As in Brazil, the problem of veiled exclusion has also been addressed in the European Union. The Feryn case (2008), judged by the Court of Justice of the European Union, set an important precedent by recognising that discriminatory public statements constitute a direct violation of the principle of equality, even without identified victims36 . Although the case dealt with discrimination in employment, its ratio decidendi applies analogously to establishments that signal, even indirectly, that certain groups are not welcome. Directives 2000/43/ EC and 2004/113/EC establish a robust framework against discrimination in access to goods and services, explicitly including restaurants and similar establishments. The European Court of Human Rights has also navigated complexities at the intersection of religious freedom and neutrality policies. In Lachiri v. Belgium (2018), it recognised that preventing a woman from entering court wearing a hijab violated her religious freedom37 . The established principle – that restrictions on religious symbols must be strictly justified – applies even more strongly to private spaces for public use, such as restaurants. Contemporary challenges reveal increasing sophistication in mechanisms of exclusion. What was once openly stated – „We do not serve black people,“ „No Jews allowed“ – is now disguised in seemingly neutral policies. Dress codes become instruments of social filtering when applied selectively. Advance booking requirements with premium cards create economic barriers that correlate with racial and social exclusion. Online booking algorithms can incorporate discriminatory biases under the guise of technological neutrality. The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced new vocabulary for old practices. “Health protocols,” “limited capacity,” “preferred customers” – terms that, while having legitimate epidemiological justification, have in many cases been applied selectively. Here, hermeneutic reflection can dialogue with Giorgio Agamben: states of exception tend to normalise exclusions under the guise of necessity, showing how emergencies are fertile ground for producing institutionalised discrimination. People with disabilities face multiple barriers: architectural (lack of ramps, adapted toilets), communicational (lack of Braille menus, absence of interpreters), and attitudinal (impatience with different service times, refusal of guide dogs). 36 COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v Firma Feryn NV, Case C-54/07, 10 July 2008. 37 EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Lachiri v. Belgium (Application no. 3413/09), Judgment of 18 September 2018. 596 RUI AURÉLIO DE LACERDA BADARÓ
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==