歧视与信仰的表现:Higgs 诉 Farmor's 学校 [2023] EAT 89

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q3 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR
Michael Foran
{"title":"歧视与信仰的表现:Higgs 诉 Farmor's 学校 [2023] EAT 89","authors":"Michael Foran","doi":"10.1093/indlaw/dwae009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyses the case of Higgs v Farmor’s School, a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal concerning unlawful discrimination on the basis of the manifestation of protected philosophical beliefs. It discusses the relationship between human rights standards and discrimination law standards in the interpretation of direct discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. While this decision goes a long way towards providing guidance on how this interaction is to be parsed out in the context of discrimination law, it nevertheless leaves certain important questions open. Finally, the paper argues that much of the discussion of proportionality around the censorship of protected belief manifestation is misconstrued. It is commonly accepted without question that the legitimate aim pursued by censorship is the protection of the rights of others. Yet in the cases dealing with manifestation such as this, there is an extremely remote threat to rights, if one exists at all. The expression of views that some take offense to is not a human rights violation. Rather, censorship of such views is better described as aimed at the protection of morals; the enforcement of speech codes or workplace standards in order to maintain a particular ethos or atmosphere of professionalism. There is then an interesting question which arises: would the choice of justification grounded in protecting morals over the rights of others affect the intensity of the proportionality assessment? There is a plausible argument that attempts to justify infringement on the exercise of fundamental rights by reference to a desire to impose a moral code, unconnected to the rights of others, would attach more intensive scrutiny. If this is true, it is incumbent upon courts not to accept at face value that employment speech codes are necessary to protect the rights of others, certainly not without more searching analysis of which rights in particular are claimed to be infringed by a failure to mandate speech. This is of particular salience given that courts have repeatedly stressed that the right to freedom of expression includes the right to say things that are offensive, shocking or even disturbing.","PeriodicalId":45482,"journal":{"name":"Industrial Law Journal","volume":"85 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discrimination and Manifestation of Belief: Higgs v Farmor’s School [2023] EAT 89\",\"authors\":\"Michael Foran\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/indlaw/dwae009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper analyses the case of Higgs v Farmor’s School, a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal concerning unlawful discrimination on the basis of the manifestation of protected philosophical beliefs. It discusses the relationship between human rights standards and discrimination law standards in the interpretation of direct discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. While this decision goes a long way towards providing guidance on how this interaction is to be parsed out in the context of discrimination law, it nevertheless leaves certain important questions open. Finally, the paper argues that much of the discussion of proportionality around the censorship of protected belief manifestation is misconstrued. It is commonly accepted without question that the legitimate aim pursued by censorship is the protection of the rights of others. Yet in the cases dealing with manifestation such as this, there is an extremely remote threat to rights, if one exists at all. The expression of views that some take offense to is not a human rights violation. Rather, censorship of such views is better described as aimed at the protection of morals; the enforcement of speech codes or workplace standards in order to maintain a particular ethos or atmosphere of professionalism. There is then an interesting question which arises: would the choice of justification grounded in protecting morals over the rights of others affect the intensity of the proportionality assessment? There is a plausible argument that attempts to justify infringement on the exercise of fundamental rights by reference to a desire to impose a moral code, unconnected to the rights of others, would attach more intensive scrutiny. If this is true, it is incumbent upon courts not to accept at face value that employment speech codes are necessary to protect the rights of others, certainly not without more searching analysis of which rights in particular are claimed to be infringed by a failure to mandate speech. This is of particular salience given that courts have repeatedly stressed that the right to freedom of expression includes the right to say things that are offensive, shocking or even disturbing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45482,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Industrial Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"85 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Industrial Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwae009\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Industrial Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwae009","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文分析了 Higgs 诉 Farmor's 学校一案,这是就业上诉法庭就基于受保护的哲学信仰的表现形式的非法歧视做出的裁决。本文讨论了在解释基于宗教或信仰的直接歧视时,人权标准与歧视法标准之间的关系。虽然该裁决在很大程度上为如何在歧视法的背景下分析这种互动关系提供了指导,但它仍留下了某些重要的问题。最后,本文认为,围绕审查受保护的信仰表现形式的相称性所进行的许多讨论都存在误解。审查制度所追求的合法目的是保护他人的权利,这一点毫无疑问已被普遍接受。然而,在处理类似这种表现形式的案件中,对权利的威胁即使存在,也是极其微小的。表达某些人反感的观点并不构成对人权的侵犯。相反,对此类观点的审查最好被描述为旨在保护道德;执行言论守则或工作场所标准,以保持特定的职业精神或氛围。这就产生了一个有趣的问题:选择以保护道德而非他人权利为基础的理由是否会影响相称性评估的强度?有一个貌似有理的论点是,如果试图以希望强加一种与他人权利无关的道德准则为由来证明侵犯基本权利的行为是正当的,就会受到更严格的审查。如果情况属实,法院就有责任不轻率地接受就业言论规范是保护他人权利所必需的这一观点,当然也不能不进行更深入的分析,以确定不强制实施言论规范具体侵犯了哪些权利。这一点尤为突出,因为法院一再强调,言论自由权包括发表冒犯性、令人震惊甚至令人不安的言论的权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Discrimination and Manifestation of Belief: Higgs v Farmor’s School [2023] EAT 89
This paper analyses the case of Higgs v Farmor’s School, a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal concerning unlawful discrimination on the basis of the manifestation of protected philosophical beliefs. It discusses the relationship between human rights standards and discrimination law standards in the interpretation of direct discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. While this decision goes a long way towards providing guidance on how this interaction is to be parsed out in the context of discrimination law, it nevertheless leaves certain important questions open. Finally, the paper argues that much of the discussion of proportionality around the censorship of protected belief manifestation is misconstrued. It is commonly accepted without question that the legitimate aim pursued by censorship is the protection of the rights of others. Yet in the cases dealing with manifestation such as this, there is an extremely remote threat to rights, if one exists at all. The expression of views that some take offense to is not a human rights violation. Rather, censorship of such views is better described as aimed at the protection of morals; the enforcement of speech codes or workplace standards in order to maintain a particular ethos or atmosphere of professionalism. There is then an interesting question which arises: would the choice of justification grounded in protecting morals over the rights of others affect the intensity of the proportionality assessment? There is a plausible argument that attempts to justify infringement on the exercise of fundamental rights by reference to a desire to impose a moral code, unconnected to the rights of others, would attach more intensive scrutiny. If this is true, it is incumbent upon courts not to accept at face value that employment speech codes are necessary to protect the rights of others, certainly not without more searching analysis of which rights in particular are claimed to be infringed by a failure to mandate speech. This is of particular salience given that courts have repeatedly stressed that the right to freedom of expression includes the right to say things that are offensive, shocking or even disturbing.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
20.00%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Industrial Law Journal is established as the leading periodical in its field, providing comment and in-depth analysis on a wide range of topics relating to employment law. It is essential reading for practising lawyers, academics, and lay industrial relations experts to keep abreast of newly enacted legislation and proposals for law reform. In addition Industrial Law Journal carries commentary on relevant government publications and reviews of books relating to labour law.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信