From burkinis to unanaesthetised slaughter: in search of straightforwardness in decisions
The topic of religious freedom has been in the news twice this month. Last week, with the rejection in the Brussels parliament of a ban on the unanaesthetised slaughter of animals. And a second time on 7 June, when the European Court of Human Rights declared admissible a complaint from our office on a case concerning a burkin ban in Antwerp.
That the European Court declared a complaint admissible is news. In fact, that only happens in 2% of cases. It is strange, of course: the Court of Appeal in Antwerp had upheld a burkini ban in a swimming pool, while the Court of Appeal in Ghent, in an identical situation, had dismissed such a ban. Identical cases, but different jurisprudence.
Why is it that judges in the same territory come to different decisions? Or also politicians in the case of unanaesthetised slaughter? The debate around religious freedom is clearly fuelled by emotions. Walter and Johan distance themselves and look with an open mind.
- Mr Johan Vande Lanotte and Mr Walter Van Steenbrugge
