Godsdienstvrijheid en covid-19 in Belgie en Nederland

Face masks, curfew, quarantine, tele-working and social contact restrictions, these are just a few of the many measures that have been taken by the Belgian and Dutch Governments in order to avoid a further spread of the covid-19 pandemic. One of the most contested measures in both countries was the...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Leni Franken, François Levrau
Format: Article
Language:nld
Published: Radboud University Press in cooperation with Open Journals 2021-06-01
Series:Religie & Samenleving
Online Access:https://religiesamenleving.nl/article/view/11469
_version_ 1818976616000258048
author Leni Franken
François Levrau
author_facet Leni Franken
François Levrau
author_sort Leni Franken
collection DOAJ
description Face masks, curfew, quarantine, tele-working and social contact restrictions, these are just a few of the many measures that have been taken by the Belgian and Dutch Governments in order to avoid a further spread of the covid-19 pandemic. One of the most contested measures in both countries was the (absence of a) legal restriction of religious practices: while religious groups in the Netherlands were, in the name of religious freedom, not obliged to follow the restrictions that were imposed on other organizations (e.g. sport clubs, youth movements, cultural organizations), this was different in Belgium, where also religious groups were required to obey the strict corona measures. However, after a court case, this Belgian policy had to be adapted in order to guarantee the freedom of religion. In this article, we argue why this focus on religious freedom is, from the perspective of equality and non-discrimination, problematic. The freedom of religion is deeply anchored in the Belgian and Dutch Constitution, but it is an anachronism that leads to ambiguity and inequality. Even when a constitutional right can be restricted - no right is absolute and some constitutional rights can collide - the Dutch legislator felt that even a pandemic is not a legitimate reason to restrict religious freedom. Rather than treating 'religion' as a separate legal category, we hold a plea for a broader focus, wherein 'human dignity' - and not freedom of religion - is the main issue.
first_indexed 2024-12-20T16:14:40Z
format Article
id doaj.art-1b02bd62c6714675ae2d72eb9fc0c69e
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1872-3497
2773-1669
language nld
last_indexed 2024-12-20T16:14:40Z
publishDate 2021-06-01
publisher Radboud University Press in cooperation with Open Journals
record_format Article
series Religie & Samenleving
spelling doaj.art-1b02bd62c6714675ae2d72eb9fc0c69e2022-12-21T19:33:51ZnldRadboud University Press in cooperation with Open JournalsReligie & Samenleving1872-34972773-16692021-06-0116210.54195/RS.11469Godsdienstvrijheid en covid-19 in Belgie en NederlandLeni Franken0François Levrau1Centrum Pieter Gillis, Universiteit AntwerpenCentrum Pieter Gillis, Universiteit Antwerpen. Face masks, curfew, quarantine, tele-working and social contact restrictions, these are just a few of the many measures that have been taken by the Belgian and Dutch Governments in order to avoid a further spread of the covid-19 pandemic. One of the most contested measures in both countries was the (absence of a) legal restriction of religious practices: while religious groups in the Netherlands were, in the name of religious freedom, not obliged to follow the restrictions that were imposed on other organizations (e.g. sport clubs, youth movements, cultural organizations), this was different in Belgium, where also religious groups were required to obey the strict corona measures. However, after a court case, this Belgian policy had to be adapted in order to guarantee the freedom of religion. In this article, we argue why this focus on religious freedom is, from the perspective of equality and non-discrimination, problematic. The freedom of religion is deeply anchored in the Belgian and Dutch Constitution, but it is an anachronism that leads to ambiguity and inequality. Even when a constitutional right can be restricted - no right is absolute and some constitutional rights can collide - the Dutch legislator felt that even a pandemic is not a legitimate reason to restrict religious freedom. Rather than treating 'religion' as a separate legal category, we hold a plea for a broader focus, wherein 'human dignity' - and not freedom of religion - is the main issue. https://religiesamenleving.nl/article/view/11469
spellingShingle Leni Franken
François Levrau
Godsdienstvrijheid en covid-19 in Belgie en Nederland
Religie & Samenleving
title Godsdienstvrijheid en covid-19 in Belgie en Nederland
title_full Godsdienstvrijheid en covid-19 in Belgie en Nederland
title_fullStr Godsdienstvrijheid en covid-19 in Belgie en Nederland
title_full_unstemmed Godsdienstvrijheid en covid-19 in Belgie en Nederland
title_short Godsdienstvrijheid en covid-19 in Belgie en Nederland
title_sort godsdienstvrijheid en covid 19 in belgie en nederland
url https://religiesamenleving.nl/article/view/11469
work_keys_str_mv AT lenifranken godsdienstvrijheidencovid19inbelgieennederland
AT francoislevrau godsdienstvrijheidencovid19inbelgieennederland