Acceso usuarios
The contribution analyses the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) jurisprudence on religious freedom and hate speech. It focuses on Arts 9 and 10 of the Convention, respectively guaranteeing freedom of religion and freedom of expression. It is argued that, while the Court’s jurisprudence under Art. 9 ostensibly safeguards freedom of religion, irrespective of the specific faith, its restrictive approach towards Islamic symbols reveals a Eurocentric bias. Judgments such as Dahlab or S.A.S. v. France illustrate how notions of secularism, neutrality, and vivre ensemble are applied through a framework of “danger,” casting Islam as incompatible with public order. Conversely, under Art. 10, the Court adopts a more protective stance, condemning Islamophobic speech by private actors on the grounds of safeguarding social peace. This divergence suggests that the Court distinguishes between “State” and “private” Islamophobia, tolerating the former while prohibiting the latter. Such inconsistency raises serious concerns regarding the Court’s capacity to foster genuine pluralism in Europe. Ultimately, by privileging State-imposed restrictions under Art. 9 while simultaneously combating discriminatory expression under Art. 10, the Court risks entrenching systemic Islamophobia, undermining the very principles of religious freedom and equality it is mandated to protect
