Honour based violence has attracted a great deal of attention in recent years in the Dutch public debate. However, given that honour can be damaged and restored in many ways, defining this kind of violence is rather difficult. The term honour based violence is an umbrella concept. This article explains how, within this concept, the relationship between religion and violence in the name of honour is understood.

In the contemporary reform of the Dutch welfare state, civil society plays a prominent role in the solution of individual needs. This article investigates, from a normative point of view, the consequences for the churches as part of civil society. The outline of this policy is decentralization of welfare to local communities, saving of money, and a more active role of citizens in need to solve their problems alone. Then the normative framework is sketched with the help of the basic principles of Catholic Social Teaching (personality, subsidiarity, solidarity and common good), as well as ‘caritas’. The consequences for the churches are analyzed, first from the perspective of their participation in this legal and policy-framework. There is a great complementarity in theory and practice, but research shows that local governments are reluctant in cooperating with churches, which have to be careful that their own identity will be instrumentalized. Second, the consequences are analyzed for the core business of churches: it appears that the government wants to have an insight in the processes of giving meaning to life of individuals to give the help (financially), efficiently and effectively, according to the policy goals. Thus, although the government wants to appeal to civil society and calls upon the churches explicitly, the paradoxical consequence will be that the free expression of religion will be limited in the functioning of the future welfare state.

The chaplaincy in penitentiary institutions shows a peculiar co-operation between the state and the religious communities. The chaplains provide a safe opportunity for supporting the detainees. The growing religious individualisation as well as a political rethinking of the role of religions institutions ask for system adaptations. In particular, the denominational approach is subject to discussion.

Since 2001 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) regularly applies the normative characterization of the state as a ‘neutral and impartial organiser of religions’ in its cases. This qualification has no explicit basis in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Where does it come from, how does the ECtHR understand this, in which type of cases does the ECtHR use it and with which result? This essay analyses the use of this qualification by the ECtHR and aims to provide an answer to these questions. It asserts that the qualification of the state as ‘neutral and impartial organiser of religions’ is an inadequate standard and examines wether it may harbor other normative dimensions that are important in the relation between state and religion. After introducing the first case in which the ECtHR used this qualification, the first part deals with cases concerning conflicts within and between churches, equal treatment of religious groups in multi-tiered church and state systems, and pupils in public schools wearing religious garb. The second part will appear in the next issue of this Journal and continues with an analysis of cases concerning the place of religion in education, and various alleged interferences of religious liberty. It concludes with a reflection on the use by the ECtHR of the qualification of the state as ‘neutral and impartial organizer of religious’.

Financial relationships between state, churches and religious organisations have existed for a long time in Dutch history. This could be understood from a general interest point of view in the nineteenth century and the social welfare state. However, that century and the welfare state do not exist anymore. Also society and people have changed. Do the financial relationships still exist nowadays and if so, to what extent and how should one assess these financial relationships? In order to deal with these questions, the article gives a comprehensive overview of the current situation of different financial relationships between state and religious organisations against a constitutional and historical background. It is argued that most of these relations are legitimate under certain conditions and that the constitutional framework of separation of church and state should not be overestimated in this field.

The Court recognizes the appeal to the freedom of religion, as laid down in Article 10 European Convention of Human Rights. This freedom is not illimitable, however. According to the Court, the prohibition of wearing face-covering clothes is legitimate and the aims of public security, equality of men and women, and the wish to express a specific viewpoint on ‘living together in society’, are in conformity with the limitation clause of Article 10 ECHR. The Court considers the law proportionate and ‘necessary in a democratic society’ with a view to the aims of the law, with the caveat that the law is not applicable in places of worship open to the public.
In the annotation, the parliamentary debate leading to the adoption of the law is analyzed. The law is a clear expression of a specific stance towards society in general and the position of men and women in particular. As it is a choice by the democratic institutions, the Court takes an attitude of restraint in this matter. All the same, the question is raised whether the term ‘in publicly accessible places’ may prove to be too vague and with that, not proportional to the legitimate aims pursued.