Tunisian government, Stefan Prins Sottiaux and Dajo
According to Stefan Prins Sottiaux and Dajo, "it might have been better to make the first condition less strictly, so that only callers political parties systematically make use of illegal means can be prohibited." The Court E.D.H. talking serious violent offenses and refers to jihad.
In addition, the Court is based on the concept of "basic democratic principles". The judges give no indication to define those principles.
Through "democratic" means the act of giving a role to the people. There is no democracy when people abandon its legislative and judicial powers in favor of a non-entity responsible to the people it governs, whether that entity is secular or religious.
As for the notion of "rule of law", the author reports that must mean that all human beings are equal before the law in rights as in their duties. But the law must take into account differences that have an objective and reasonable justification, and pursue a legitimate aim and proportionate, but also conforms to the principles which normally prevail in democratic societies.
This is not the case when there is discrimination with regard to sex, political beliefs and different religious or or when the proposed system is multi-legal.
[...] Thus, parties inspired by religion are they not immediately contrary to the fundamental principle of democracy 100). Gilles Le Breton has much criticized the ECHR Refah positions on the first stop. Legally, the Court seems harsh and it unjustifiably. Philosophically, there is a triple betrayal of Islam, the rule of law and democracy. He speaks of "prejudices against Islam" because the program says its commitment to the principle of secularism. He continued his criticism that the Court confuses political Islam and Islamic fundamentalism. "Political Islam rejects theocracy and intolerant extremism fundamentalism". [...]
[...] The Islamic religion plays a good role in the Tunisian political scene, justifying the exclusion of Islamists from the public sphere. This role is not due to Islam itself. The strategies and political positions are the source of these variations and the political currents. The exclusion of the Islamists is, on the other hand, contrary to pluralism. According to Burhan Ghalioun, repression "paradoxically leads to réislaminisation mentalities." However, Hamadi Redissi sees in Islam "the main obstacle in the process of democratization of the Arab-Muslim world." Only a secular regime would allow the emergence of a genuinely pluralist system. [...]
[...] To quote the sociologist G.Gurvitch, "Democracy is not the number but the reign of the rule of law." And democracy is more important than the rights. As the Court E.D.H. made a concrete assessment and subjective, the risk is to protect the institution more freedom and thus more than the man. This study leads to wonder whether, ultimately, the political parties can claim a religion. In the case of Refah Partisi, the Court decides that it is possible to defend the Shariah in the context of pluralism and without resort to violence. A partisan action can be considered legitimate if it respects legality and democracy. [...]
[...] The judges give no indication to define those principles. Through "democratic" means the act of giving a role to the people. There is no democracy when people abandon its legislative and judicial powers in favor of a non-entity responsible to the people it governs, whether that entity is secular or religious. As for the notion of "rule of law", the author reports that must mean that all human beings are equal before the law in rights as in their duties. [...]
[...] Socialist Party of Turkey (STP) and others against Turkey of 12 November 2003: freedom of association, national security (Article necessary in a democratic society (Article 11). Infringement of Article 11 and no need to examine Article and 14. Refah Partisi and Others against Turkey the Grand Chamber of 13 February 2003: freedom of association, secularism, Islam, limitations necessary in a democratic society, no violation of Article 11, not necessary to examine Article and 18. Islamische Religionsgemeinschaft e. V against Germany on 5 December 2002: freedom of religion, religious profit organization, the Islamic faith, trusteeship. [...]
using our reader.