The ECtHR has concluded that an asylum-seeker who has converted to Christianity will not necessarily face persecution if returned to Iran.
In A v Switzerland ECHR (no. 60342/16), the applicant, an Iranian, entered Switzerland in 2009 and immediately claimed asylum. He brought three sets of asylum proceedings, all without success. In his second application, he submitted at a hearing that he would be at risk if returned to Iran because he had converted from Islam to Christianity. The authorities doubted, however, that his conversion was genuine and rejected his application. Continue reading →
In a cross-post from Human Rights in Ireland, Máiréad Enright of Kent Law School analyses some recent judgments on the rights of foetuses under the Irish Constitution.
Does the unborn have rights other than the right to life enshrined in the 8th Amendment?
It is clear that, under Irish law, foetuses cannot have any greater rights than children already born. However, recent cases have raised the prospect that they have some of the same rights and interests as born children. In PP v. HSE, for instance, the High Court referred to the ‘best interests’ of the foetus who has no prospect of survival outside the womb, analogising its position to that of a child on life support. It is not clear that the ‘unborn’ (the entity recognised or created by the 8th Amendment) is, for constitutional purposes, a child like any other. Recently, the courts have been asked to consider whether foetuses carried by Irish citizens have particular rights other than the right to life, which the state should take into account in assessing whether to deport their non-citizen fathers. Another, broader, way of putting this question is to ask whether the unborn’s rights derive exclusively from the 8th Amendment, or whether it may also enjoy rights grounded in other parts of the Constitution. Continue reading →
Professor Alexis Jay agreed to chair theIndependent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, the Jehovah’s Witnesses failed to head off the Charity Commission’s inquiry into their safeguarding practices – and we discovered the identity of …
… The Minister for Faith and Integration
Readers may be as interested as we were to learn that the faith portfolio in the new Government has been given to Lord (Nick) Bourne of Aberystwyth. A barrister and former Professor of Law at Swansea, he was appointed Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Wales Office in May 2015 and, additionally, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Communities and Local Government on 17 July 2016, where his responsibilities include faith and integration, community cohesion and racial equality. We came across the information about his appointment entirely by accident, in a report in Jewish News.
Charity Commission inquiry into Jehovah’s Witnesses to proceed
On Friday, Third Sector (£) reported that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society of Great Britain cannot prevent the Charity Commission from opening a statutory inquiry into the charity’s safeguarding practices, after the Court of Appeal had refused in Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Britain & Ors v The Charity Commission EWCA Civ 154 to set aside the Commission’s decision to open the inquiry. Continue reading →
A week in which everything else paled into insignificance in the wake of the murder of Jo Cox MP and the massacre at Orlando…
As we have noted previously, the Government has been blowing hot and cold on the issue of inspecting education – broadly defined – outside the school system. Ministers had at first given assurances that they did not intend that Ofsted should start regulating Sunday schools, summer camps and intensive choir rehearsals. It then appeared that the Counter-Extremism and Safeguarding Bill was going to include provisions – unspecified – on the inspection of out-of-school education settings. However, in reply to a Question in the Lords from Lord Mawhinney, Lord Nash (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education) seems to have clarified the situation: Continue reading →
FG is an Iranian who arrived in Sweden in November 2009 claiming asylum. In his initial asylum application, he submitted that he had been politically active against the Iranian regime. He also mentioned that he had converted to Christianity after coming to Sweden but said that he did not wish to rely on it as a ground for asylum because he considered it a personal matter. He was refused asylum on political grounds but requested a stay of deportation, relying on his conversion to Christianity as a new fact to be taken into consideration. His request was refused; however, he took the matter to the ECtHR and his expulsion was stayed by an interim ruling in October 2011 under Rule 39 of the ECtHR Rules of Court that he should not be expelled to Iran while the Court was considering his case. In the Chamber judgment of 16 January 2014, the Court rejected his application by four votes to three: he appealed to the Grand Chamber. Continue reading →
The Grand Chamber ECHR has announced what is, in effect, a friendly settlement in the case of WH v Sweden.
The applicant, a divorced Iraqi woman who had arrived in Sweden in 2007, applied for asylum in January 2008, explaining that she had left Iraq, where she and her family had suffered threats, because of the generally insecure situation for Mandaeans, the Gnostic religious group to which she belonged. The Mandaean community now lives largely in Iran, Syria and Jordan and in diaspora communities elsewhere, because the Iraqi community, which used to number some 60–70,000 people, collapsed and mostly relocated in the aftermath of the Iraq War. In October 2008 the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) rejected her application and ordered her return to Iraq on the grounds that the situation there did not constitute valid grounds for asylum. A subsequent appeal was rejected and she took her case to Strasbourg. Continue reading →