Samia Belcacemi, a Belgian national, and Yamina Oussar, a Moroccan national living in Belgium, tried to challenge the Belgian law, which bans people from wearing clothing that partially or totally covers the face in public. The law was passed in 2011. The women claimed to the court that they had freely decided to wear the niqab because of their religious convictions. While one-piece garments like the niqab and burqa come in different styles, they all fully cover the body and face, including the eyes. After the ban, one woman removed her veil because she was afraid that she might be stopped in the street and then heavily fined or even sent to prison, while another decided to remain mostly at home.
Along with Belgium, France, Austria, Bulgaria, and the Netherlands also impose ban or partial bans of the niqab. In April, Germany’s lower house of parliament approved a draft law preventing civil servants from wearing face veils while at work. In March, the European Court of Justice decided that bans on wearing headscarves in the workplace does not necessarily count as direct discrimination ― as long as all employees are required to dress neutrally and restricted from wearing any “any political, philosophical or religious sign.” The European Court of Human Rights, which considers cases that may undermine Europeans’ civil and political rights, upheld Belgium’s contentious ban on partial and full-face veils worn by Muslim women.
According to its press release, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been: No violation of Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Articles 8 and 9. In 2014. The court upheld France’s burqa ban on similar grounds. The women have three months to appeal the rulings against them.
The Court reiterated that a general policy or measure which had disproportionate prejudicial effects on a group of individuals could be regarded as discriminatory – even if it did not specifically target the group and there was no discriminatory intent – if that policy or measure lacked “objective and reasonable” justification, if it did not pursue a “legitimate aim” or if there was no “reasonable relationship of proportionality” between the means used and the aim pursued. In the present case, the measure had an objective and reasonable justification for the same reasons as those developed above.
Photo Credits: Staticflickr
