Rarely has a topic caused as much heated debate and as many divided opinions as the Law Against Ostentatious Religious Symbols that was passed by the French Parliament earlier this year.
Reactions to the law from other European countries have been equally passionate and have reflected all colors of the political spectrum. Furthermore, in most European countries the law has sparked heavy domestic debate around the desirability of a similar law.
The question is, to what extent is France really an exception in Europe? With the following survey of the situation in different European countries, we wish to shed some light on this issue and re-iterate the need for continued struggle against all forms of discrimination.
Poland Britain Ireland Italy Norway Sweden Denmark Austria Luxembourg Germany Spain Holland Turkey
Poland
“How is it possible that France, which is considered the country of human rights and modern democracy, can practice such a flagrant form of discrimination?” This was the 
reaction of the Polish people regarding the issue of the hijab, as described in the Warsaw daily Gazeta Wyborcza. This opinion may be disqualified by the importance of the Catholic Church in Poland. Still, this did not prevent the rest of the European neighbors from being totally astonished about the heated debate in France. To some Poles, resorting to the law to prohibit girls from wearing hijab even seems incongruous.
____________________________________________________________________
Britain
For the two million Muslims of Indo-Pakistani origins in Great Britain (3.4 percent of the population) and other religious minorities (Sikhs and Jews), wearing the hijab, turban, or yarmulke in school is not forbidden. The department of education has declared that the rule covering the school uniforms or the wearing of religious symbols is the sole responsibility of each school principal. 
This can lead to ambiguous situations and in sporadic cases to the prohibition of the hijab. Therefore the Commission for Equality among Races considers the action taken by Luton school in which hijab was forbidden “an implied act of racism.” Due to the commission’s declaration, the school decided to revoke its previous stand on the wearing of hijab in school.
To understand the difference between the British and French views, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mike O’Brien, recently declared that, unlike France, Britain is not going to ban the wearing of religious symbols or the hijab in its schools. According to Mr. O’Brien, France has taken this step as a consequence of its own historic experiences and culture, while Britain, on the other hand, does not view integration as a synonym for assimilation. British identity is made up of different nations and cultures; these differences contribute to the strength of the British people.
The Metropolitan Police Force allows its police officers to wear a uniform that conforms to their beliefs. Consequently, Muslim women working in the police force can wear scarves and uniforms with long skirts; in hospitals the Islamic dress is permitted if a request is forwarded in advance.
In the year 2000 the British government published a guide stipulating that Muslim women can be photographed with hijab for their passports. The only restriction is that the face of the person in question should be totally uncovered. The official departments issuing passports were instructed not to refuse photos in which the applicant is wearing a religious head cover.
____________________________________________________________________
Ireland
Similar to the stance in Great Britain, regulations concerning the dress code or the wearing of religious symbols fall under the sole responsibility of the school principal. The Irish constitution and several laws forbid discrimination, including religious discrimination. In addition, Irish labor laws forbid any kind of discrimination on the ground of religious affiliation.
Many cases of hijab interdiction were reported in schools, but each time the problem was rapidly resolved due to the intervention of the Equality Authority, which promptly advised the school that it was breaching the laws.
In the police force a new department was founded specializing in racial and inter-cultural aspects. The Irish police authorized the wearing of the hijab with the 
uniform in order to encourage Muslim women to join the police force. Contrary to the British police, who authorized the wearing of the hijab after the explicit demand of Muslim women, the Irish police took the initiative. As a result of this action, the Irish police won the prize for innovation awarded by the European Union, an award worth 30,000 euros.
The last two incidences in which women were refused a passport because of wearing hijab were swiftly settled in favor of the women after the interference of the Inter-Cultural Office of the Justice Department.
____________________________________________________________________
Italy
For the 800,000 Muslims in Italy (1.4 percent of the population), the question of hijab is not on the agenda, and very few incidences forbidding the wearing of hijab in 
schools have been reported. Three years ago Muslim women in the city of Turin demonstrated against a regulation that prohibited them from wearing hijab in their residency card photo. In order to avoid further tensions in the country, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a circular stating that it was permissible for the Muslim women to wear hijab in their photos, similar to the ruling applied to the Catholic nuns.
____________________________________________________________________
Norway
In 2004 a furniture store fired a Muslim woman because she refused to take off her hijab at work. The store was forced to go back on its decision and to 
re-employ the woman in question. The management argued that the hijab was against the dress regulations of the establishment, which prohibits its employees to wear hats or any sort of headdress, but the mediator for sex equality insisted that it was not the store’s right to ban the headdress unless it constituted a danger for the wearer.
