Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka hur lärare ser på konfessionalitet i utbildningen i svensk kommunal grundskola samt hur de tolkar det som står i skollagen med en icke-konfessionell skola. Med utgångspunkt i skolans styrdokument och forskning om icke-konfessionalitet, har vi utformat frågeformulär som aktiva lärare på grundskolan svarat på för att få fram empirin. Utifrån de 53 lärarnas svar har vi arbetat induktivt för att få fram kategorierna för analysen som sedan resultatet har bearbetats efter. Resultatet visar på lärares bristande kunskaper om vad icke-konfessionalitet innebär i den svenska kommunala grundskolan. Studien visar även på hur lärarnas arbetssätt skiljer sig åt både på monokulturella och mångkulturella skolor. Slutligen undersöker studien hur lärarnas fenomenologiska uppfattningar och det interkulturella pedagogiska perspektivet speglar sig i hur lärarna arbetar i verksamheten.

This study is about whether the ban on hijab and niqab in France violates human rights. Also, if there are contradictions between the human rights conventions and the french ban on hijab andniqab. That is the purpose and question of the study. The topic was chosen for an interest on whether the French ban violates human rights, and if so, why is the ban still a law? To fulfill the purpose of the study, the study will be using human right conventions and a case from the European court of human rights. The study will also use a human rights based approach to further analyze whether the french ban violates human rights. The human rights based approach will also focus on the rights themselves and the implementation of the rights. The second theory used in the study is a theory on multiculturalism. The theory will focus on the term “blind fordifference”. In other words, are human rights blind for difference?The method used in this study is a qualitative content analysis. The method was chosen to analyze the content of the french ban of niqab and hijab but also to analyze the content of the human rights conventions. The result showed that there are some contradictions between the french ban and the human rights conventions. The French ban on hijab and niqab showed potential violations towards human rights articles in the human rights conventions.

In recent years, circumcision of boys has sparked off debate in Sweden. Even though mostpoliticians do not consider the procedure as problematic, if the procedure is done beforepuberty as the rights are covered by the Swedish law on freedom of religion, the SwedishCentre Party are drafting a ban on religious circumcisions of boys. This essay aims to analyzethe current discourse surrounding the subject of circumcision.Circumcision of boys is a procedure of frequent occurrence in all parts of the world. Thecircumcision is most often performed when the boy is an infant, or of such a low age, that thechild is too young to understand and give consent for such a procedure. Therefore, it is mostoften the guardian who decides if a circumcision is to be performed. In the current discourse,many regard circumcision as a way for the child or guardian to express their religion, since itis the right of the guardians to pass on their religion onto their child. Consequently, a ban oncircumcision of boys would discriminate against people belonging to the Jewish and Muslimfaith who will not be able to perform their religious duties freely, which could result in theincrease of isolation and segregation in society. Many see the choice of religion as a right thatis to be taken by the child, and that is why a prohibition on circumcision of boys is advocatedby some groups in society.According to the ‘UN Convention on the Rights of the Child’, all the decisions involving achild are to be taken while considering the well-being and what is best for the child inquestion. There is concurrently legislation that allows circumcision of boys on the conditionthat both guardians give their consent. The ones advocating for a ban on circumcision of boysargue that the procedure is against the well-being of the child as it is a limitation of the child’sbest interest and bodily integrity. While the side arguing for circumcision of boys consider theprocedure as part of the religious identity and the group identity, and that the procedure alsohas medical benefits that are considered to be favorable for the child’s well-being. / Omskärelse av pojkar har väckt debatt i Sverige under de senaste åren. Även om de flestapolitiker inte anser att ingreppet är problematiskt om det sker innan puberteten och medhänvisning till lagen om religionsfrihet, arbetar Centerpartiet för ett förbud mot religiösomskärelse av pojkar. Uppsatsen syftar till att analysera nuvarande diskurser kring omskärelseav pojkar.Omskärelse av pojkar är ett ingrepp som är vanligt förekommande i hela världen, liksom iSverige. Omskärelsen sker oftast när pojken är ett spädbarn eller i för låg ålder för att kunnaförstå och samtycka till ingreppet. Därav är det i de flesta fallen vårdnadshavarna sombeslutar om att omskärelsen ska ske. I de rådande diskurser betraktar många omskärelser somett uttryck för barnets och vårdnadshavarnas religionsfrihet, eftersom vårdnadshavarna harrätt till att föra över sin tro på sitt barn. Därmed anses förbud mot omskärelse varadiskriminering mot muslimer och judar som inte kan utföra sin religion fritt, vilket kan ökasegregationen i samhället och känslan av utanförskap. Medan många tolkar barnets religionsom barnets rätt att fritt välja sin religion därmed hävdar dem ett förbud mot omskärelse avpojkar.Enligt FN:s barnkonvention ska alla beslut rörande barn fattas utifrån barnets bästa. Samtidigthar vi en lagstiftning som tillåter omskärelse av pojkar om både vårdnadshavarna uttryckersitt medgivande. De som förespråkar ett förbud mot omskärelse anser att ingreppet är motbarnets bästa eftersom det innebär inskränkning av barnets intresse och kroppsliga integritet.Medan de som är för ingreppet anser att ingreppet ingår i den religiösaidentiteten/gruppidentiteten och medför medicinska fördelar vilka anses vara för barnetsbästa.

