nach oben

Human Rights Review

Erschienen in:

17.06.2016

The Legitimacy of Using the Harm Principle in Cases of Religious Freedom Within Education

verfasst von: Georgia du Plessis

Erschienen in: Human Rights Review | Ausgabe 3/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

John Stuart Mill’s famous “harm principle” has been popular in the limitation of freedoms within human rights jurisprudence. It has been used formally in court cases and also informally in legal argumentation and conversation. Shortly, it is described as a very simple principle that amounts to the notion that persons are at liberty to do what they want as long as their actions do not harm any other person or society in general. This article questions whether it is legitimate to use the harm principle in cases concerning the limitation of religious freedom within education. For example, can the exemption of a learner from sex education (based on religious objections) be denied based on the argument that such an exemption will cause harm? In order to answer this question, the meaning, origin and use of the harm principle are investigated. This article also discusses four main criticisms against the use of this principle in general and in cases of religious freedom of learners in education.

Vorheriger Artikel Cutting with the Grain: Human Rights, Conflict Transformation and the Urban Planning System—Lessons from Northern Ireland

Nächster Artikel Interpretation of the Prohibition of Torture: Making Sense of ‘Dignity’ Talk

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) was raised in the tradition of Philosophical Radicalism (Brink 2013, p. 1).

Emphasis added. Gray 1996, p. 48.

One of the objectives of non-confessional religious education is to provide learners with an enlightened view of other religions. For example, in South Africa (a liberal democracy) paragraph 7 of the South African National Policy on Religion and Education, 2003, the aim of religious education is stated to build a future based on progressive values. Paragraph 18 states that it has to provide the desirable social ends, such as expanding understanding, increasing tolerance, and reducing prejudice…”

See for example, Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen Application no. 5095/71; 5920/72; 5926/72, 7 December 1976.

R v. Malmo-Levine; R v. Caine [2003] 3 SCR 571 and Amselem v Syndicat Northcrest [2004] 2 RCS.

Application no. 319/08

Also see S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes, 2012 SCC.

Commonwealth v. Bonadio, 490 Pa. 91, 415 A.2d 47 (1980), p. 96.

Also see In the matter of Conservatorship of Groves, 109 S.W. 3d 317, 328 (Tenn. Ct. App.2003) and Armstrong v. State, 989 P.2d 364, 373 (Mont. Sup. Ct. 1999).

R v Malmo-Levine, 2003 SCC 74: par 111.

“Everyone has the right to life…except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”.

Malmo-Levine, par 127.

Mill (1859, p. 53) argues that there should be different “experiments of living” and “free scope” should be given to variation of character, short of injuring others. How he reconciles this with utilitarianism is much debated and can be found in Gray (1996).

Application no. 7511/76; 7743/76, 25 February 1982, paragraph 33.

In history society’s perception of children’s sexuality and their sexual knowledge has shifted significantly and differed between cultures (Sauerteig and Davidson 2009, p. 2).

Paris, 20.III.1952.

Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution Act 1982 states: “1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law…”

“1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion…subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals…”.

Article 9(2): “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

Ahdar R and Leigh I (2005) Religious Freedom in the Liberal State. Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRef

Aristotle (350 BC) Politics, book eight, part II, translated by Benjamin Jowett. Classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html. Accessed 20 April 2016.

Benson IT (2011) Unexamined Faiths and the Public Place of Religion: Emerging insights from the law. Acta Theologica 14:1–19.

Benson IT (2013) An Associational Framework for the Reconciliation of Competing Rights Claims Involving the Freedom of Religion. Dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand.

Brink DO (2013) Mill’s Progressive Principles. Oxford University Press, UK.CrossRef

Cohen-Almagor R (2012) Between Autonomy and State Regulation: JS Mill’s Elastic Paternalism. Philosophy 87:557–582.CrossRef

Coleman EB and White K (eds) (2011) Religious Tolerance, Education and the Curriculum. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, Boston, Taipei.

Curren R (ed) (2007) Philosophy of Education: An Anthology. Blackwell Publishing, USA, UK, Australia.

De Groof J and Lauwers G (eds) (2004) No Person shall be denied the Right to Education: The Influence of the European Convention on Human Rights on the Right to Education and Rights in Education. Wolf Legal Publishers, Netherlands.

Durham WC (2013) Introduction. In: Davis DH and Miroshinikova E (eds) The Routledge International Handbook fo Religious Education. Routledge, London, pp 1–12.

Dworkin R (2013) Religion without God. Harvard University Press, England.

Feinberg J (1984) Harm to Others: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, New York.

Feinberg J (1985) Offense to Others: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, New York.

