Religions have in common that they disfavor or subordinate women; Its precepts are used to oppose equality and to justify mistreatment, because its texts are interpreted from the patriarchy, according to a report by the United Nations Population Fund UNFPA , from 2015. And legislating to establish prohibitions in this sense does not allow to be complex: issues about equality, human rights, religion, security, morality and interculturality are mixed .
The jurisprudence of the ECHR in this sense establishes the principle of neutrality , by which the State must ensure plurality and coexistence between religions - and between DJ USA believers and non-believers - and not discriminate between one belief and another. The truth is that although it usually leaves a wide margin of appreciation to the State, it establishes, when limiting the right to religious freedom, that it be done through a measure contemplated in the law, taking into account a legitimate purpose , necessary in a society. democratic and proportional . It has validated the prohibitions on entering a consulate with a veil (El Morsli v France case) or the obligation to remove a turban at the security checkpoint of an airport (Phull v France case).
This court also considered appropriate the prohibition of a university student from wearing a scarf taking into account the principle of secularism ( Leyla Sahin v. Turkey case ) and legitimate the expulsion of another person for not removing that garment (Dogrú v. France case). In the case of Leyla Sahin, the ECHR stressed that “in countries where several religions coexist, it may be necessary to limit the freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs, to reconcile the interests of various groups and guarantee respect for the convictions of each one” and that the States have an “important margin of discretion in this sense,” as Jesus M Casal points out in the article “restrictions on the Islamic veil .”