This dissertation uses philosophical tools to examine the child’s right to freedom of religion within the context of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and other international human rights instruments. Article 14 of the CRC establishes the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It also establishes the right of the child's parents to guide and support the child in its exercise of the right to freedom of religion, while adjusting this support according to the child's evolving capacities. The emphasis of the study is on how to understand the child as, on the one hand, agent and subject in the exercise of this right and, on the other, dependent on parental support and guidance. For this purpose, the theoretical underpinnings of the child’s right to freedom of religion are examined with a particular focus on the conceptualization of this right in relation to children. With the text of the CRC as a starting point, different theories on rights, autonomy and religion are analyzed in order to find those compatible with both aspects of Article 14: the child as agent and the child as dependent. Theories that demand fully developed cognitive abilities in order to be a moral agent and a rights holder are rejected, as are theories in which the parents are the sole decision-makers on the basis of their own view of what is in the child's interests. In the same way, conceptions of religion in purely cognitive terms, or not taking into account dimensions of practice and observance accessible to children, are rejected. The conclusion drawn from the analysis is that relational conceptualizations of rights and autonomy and multi-dimensional conceptualizations of religion are best served to include both aspects of the child's right to freedom of religion. In viewing all humans, adults and children alike, as both active agents and vulnerably dependent on others, these conceptualizations challenge traditional views on rights and autonomy, and modern views of religion. In the final chapter, aspects of these relational conceptions are put together into a relational, mutuality-oriented model of the child's right to freedom of religion.

<p>The title of this essay is Project: The Veil – an investigation of the trends in the Swedish veil debate compared with the veil debate in France and Great Britain written by Cecilia Lindvall. The purpose of the paper is to analyze how the argument has been conducted by the Swedish politicians from the time when the veil was first recognized in Swedish media up until today. The questions I wanted to answer was each countries definition of the three concepts secularization, freedom of religion and multiculturalism, how Islam as a faith with Muslims has developed in Sweden, France and Great Britain and each countries integration politics with the politicians attitude towards the veil. The method being used is a qualitative study with three kind of theories for analysis; two who derives from a feminist point of view where the first one advocates for the rights of each women, the second for the rights of religious groups and a third theory which discusses different models of integration logics. The study shows that Swedish politicians turned from a negative approach to the veil to advocate the rights of every woman‟s right to wear religious cloth. Sweden and Great Britain chooses similar direction in their national integration program – which protects group rights – while France promotes individual rights on a basis of assimilation politics.</p>

The title of this essay is Project: The Veil – an investigation of the trends in the Swedish veil debate compared with the veil debate in France and Great Britain written by Cecilia Lindvall. The purpose of the paper is to analyze how the argument has been conducted by the Swedish politicians from the time when the veil was first recognized in Swedish media up until today. The questions I wanted to answer was each countries definition of the three concepts secularization, freedom of religion and multiculturalism, how Islam as a faith with Muslims has developed in Sweden, France and Great Britain and each countries integration politics with the politicians attitude towards the veil. The method being used is a qualitative study with three kind of theories for analysis; two who derives from a feminist point of view where the first one advocates for the rights of each women, the second for the rights of religious groups and a third theory which discusses different models of integration logics. The study shows that Swedish politicians turned from a negative approach to the veil to advocate the rights of every woman‟s right to wear religious cloth. Sweden and Great Britain chooses similar direction in their national integration program – which protects group rights – while France promotes individual rights on a basis of assimilation politics.

