Across the European Union, several countries have completely banned the covering of the face in public places or have at least put a partial ban in place. Although these bans include any type of garment or headwear that conceals the face, this topic has become a more pressing problem, with international attention, because the law specifically mentions the wearing of burqas. Whether the intent was there or not, the singling out of burqas gives off the impression that the governments in these countries are discriminating against Muslims. There are seven countries in Europe that have a complete ban on wearing burqas, including: France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Latvia, and Bulgaria. In Spain, Italy, and Germany, there are different partial bans that are followed in each country. Three of these countries, Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands, have interesting backgrounds to compare how their bans came to be. Belgium was the second European country to ban the wearing of burqas in public, right after France did in 2011. There was very strong support from the Belgian government promoting and voting this policy into existence. Belgium’s experience in forming this ban differs from that of the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, getting this policy enacted was a much longer process. A partial ban had been in place for years; however, as of 2018, the upper house of Dutch Parliament voted for the passing of the ban by 44 to 31 votes. Even more unlike both of these countries, Italy’s legislation is still only a partial ban. There is no national ban for the whole country to follow, but there are certain regions that have their own individual bans. These regions include: Lombardy, Liguria, Novara. Each of these three countries have some similarities and some differences for why they passed the legislation for each country. The reasons for support of the ban branch from concern for public safety to preventing women from being walked all over and controlled by a religion.
Belgium, the Netherlands, and Italy all place an emphasis on public safety in regard to their implementing of these bans. They also grant religious freedom to all of their citizens; however, with the creation of these bans, it seems that the right to practice a person’s religion is not promised to all. In Belgium, the people are legally allowed to practice their religion but are limited in public places. The ban that was initially in effect, only existed in certain districts of Belgium and there was no mention of burqas specifically. These laws only involved wearing anything that covered a person’s face at carnival. Since then, the ban has progressed to include covering of the face in all public gatherings, institutions, schools, and even individual businesses now have the right to prohibit the wearing of burqas in their place of work. There have been court cases that have occurred since the forming of this law because people feel that Muslims are being targeted. In these cases, people argued that the ban had no purpose and Muslim women were being discriminated against. It can be argued that the ban in the Netherlands seems to be less offensive than the bans in Belgium and Italy. Similar to both of those countries, the ban extends beyond burqas, including helmets and ski-masks, prohibiting the wearing of any of these articles of clothing or headwear in institutions and certain public buildings. However, in the Netherlands, burqas are not banned from being worn on the street. In Italy, there are three separate bans in individual regions of the country. In Lombardy, burqas are banned in all public buildings and anyone wearing one would be refused treatment at a hospital. The ban in Liguria is the same as the ban for Lombardy too. The ban in Novara was an anti-terrorism law that prohibiting most headwear that covered the face, and burqas were recently added to the list. Each country claims to have their reasons for the ban, but the question remains: Is the burqa ban in European countries necessary to ensure public safety, or are these countries encroaching on their citizens’ right to religious freedom?
In both Belgium and the Netherlands, the majority of people have agreed that the ban on burqas has been necessary for quite some time. There are a variety of arguments that the people have provided, defending why the passing of this bill is needed in these countries. Specifically, the Belgian people who have supported the bill from the beginning, argued that the bill “advances public safety and stressed that covering one’s face in public hinders the socialisation of people and robs one of an identity” (van der Schyff & Overbeeke, 2011). The European Convention on Human Rights has placed an emphasis on certain values that should be represented in these countries. In Belgium,
The values that are promoted in society are social integration, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, gender equality, democracy, and the separation of church and state. Although not stated in so many words, it seems as if the bill’s supporters imply that a careful balancing of these values had taken place in coming to the proposal and that it did not violate the Convention. However, the reference to the separation of religion and state is a bit baffling in the context of introducing a general burqa ban. This is because, the separation of religion and the state has very little to do with banning burqas in public. (van der Schyff & Overbeeke, 2011).
The questioning of whether church and state are truly separated in Belgium is an ongoing issue. After the bill was passed in 2011, several court cases have come forward, putting into question, the constitutionality of the law. Cases were brought to the Belgian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights. By the end of 2012, all of the appeals that had been brought to the Belgian Constitutional Court had been rejected. Belcacemi and Oussar v. Belgium and Dakir v. Belgium are two of the most prominent cases that have occurred that were brought to the European Court of Human Rights. In the case Belcacemi and Oussar v. Belgium, two Muslim women sought the annulment of this law on the grounds that the ban violates Articles 8, 9, 10, and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. These articles of the ECHR are as follows: Article 8: ‘Right to respect privacy and family life’, Article 9: ‘Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion’, Article 10: ‘Right to freedom of expression and information’, and
Article 14: ‘Prohibition of discrimination’” (European Convention on Human Rights, 2010). Dakir v. Belgium also argued that the law was unconstitutional on these same grounds. The European Court of Human Rights determined that none of these articles were violated because the ban was needed to ensure the ideas of “living together” and “protections of the rights and freedoms of others,” while being “necessary in a democratic society” (Callan, 2017). In 2017, both cases were dismissed, and the burqa ban was upheld.
Although there is a lot of support for the ban across European countries, many people still see the issue with identifying burqas and Muslim articles of clothing specifically in the ban. For example, Silvio Ferrari stated:
I wish to point out straight away that I do not appreciate the use of the burqa, niqab or of other garments that conceal a person’s face. That said, however, I do not think that it is possible to forbid them without violating principles which are at the basis of liberal constitutionalism. (Ferrari, 2016).
