PROTECTING MINORITY RIGHTS – A Practical Guide to Developing Comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Legislation to apply preferences for co-religionists in areas such as employment or housing; (c) reasonable accommodation on grounds of religion or belief; and (d) opting out of health care on doctrinal grounds. 1. Religious clothing, symbols and the public sphere At both the international and regional levels, cases have arisen concerning religious clothing or other overt personal religious expressions (jewellery, head or hair coverings etc.) from a broad range of groups, including Christians, Jews, Muslims and Sikhs, to name only some. In the main, United Nations human rights bodies and mechanisms have tended to regard restrictions on the public display of religious symbols as more problematic than a number of adjudicators at national level. The European Court of Human Rights has similarly accepted restrictions on clothing – or has declined to hear cases – in scenarios in which United Nations bodies have both heard cases and indeed deemed States’ practices discriminatory. It is also a feature of this jurisprudence that courts have weighed different considerations depending on the domain at issue (employment, education, health care etc.). In situations in which dress codes, uniform rules or other standards related to personal appearance conflict with religious practice or other physical manifestations of religious belief, they are prima facie indirectly discriminatory. As a result, whether the application of such rules can be justified is subjected to an objectivity and reasonableness test.993 For example, in joined cases concerning practising Christians prevented from wearing religious symbols at work, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that a ban by British Airways based ostensibly on the need to ensure a uniform corporate image was not justified, while a similar ban by a hospital, based on public health considerations, was a legitimate and justified intrusion into the rights of the person concerned.994 In the field of education, the Human Rights Committee has found restrictions on similarly unobtrusive symbols worn by students995 to be a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, the European Court of Human Rights has taken a more restrictive approach to the scope accorded to teachers to wear religious clothing.996 Central, however, remains the principle that it is not legitimate to allow some forms of religious expression (i.e. those of a majority religion), while banning those of a religious minority.997 The Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief has developed a set of “aggravating or neutral” indicators, which may be used to assess the legitimacy “from a human rights law perspective [of] restrictions and prohibitions on wearing religious symbols”. The application of restrictions by State authorities “in a discriminatory manner, or with a discriminatory purpose, e.g. by arbitrarily targeting certain communities or groups, such as women” is listed as an aggravating indicator, which is incompatible with international human rights standards.998 Another set of questions examined by national, regional and international courts concerns the right of persons to wear religious hair coverings in different settings. In a noteworthy case brought by a Sikh man from France, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that it would not decide on the merits of a case concerning the application of a ban on head coverings in photographic identity documents because the issue fell within the State’s margin of appreciation.999 A similar case was then submitted to the Human Rights Committee, which both heard the case and ruled that France had violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by banning the measure.1000 144 993 On this test more broadly, see section I.A.4 of part two of the present guide. 994 European Court of Human Rights, Eweida and others v. the United Kingdom, Applications Nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10, Judgment, 15 January 2013. The Constitutional Court of Colombia has held that students could not be forced to wear trousers due to their religion. See Constitutional Court of Columbia, Case T-832/11, Judgment, 3 November 2011. Available at www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/2011/T-832-11.htm. 995 See, for example, Human Rights Committee, Türkan v. Turkey (CCPR/C/123/D/2274/2013). 996 See, for example, European Court of Human Rights, Dahlab v. Switzerland, Application No. 42393/98, Decision on Admissibility, 15 February 2001. 997 E/CN.4/2006/5, para. 55. 998 Ibid., para. 55 (a). 999 European Court of Human Rights, Mann Singh v. France Application No. 24479/07, Decision on Admissibility, 13 November 2008. 1000 Human Rights Committee, Mann Singh v. France (CCPR/C/108/D/1928/2010). See also discussion of the case in Heiner Bielefeldt and Michael Wiener, Religious Freedom Under Scrutiny (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2019), pp. 156 et seq.