This thesis uses a philosophical discussion to explore the tensions that result in the meeting between universal claims and particular contexts regarding human rights and how these tensions can be mediated by exploring the right to religious freedom. In order to do this, two approaches will be studied, one liberal and one postcolonial, represented by Martha Nussbaum and Saba Mahmood respectively. In comparing the approaches of Nussbaum and Mahmood, their arguments and positions become clearer, but also the nuances of the debate between universalism and contextualism. The right to religious freedom, with its many tensions between theory and practice, has been useful in exploring what values are at stake when we talk about human rights in general and how we can think about the apparent tension between universalism and contextual sensitivity. The thesis thus shows that there are more similarities between these two approaches than it may first seem and that they are not incompatible. This is argued to provide insight into possible ways of mediating human rights between theory and practice. / Denna uppsats utgår från en filosofisk diskussion kring spänningen mellan universella anspråk och specifika sammanhang när det kommer till mänskliga rättigheter och hur dessa spänningar kan medlas utifrån en undersökning av religionsfriheten. För att åstadkomma studeras två inriktningar, den ena liberal och den andra postkolonial. Dessa inriktningar representeras av Martha Nussbaum respektive Saba Mahmood. I och med en jämförande analys mellan dessa två inriktningar är förhoppningen att deras likheter och skillnader blir tydligare, samt att nyanserna inom debatten mellan universalism och kontextualism blir tydligare. Det finns många spänningar mellan teori och praktik när det kommer till rätten till religionsfrihet och just denna rättighet är på så sätt användbar för att utforska spänningen mellan universalism och kontextualism när det kommer till mänskliga rättigheter. Denna uppsats visar därmed att det finns flera likheter mellan dessa inriktningar och att de därför inte kan anses vara oförenliga med varandra. Detta för med sig en insikt i möjligheter till att medla mänskliga rättigheter mellan teori och praktik.

No description available.

Quran burning is a new phenomenon in Sweden first executed by Rasmus Paludan, the leader of a far-right, anti-immigrant political party - Stram Kurs. These burnings are still a subject of debates and cause a lot of controversy due to the vandalism caused by the local muslim protesters and because many muslims and non-muslims believe that it should be categorized as incitement of hatred against muslims. The purpose of this study is to illuminate how young muslims in Skania, Sweden, perceive the Quran burnings that are protected by the Swedish Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression. The purpose of this study is also to get a picture of how the burnings affect them and to show how this demonstration of freedom of speech affects their freedom of religion. Five semi structured interviews were done to conduct this study. The chosen relevant theories that were used were stigma, islamophobia, the argument from truth and the argument from autonomy. The most important findings of this study are that the interviewed young Swedish muslims believe that there is an error in the Swedish system where laws against incitement of hatred are only applied in some cases, but not other. And that the interviewees feel angry about the police protecting a man who is trying to provoke them by mocking them and their religion. They also question whether they belong in Sweden and are convinced that the Quran burnings will only cause further division in the society of which muslims are a large part of. Another problem that they pointed out is that the media uses the pictures of the vandalizing protesters to spread a negative image of muslims and Islam. Another finding is that the interviewed young Swedish muslims feel that the Quran burnings are a new and legitimate way for islamophobes to attack and offend them. They also feel, however, that their freedom of religion remains unaffected. The last finding is that based on the argument from truth and the argument from autonomy, the Quran burnings do not justify limiting the freedom of expression. The conclusion is that these islamophobic attacks in the form of Quran burnings are a consequence of a tribal stigma that, according to the interviewed young Swedish muslims, muslims in Sweden have to live with. This stigma can even be found in how the interviewed muslims feel the government and the media are treating them. Even if the Quran burnings don’t justify limiting freedom of expression, the problem remains that the interviewees feel that freedom of expression is being used against them. / <p>Mångfaldsstudier</p>

