ABSTRACT
So far, we have analysed bans on the wearing of religious symbols in education as violations of the human rights to be free to manifest one’s religion and to be free from discrimination, and as breaches of anti-discrimination measures. We came to the conclusion that, in relation to both, the concept of justifi cation plays an important role. Therefore, this concept is examined in depth in Chapter 5 . Both human rights and anti-discrimination law use quite similar justifi cation tests: an objective and reasonable justifi cation means that there must be a pressing need which provides a legitimate aim and the means to achieve that aim must be proportionate and necessary and not go beyond this. In all these tests, a balancing of the different interests involved is necessary. Generally, the outcome of these tests in relation to bans on the wearing of religious symbols in educational institutions appears to be that these are held to be justifi ed for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others and public order. This means that claims against such bans, whether under human rights or under anti-discrimination law, are seldom successful. As long as the decision-making body has considered all relevant issues carefully and has consulted with religious and other relevant organisations, then the decision it makes will usually not be held to be unjustifi ed.
