The State’s Right to Err: Why David Kenny Now Supports Murphy v. Ireland

In Murphy v. Ireland (2003), the European Court of Human Rights decided in favor of the state’s power to prevent a radio station from broadcasting a religious advertisement, based on public order concerns. David Kenny of Trinity College Dublin was initially disappointed that the Strasbourg Court did not find against Ireland. But over time he came to see the decision differently. While he still does not approve of the Irish domestic court decisions that were challenged to the ECtHR, he has reconsidered his opinion on how the ECtHR, as an international court, should deal with cases when religious sensitivities are involved. Kenny explains why he is still skeptical about the “view from Dublin” on Murphy but appreciates “the view from Strasbourg.”

(more…)

Continue ReadingThe State’s Right to Err: Why David Kenny Now Supports Murphy v. Ireland

Context Matters: Michel Rosenfeld on Rethinking His Initial Support of the ECtHR Judgement in Leyla Şahin v. Turkey

In Leyla Şahin v. Turkey (2004), the European Court of Human Rights sided with the Turkish government in prohibiting a medical student to wear the hijab on public university property. Michel Rosenfeld (Benjamine N. Cardozo School of Law) explains why he changed his opinion regarding the Court’s Leyla Şahin judgment and why he believes that, had it been decided in 2026, the case would have required a different approach.

(more…)

Continue ReadingContext Matters: Michel Rosenfeld on Rethinking His Initial Support of the ECtHR Judgement in Leyla Şahin v. Turkey

Correct Bits that Do Not Fit: Elizabeth A. Clark on the ECtHR Grand Chamber’s Unsettling Judgement in Lautsi v. Italy

In Lautsi v. Italy (2011), the European Court of Human Rights considered whether a crucifix displayed in an Italian public-school classroom violated a non-Catholic student’s right to religious freedom. While a chamber of the Court decided in favor of the student, the Grand Chamber later sided with the Italian government and found the crucifix to be a passive symbol that did not infringe the student’s and his parents’ rights. Elizabeth A. Clark explains how her experience as a member of a religious minority group complicates her views of the Grand Chamber’s Lautsi judgment.

(more…)

Continue ReadingCorrect Bits that Do Not Fit: Elizabeth A. Clark on the ECtHR Grand Chamber’s Unsettling Judgement in Lautsi v. Italy