Det finns en utbredd kritik riktad mot Europadomstolen och dess tillämpning av religionsfriheten (artikel 9 i Europakonventionen). Akademiker har anklagat domstolen för att ha demonstrerat enbiasi fall som rör islam och slöjan. Domstolens bedömningar har upplevts som godtyckliga. Muslimer har framhävt att de upplever att de inte kan räkna med att få en rättvis domstolsprocess. Denna allvarliga kritik mot Europadomstolen ligger till grund för studiens övergripande syfte som är att undersöka vilka förutsättningar som finns för rättvisa i fall som rör religionsfriheten och slöjan.                       Forskare har uppmanat domstolen att anamma fyra proceduriella rättvisekriterier (deltagande, neutralitet, respekt och tillit) i syfte att åstadkomma rättvisa domstolsprocesser. Studien börjar därför med att analysera det huvudsakliga materialet, fyra rättsfall som alla behandlar en slöjbärande muslimsk kvinna utifrån de proceduriella rättvisekriterierna. Dessa kriterier kompletteras med en moralfilosofisk förståelse för alla individers grundläggande rätt till rättfärdigande. Studiens tes är dock att en proceduriell förståelse av rättvisa riskerar att vara otillräcklig. Det teoretiska ramverket består därför även av en substantiell förståelse av rättvisa, som istället för att fokusera på domstolens tillvägagångssätt fokuserar på utfall. Resultatet bekräftar denna tes genom att först anamma en förståelse för att vårt praktiska förnuft riskerar att vara invävt med ideologi. Det är inte förrän vi tillämpar ett dekonstruerande och dekoloniserande perspektiv som vi ser vad det är som hindrar domstolen från att upprätta substantiell rättvisa för slöjbärande kvinnor. Slöjan som symbol och sekularism som begrepp har tillskrivits särskilda värden vilket gör att domstolen förstår dessa som i direkt strid med varandra. Det är inte förrän domstolen självkritiskt reflekterar över och dekonstruerar dessa inneboende värden som substantiell rättvisa är möjligt. Studiens uppfattning är att muslimska slöjbärande kvinnor systematiskt nekas en verklig möjlighet till upprättelse i Europadomstolen. / The European Court of the Human Rights has been widely criticized regarding its implementation of the freedom of religion (article 9 in the European Convention on Human Rights). Researchers have noticed that the Court has demonstrated a bias in cases concerning Islam and the Islamic veil. The Courts judgements have been understood as arbitrary and European Muslims have argued that they do not have a fair chance to a just court procedure. This serious critique aimed at the Court grounds the aim of this study which is to explore the conditions for justice regarding freedom of religion cases and the Islamic veil in the European Court of Human Rights.                        Researchers have advised the court to apply four procedural justice criteria (participation, neutrality, respect and trust) in order to secure just and fair court procedures. Therefore, from a procedural understanding of justice, the study starts with an analysis of the main material, which is four cases, all concerning women wearing the Islamic veil. The theoretical framework is supplemented with a moral understanding of everyone’s basic right to justification and the two procedural justice criteria reciprocity and generality. However, the thesis of this study is that a procedural understanding of justice might be unsatisfying when discovering the general conditions for justice in the Court. The theoretical framework therefore needs to include substantive justice. Instead of focusing on pure procedural justice itaims at establishing substantively just outcomes. The result of this study confirms this thesis by acknowledging that our practical reason might be infused with ideology. It is not until a deconstructing and decolonial perspective is applied that it becomes clear what is hampering the court from establishing substantively just outcomes for women wearing the Islamic veil. As the veil and the term secularism has been ascribed certain values and ideas, the court put these two phenomena in direct contrast with each other. Substantive justice is not achievable until the court, in a self-critical manner deconstructs these values and ideas. The main result of this study is that until then, Muslim women wearing the Islamic veil are systematically denied substantive justice.