Ferrari’s strong opinion on the wearing of burqas does not stem from any racial or religious discrimination, rather a disliking for the impediment to conversation. Eye contact and facial expressions are key factors in communication between people. Supporting his previous statement, he points out how his personal view on the topic would not justify a law on the issue. An interesting point he makes later pertains to the controversial idea that this law is an encroachment on religious freedom. In regard to this concept he said:
I do not subscribe to the view that the burqa or niqab is always imposed on women by men, by religion, or by social convention ─ although it can happen ─ because this argument neglects the fact that there are women who do choose freely and willingly to wear this garment. I remain unconvinced by the reasoning that covering one’s face with a veil is not an obligation according to the Muslim religion and so it can be forbidden without prejudicing religious freedom also wearing a cross is not an obligation for the Christian religion, but we would consider any law prohibiting one to do so to be illiberal. (Ferrari, 2016).
To his point, people find that the features of this ban seem to be clearly targeting the Islamic religion. Out of the three countries, Italy seems to have the most obvious signs of discrimination within their ban. The bans in the regions of Italy do place an emphasis on public safety, but they also make sure to note that the Italian people have shown signs of distaste for how they perceive Muslim men treat women in their culture. Italian lawmakers believe that the wearing of burqas by women is the ultimate submission to the man. The expressing of these beliefs is a sign that there may not be the separation between church and state that is expected in a country that enforces freedom of religion. There are several different views on these bans and the reasoning behind them, but there is an argument to be made that it seems that there is some religious discrimination at play.
In Belgium, the Netherlands, and Italy, the main reason the bans have been put in place is truly for the safety and well-being of all the citizens. With that being said, there is still an underlying presence of discrimination within these countries. People are still in denial about the discrimination that it is occurring, so very little is being done to put an end to it. As time progresses, if no reforms are made, then I think the bans will expand to more European countries. Several other European countries already have a complete or partial ban in existence, and with the current social climate and stigma relating to the Islamic religion, it seems like the number of countries outlawing burqas is likely to grow. The terrorist attacks that have occurred in public places, especially in recent years, have increased trepidation when going out into public places. The issue with terrorism is prominent all around the world, so it is understandable for people to fear the unknown. Going out to large events in big cities or well-known locations can be a worrisome experience. The fear people have of a person covering their face typically stems from the concern that if that person were to be a terrorist, then it would be much harder to identify him or her if his or her face is covered. Being unable to identify a suspect is completely dangerous and unsettling; therefore, worrying about someone having their face covered in a very public place is a legitimate fear. However, individually identifying burqas in the ban can be seen as discriminatory, because a feature of what is taught and expected in that faith is being targeted. Everyone’s intentions for or support of the bans may be for different reasons, but it seems convenient that Muslims are being specifically targeted because there have been several known terrorist attacks performed by radical Muslims. The fact that many known terrorists have claimed to be representing “Islam” is not relevant because there are terrorists that come from every race or religion in the world. As Silvio Ferrari implied before, if articles of a Christian faith or some other religious background were banned, there would be repercussions to annul the law. Prohibiting a woman from wearing a burqa in public is just preventing them from representing their religion proudly. At the end of the day, the banning of burqas may not have any impact on limiting terrorist attacks. The idea to improve public safety is a valid thought process, but the wording of the legislation could be improved to say the least. For instance, when the court cases out of Belgium were taken to the European Court of Human Rights, the Court’s reasoning for justifying and upholding the ban claimed it was needed to “protect people’s rights and freedoms, and protect the principle of living together, while being necessary in a democratic society” (Callan, 2017). In my personal opinion, this adds to the stigma because allowing a woman to represent her religious beliefs does not seem like it should impact any other citizens’ rights or freedom. Changing the wording of the legislation may not justify the existence of the ban, but it would help these governments to defend themselves against accusations of discrimination.
The rulings and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights could be an instrumental factor in this ban spreading to more European countries. Whenever most members of society agree on a means of action, that is typically understood to be the right thing to do moving forward. In regard to the principle of “living together,” it is difficult to determine the right thing to do in some cases, because should everyone be forced to conform to make it easier, or should people be left alone to go about their business? There was a case seen by the ECHR in which there was controversy at a school in Switzerland. The boys and girls were forced to participate in a swim class together, meaning bathing suits had to be worn, going against the religious beliefs of Muslims. The principle of “living together” is what ultimately determined why the parents of the victimized children did not win this case. Situations like this case prove the problems within the Court; for instance,
Legislating on the principle of “living together” could be risky in practice. It’s not a criteria that is actually in the convention … and yet, it’s accepted as legitimate grounds for restriction. If there’s a societal consensus against a particular group, that’s where human rights are most needed, and that’s when you have to be most alert. Deferring to societal consensus could, however, be seen as a straightforward approach for a court that oversees the human-rights cases of 47 countries. (Serhan, 2017).
As seen by the history of cases brought to the European Court of Human Rights, religious freedom is not protected the way it should be. The ECHR along with the governments of these individual countries, have attempted to do their duty of protecting the welfare and safety of the general public, but in doing so, have encroached on the right to freedom of religion. The government should have no say in whether a woman in the Islamic faith is being “controlled” by the men. It is her right and choice to be a part of that religion and to participate as she sees fit. There is a clear lack of separation between state and religion. The state is overstepping the boundaries and trying to control how people display their religious beliefs. The public safety issue of the ban is important and restricting headwear is a reasonable condition. If they feel that burqas need to be included in the list, then wording the ban differently would at least improve their image. People would still see it as some level of discrimination. There needs to be a more definitive line separating politics and religious beliefs. If these governments do not change and refrain from encroaching on religious freedom, then the burqa ban issue is likely to become an even bigger problem throughout Europe.