Law, morality and religion: Where do we draw the line in regards to the involvement of Law within the private sphere, closely focussing on the niqaab ban. (original) (raw)

The Ban on the Veil and European Law

Human Rights Law Review, 2013

This article argues that the fate of veil bans under European law is uncertain. It shows that European commitments to free speech and freedom of religion cannot accommodate an absolute ban justified solely on grounds of the offensiveness of the veil. However, a ban that applies to public face-covering in general (rather than a ban that only targets the veil), that relates to the specific (though admittedly broad) context of social life and that provides some exceptions allowing the veil to be worn in specific religious or expressive contexts, has a reasonable chance of being upheld by European courts despite the significant infringement of personal autonomy it would involve. Keywords: ban on Islamic veil^freedom of religion^freedom of expression^European law^Articles 9 and 10 European Convention on Human Rights

OUTLAWING THE VEIL, BANNING THE MUSLIM? RESTRICTING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN FRANCE

In the last ten years, France has increasingly limited religious expression by banning ostentatious religious symbols in public schools in 2004 and face coverings in public spaces in 2011. Both of these laws were drafted and enacted after public discussions around the management of rising religious diversity in France—most notably Islam. During these debates, the French openly wondered about differences that impacted or confronted national norms while respecting national values. This included questions around the meaning of secularism—broadly translated as la€ıcite—and the limits of religious manifestation in the public sphere.

A Romantic Reading of the French ‘Burqa Ban’

Confluence (issue 2, pp.88-106), 2015

This paper suggests that in order to understand the recent ban in France against covering one’s face in public, we need to move beyond the theoretical frameworks typically applied to the more researched ›headscarf ban‹ of 2004. Previous research tends to interpret the ›burqa ban‹ as yet another attempt to impose republican unity and order over what was taken to be the excessive and divisive self-expression manifested by the Muslim veil. It has recently been suggested, however, that it might be more fruitful to approach the debate through a rather different theoretical lens: the Romantic ideal of liberty as selfexpression, the original target of Isaiah Berlin’s warnings that positive liberty invites tyranny under the very banner of liberation. The paper follows up on this suggestion by revisiting the report that recommended the 2010 ban on full veils to the National Assembly. More specifically, it analyzes the section of the report in which it is argued that there is something special about faces, which requires us to keep them uncovered. This reasoning, it is argued, does indeed seem to be rooted in a Romantic understanding of liberty and human dignity, and in the fear that full veils suppress rather than express each individual’s unique self. The ban on full veils must thus also be understood as an attempt, whether misguided or not, to promote the self-expression of veiled women – not curb it, as previous research has nevertheless often assumed.

Why the French Don't Like the Burqa: 1 Laïcité, National Identity and Religious Freedom

This article examines the controversies over and implications of the 2010 French ban on the covering of the face. It carries out an internal critique of the new law and, in a broader European context, questions its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. It argues that the ban has strayed away from the confines of laïcité by encompassing activities and people who in no way emanate from the State. Far from being a flagship of a secularism ʻà la françaiseʼ or a French way of life, the ban -it is argued -goes against entrenched French legal traditions and unduly conflates the concept of national identity at the cost of individual liberties, thus forgetting the true goal of secularism: the conciliation of different beliefs and

When the European Court of Human Rights encounters the face A case-note on the burqa ban in France

2016

In the hard case S.A.S. v. France, the European Court of Human Rights has set limits to a free-choice approach to human rights in general and to religious freedom in particular. In upholding the ban on wearing full-face veils on the basis of the ‘vivre ensemble’ principle, the Strasbourg Court has endorsed the French Republican approach to laïcité, together with a more socio-ethical concept of human beings based on the face-to-face encounter. There are instances in which judges prove to be philosophers without knowing it. One could wish that this happened more often when human rights are concerned. There is probably not enough thinking about the philosophy that actually underpins – or should underpin – hard cases in the 21 century. It is assumed that liberalism is the main underlying philosophy in Europe. It praises the multi-faceted individual and values free choice. However, judges should always keep in mind where human rights come from, what conditions their exercise and what the...

Indivisibilité, Sécurité, Laïcité: the French ban on the burqa and the niqab

French Politics , 2021

In France, secularism is celebrated in the public sphere. The paper makes general arguments about France's changing identity and specific arguments about the burqa and niqab ban. It explains how French history shaped the ideology of secularism and of public civil religion, and how colonial legacy, immigration, fear of terrorism and security needs have led France to adopt the trinity of indivisibilité, sécurité, laïcité while paying homage to the traditional trinity of liberté, égalité, fraternité. While the motto of the French Revolution is still symbolically and politically important, its practical significance as it has been translated to policy implementation has been eroded. The emergence of the new trinity at the expense of the old one is evident when analyzing the debates concerning cultural policies in France in the face of the Islamic garb, the burqa and the niqab, which are perceived as a challenge to France's national secular raison d'être. The French Republic has attempted to keep public space secular. Is the burqa and niqab ban socially just? Does it reasonably balance the preservation of societal values and freedom of conscience? It is argued that the burqa and niqab ban is neither just nor reasonable in the eyes of the women and girls who wish to wear the Muslim garb, their families and community, and that paternalism that holds that the ban is for the women's own good is a poor, coercive excuse. Claims for paternalistic coercion to protect adult women from their own culture when they do not ask for protection are not sufficiently reasonable to receive vindication.