Feinberg J (1992) The Child’s Right to an Open Future. Originally published in Freedom and Fulfillment: Philosophical Essays. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Feyerabend P (1987) Farewell to Reason. Verso, London, New York.

George RP (1993) Making men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Gray JN (1996) Mill on Liberty: A Defence. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

Hamilton MA (2014) God vs. the Gavel: The Perils of Extreme Religious Liberty, Revised Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, New York.CrossRef

Harcourt BE (2013) The Collapse of the Harm Principle Redux, On Same-Sex Marriage, the Supreme Court’s Opinion in United States v. Windsor, John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty (1859), and H.L.A. Hart’s Modern Harm Principle. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1421&context=public_law_and_legal_theory. Accessed 1 December 2015.

Harcourt BE (2014) Mill’s On Liberty and the Modern “Harm to Others” Principle. In: Dubber MD (ed) Foundational Texts in Modern Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, UK, pp 163–182.CrossRef

Harris N (2007) Education, Law and Diversity. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon.

Hart HLA (1959) Immorality and Treason, originally appearing in The Listener, reprinted in Morality and the Law (1971), p 51.

Imber M and Van Geel T (2000) Education Law, 2nd edn, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, New Jersey.

Levine RJ (2004) In Harm’s Way: The Limits to Legislating Criminal Law. Supreme Court Law Review 24:195–216.

Locke J (1975) An Essay concerning Human Understanding. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

MacIntyre A (1984) After Virtue, 2nd edn. University of Notre Dame Press. Notre Dame, Indiana.

Maclure J and Taylor C (2011) Secularism and Freedom of Conscience, translated by Jane Marie Todd, Originally published as Laïcité et liberté de conscience. Les Éditions du Boréal, Montreal, Canada.

Mill JS (1859) On Liberty. Kitchener, Batoche Books.

Mill JS (1863) On Liberty. Ticknor and Fields, Boston.

Mill JS (1848) Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy. Translated by Ashley WJ, 7th edn, Longmans, Green and Co, London.

Mill JS (1915) Principles of Political Economy. Ashley Edition.

Rawls J (1999) A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, USA.

Raz J (1986) The Morality of Freedom. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Rousseau J (1762) Du Contrat Social (The Social Contract). In: Masters R and Kelly C (eds) Collected Writings (13 volumes) (1990–2010). University Press of New England, Dartmouth.

Sadurski W (1990) Joseph Razon Liberal Neutrality and the Harm Principle. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 10:122–133.CrossRef

Sauerteig LDH and Davidson R (2009) Shaping the Sexual Knowledge of the Young: Introduction. In: Sauerteig LDH and Davidson R (eds) Shaping Sexual Knowledge: A Cultural History of Sex Education in Twentieth Century Europe, Routledge, New York, pp 1–15.

Siegel H (ed) (2009) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Smith SD (2006) Is the Harm Principle Illiberal? American Journal of Jurisprudence 51:1–42.CrossRef

Somervell DC (1929) English Thought in the Nineteenth Century. London.

Taylor C (1994) The Politics of Recognition. Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Van der Vyver J (2005) Limitations of freedom of religion or belief: International Law Perspectives. Emory International Law Review 19:499.

West EG (1965a) Liberty and Education: John Stuart Mill’s Dilemma. The Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, https://egwestcentre.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/liberty-and-education.pdf. Accessed 1 December 2015. Accessed 4 May 2015.

West EG (1965b) Liberty and Education: John Stuart Mill’s Dilemma. Philosophy 40:129–142.CrossRef

Williams GL (1976) Mill’s Principle of Liberty. Political Studies XXIV:132–140.CrossRef

Wollheim R (1973) JS Mill and the Limits of State Action. Soc Res 40:1–30.

Titel: The Legitimacy of Using the Harm Principle in Cases of Religious Freedom Within Education
verfasst von: Georgia du Plessis
Publikationsdatum: 17.06.2016
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Human Rights Review / Ausgabe 3/2016
Print ISSN: 1524-8879
Elektronische ISSN: 1874-6306
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-016-0415-5

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2016

Human Rights and the Universal Periodic Review: Rituals and Ritualism by Hilary Charlesworth and Emma Larking (Eds.)

An Ethnographic Approach to Peacebuilding: Understanding Local Experiences in Transitional States by Gearoid Millar

The Securitization of Society: Crime, Risk, and Social Order by Marc Schuilenburg

Interpretation of the Prohibition of Torture: Making Sense of ‘Dignity’ Talk

The ICC and the Prevention of Atrocities: Criminological Perspectives

Taking Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Seriously in International Criminal Law by Evelyne Schmid