The Turkish translation of 'Promoting Freedom of Religion or Belief and Gender Equality in the Context of the Sustainable Development Goals: A Focus on Access to Justice, Education and Health' report is published.
In the report, which stands out as the first UN human rights report focused on antisemitism, it is noted with serious concern that the frequency of antisemitic incidents appears to be increasing in magnitude in several countries.
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) has published the "2019 Hate Crime Report".
The İstanbul 4th Administrative Court has given its final judgment on an appeal by a parent, who requested her child to be exempted from compulsory religion class. The court has ruled that the class is against the principle of equality.
The Court found that the difference in treatment suffered by the applicant, as a beneficiary of a will drawn up in accordance with the Civil Code by a testator of Muslim faith, as compared to a beneficiary of a will drawn up in accordance with the Civil Code by a non-Muslim testator, had had no objective and reasonable justification. There had therefore been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
Turkey's Constitutional Court says university student's right of education, freedom of religion was violated with ban
While the judgment is positive, there is urgent need for putting inlace necessary legal measures.
The Court’s ruling in Lachiri is to be welcome for its main finding, namely that prohibiting a private person from wearing a religious dress in a courtroom cannot be justified by the protection of public order and violates the right to religious freedom. However, this judgment remains focused on the specificities of the case and does little to clarify to what extent and in what circumstances religious dress prohibition may be deemed compatible with the Convention in other situations.
The Strasbourg Court concluded that the Austrian court had acted within its margin of appreciation by finding that "the impugned statements as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate and classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam".
“Lo and behold, we have been free but we didn’t know it.”