discourages civilians or companies from despising other people because of their religious freedom and ability to express it without feeling ashamed.

Equally, the ECHR, EU Law, and Equality Act 2010 also ensure that the courts do not misinterpret interpretation of Directive 78/2000/EC (Portaru par 5). The problem is not with the laws but how the people understand and interpret them. A person putting on a head wrap does not necessarily make the individual a security threat. Some of the laws that prohibit people from exercising their religion based on their dress codes and uniform policies do so believe that it will reduce the chances of terrorism within the nation. The fear of not knowing the person covered in a full face attire creates all the misunderstandings that the victim might be up to something which may be dangerous to society. However, if that is the case, then the laws should also ban rituals such as Halloween that also encourage some dress codes that also allow people to cover themselves just as the Muslim women. Consequently, instead of courts concentrating and favoring one party when analyzing cases of religious freedom based on uniform policies and dress code in public places, emphasis should be placed on protecting human rights irrespective of the laws put in place.

Conclusion

Most courts fail to realize that the interpretation of laws might impact a victim negatively. When it comes to discrimination cases and other forms of human rights issues, persons responsible for analyzing such matters should ensure that the persons faced by the limitations have a fair hearing. Additionally, the judges should not only base their judgments on the laws but also how it has been interpreted without seeming discriminatory on one party. European Convention on Human Rights, EU law, and Equality Act 2010, have worked and supported persons discriminated and prohibited from manifesting their religious beliefs because of the view that all humans have the freedom to worship. Employers should not hold power to terminate, dismiss, and maintain their staffs pay because they dressed in a way that represents their belief. Instead, companies that value their employees should make laws flexible that accommodate their workers religious perspective, which also contributes to the performance level of the worker. Moreover, the European Convention on Human Rights, Equality Act 2010, and EU law may support some of the regulations depending on the logic put in place. If a particular dress code puts an employee at risk of occupational hazards, then it is rational even for the worker to understand the need for a guideline to safeguard the worker’s life. However, most of the religious dress codes and uniform policies such as a ban on full-face coverings seem to target a specific group, which contributes to cases on inequality, sex discrimination, and workplace judgment.

Works Cited

BBC News. The Islamic Veil across Europe. BBC, 2017,

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13038095. Accessed 30 Dec 2017.

Biddulph, Michelle and Newman, Dwight. “Eweida v United Kingdom.” Australian

International Law Journal. vol. 20, no. 1, (2013), pp183-188.

Case Of Eweida And Others V. The United Kingdom. 2013,

http://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/Case%20Summary%20Eweida%20and%20others%20v%20UK.pdf. Accessed 31 Dec 2017.

Council of the European Union. EU Guidelines on the Promotion and Protection of Freedom of

Religion or Belief. Foreign Affairs Council meeting Luxembourg, 2013, https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/137585.pdf Accessed 2 Jan. 2017.

Equality Act 2010: Guidance. 2013, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010-guidance.

Accessed 1 Jan. 2017

EU Law. European Union, 2017,

https://europa.eu/european-union/law_en. Accessed 28 Dec 2017.

European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbough cedex, n.d.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf. Accessed 28 Dec 2017.

Eweida and others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 15 Jan 2013. 2013, http://swarb.co.uk/eweida-

and-others-v-the-united-kingdom-echr-15-jan-2013/. Accessed 31 Dec 2017.

Government Equalities Office and Equality and Human Rights Commission. Equality Act 2010:

Guidance. Government of UK, 2015,

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010-guidance. Accessed 28 Dec 2017.

Human Rights Centre of Ghent University. European Court of Human Rights: Fouzia Dakir v

Belgium, Application No. 4619/12. n.d.,

http://www.hrc.ugent.be/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Dakir_hrc.pdf. Accessed 2 Jan. 2018.

Pitt, Gwyneth. “Taking Religion Seriously.” Industrial Law Journal. vol. 42, no. 4, 2013, pp398-

408.

Should the Face Veil Be Banned Across The EU? 2014,

http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2014/07/07/face-veil-banned-across-eu/#.WkyGpzeYPIU. Accessed 30 Dec. 2017.

Thomson Reuters. Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council UKEAT/0009/07/MAA;

[2007] IRLR 484, Thomson Reuters Practical Law, 2006, https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/7-375-8114?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1. Accessed 29 Dec. 2017.

S.A.S v France. 2014, http://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/Court%20Watch%20- %20SAS%20v%20France.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan. 2017.

Khoury, Hilary. “S.A.S. v. France: The Full-Face Veil as a Threat to Public Safety and the

Protection of Others.” Tulane Journal of International & Comparative Law, vol. 23, no. 2, 2015, pp. 607-621.

Krause, Rüdiger. “Case C-54/07, Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding

v. Firma Feryn NV, [2008] ECR I-5187.” Common Market Law Review, vol. 47, no. 3, 2010, pp. 917-931.

Savić, Vanja-Ivan. “Still Fighting God in the Public Arena: Does Europe Pursue the Separation

of Religion and State Too Devoutly or Is It Saying It Does Without Really Meaning It?” Brigham Young University Law Review, vol. 2015, no. 3, 2015, pp. 679-726.

Portaru, Adina. CJEU Cases C-157/15 Achbita and C-188/15 Bougnaoui. Does ’Neutrality’

Trump Religious Freedom? 2017, https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/cjeu-cases-c-15715-achbita-and-c-18815-bougnaoui/. Accessed 3 Jan. 2017.