That was 2017, that was…
The General Election, Brexit and human rights
Inevitably, much of 2017 was dominated by the General Election and by Brexit – the second of which led directly to the first, when David Cameron resigned in June 2016 after losing the referendum and was succeeded by Theresa May. Mrs May decided that she needed her own mandate and the rest, as they say, is history: her small working majority was converted into a small working minority and she retained power only by negotiating a “Confidence and Supply” agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party.
The Conservative Manifesto said that a Conservative Government would not incorporate the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights into UK law but that the Human Rights Act 1998 would not be repealed or replaced while the Brexit process was under way. Crucially: “We will remain signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights for the duration of the next [ie the present\ parliament” [p 37]. Continue reading
Another cross-post in the series that began with Helge Årsheim’s essay on bureaucracy and religion: Lourdes Peroni, a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Ghent University’s Human Rights Center, suggests that administrative decisions are not always as “apolitical” as the administrators would seek to claim
Helge Årsheim importantly draws attention to the largely overlooked workings of the “machinery in between” that silently determines the borders of legal religion. I agree with him on the need for more scholarly attention to the bureaucratic apparatus that boringly – but crucially – determines “the shape and scope of religion.”
In my current research on migration and gender, I have been trying to draw international human rights law’s attention to the different kinds of borders that work domestically to limit migrant women’s enjoyment of human rights. Continue reading
In a further cross-post triggered by Helge Årsheim’s essay on bureaucracy and religion, Richard Amesbury, Chair and Professor of Philosophy & Religious Studies at Clemson University, suggests that administrative decisions are not always as “apolitical” as the administrators would seek to claim.
In his post “Deus in Machina,” Helge Årsheim calls attention to the role civil servants play in shaping religious freedom, grinding out decisions on “the proper legal boundaries of religious beliefs, practices, organizations, buildings, garments and dietary products every day.” Where much recent scholarship on law and religion has pointed to the “juridification” of religion, Årsheim emphasizes its bureaucratization. God is in the machine, and the devil in the details.
One reason this is significant is that bureaucratic, administrative governance takes place largely out of sight, in a zone in which sovereignty is experienced as “soft” and diffuse, a matter less of decision than of discretion. Continue reading
We previously cross-posted an essay by Helge Årsheim on bureaucracy and religion. In the following, also cross-posted from The Religion Factor, Méadhbh McIvor, Assistant Professor in Religion, Law and Human Rights at the University of Groningen, responds by reflecting on sex, politics, and legal tedium.
My first thought upon reading Årsheim’s call to engage with legal tedium and bureaucracy was of an academic tool that is equally dull, but highly useful: the trusty footnote. More specifically, I thought of a two-sentence footnote buried in the second chapter of my PhD thesis. Continue reading
In this guest post, cross-posted with permission from Religion Going Public, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the University of Oslo Faculty of Theology, explains that “Civil servants determine the shape and scope of religion in every section of society. Here’s how they get away with it.”
The literature and news cycles on religious freedom tend to be dominated by big, principally important cases, where the foundational principles of liberal democracy are in the balance. Continue reading
A Bank Holiday supplement to our weekly round-up
We have made a further compilation of “Quick Answers” to questions which have arisen from searches of, or comments during the past week or so, providing links to our blog posts addressing these issues. The topics covered in these “Saturday Supplements” does not necessarily represent our most-read blogs, but reflects the current interests of readers accessing the site on (mostly) contemporary issues. Continue reading