___________________________________________________________________
Sweden
In Sweden, which has the largest number of Muslims in the Nordic
European countries, little action was taken against the hijab. In 2003 two girls were dismissed from the school of Gutenberg because they wore a burqa (traditional Afghan dress that covers the entire face) which was against school regulations. This whole problem could have been averted because the girls had already accepted to take off their burqa during the exams.
___________________________________________________________________
Denmark
In Denmark both students and teachers have the right to wear the Islamic hijab in the Danish schools and universities.
In the working sector, we can cite the example of one of the biggest chains of distributors in Denmark, FDB and Dansk Supermarkets, who announced that they would not employ Muslim women in the controlling department or in any visible section of the stores. They argued that the hijab was neither hygienic nor compatible with the establishment’s uniforms. The minister of labor thought that this decision was discriminatory.
In 2000 a Muslim woman was not accepted as a trainee because of her hijab. The woman argued that she wore the hijab out of her religious conviction. The court of Odense judged in favor of the woman and ordered the store to pay her 10,000 coronas as compensation.
After this decision, many enterprises fashioned uniforms taking the hijab into consideration. Macdonald’s, Toms chocolate factory, and the co-op Denmark companies were among these enterprises. The Ministry of Defense also designed a uniform compatible with the hijab, the turban, and the yarmulke.
The Minister for Immigration and Integration Bertel Haader declared, “I am not the minister of hijab, what interest me is the integration of the people in the country and not their clothes.” Pointing to the fact that wearing the hijab is a right and a personal freedom of choice, he added that “if we are to forbid the hijab in school we should also abolish Christmas holidays, and Jewish symbols. We do not have such a restrictive mentality. We are trying to encourage Muslim women to participate in the work force, and forbidding the hijab will lead to the creation of a second class citizen to the isolation of Muslim women from society. We will not accept such a decision.”
___________________________________________________________________
Austria
Since 1912 Islam and Christianity have been recognized as the official religions of the country; there is no problem regarding students and teachers wearing hijab in Austrian schools.
____________________________________________________________________
Luxembourg
In Luxembourg very few girls wear the hijab at school. The issue was raised in 2003 when two girls from Sub-Saharan Africa wore hijab; the minister of education proclaimed that it was permissible to wear a “discreet” type of hijab.
Many teachers revolted against this ruling and wrote letters to their dep
uties in parliament to incite them to act against hijab. The social opposition party agreed to launch an orientation debate on hijab. Before this incidence two other cases were known which did not cause any difficulties. However, in the case of teachers, the minister of education was opposed to them wearing hijab.
The use of hijab in a photo for identity cards and passports still remains a public issue; some institutions accept photos with hijab while others refuse.
___________________________________________________________________
Germany
In Germany there are 3.2 million Muslims (3.8 percent of the population), most of whom are of Turkish or Kurdish origin. The question of hijab for students is not a problem in the German schools. But when the teachers are concerned there is active debate on the question. The various states each legislate its own laws concerning the question of hijab. Certain states, among them Bavaria, legislated against the hijab but permit the wearing of religious Christians signs (nuns’ veils) and yarmulkes. Muslims see this as discriminatory and legal actions have been pursued.
It is out of the question to treat the cross and the hijab on the same level, said Cardinal Karl Lehman, who supervises the Episcopal conference. Cardinal Ratzinger, Head of 
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and close advisor to Pope John Paul II, stated officially during the New Year Mass, “I will not forbid a Muslim woman to wear the hijab, but I will not in the least permit anyone to forbid the cross as a symbol of public reconciliation.”
These contradictions are due to the ambiguities in the religious laws in Germany. The fundamental law of 1949 adopted an article of the Weimar constitution of 1919, which does not clearly separate the state from the church, contenting itself with affirming that “there is no State Church” and guaranteeing “equal treatment for each religion.” The preamble of the current constitution states that it was written “with the conscience and responsibility of the German people in front of God and men.” It is a fact that nuns can teach in public schools wearing their habit, crosses are authorized in classrooms, and religious classes are listed among the courses offered. In addition, the state collects from its 55 million Christians taxes that are funneled to the churches.
Chancellor Schröder in his speech did not mention God; therefore, he could claim before Christmas that Germany “was not [a] secular [state] but has become one”, impregnated with “Judeo-Christian religion. … The scarf is not permitted to be worn by public employees, including teachers. But I cannot forbid a young girl from going to go to school wearing her scarf.”
___________________________________________________________________
Spain
Spain’s 300,000 Muslims (0.7 percent of the population) can wear hijab i
n private as well as in public. Only Madrid experienced a serious conflict two years ago when the administration of the private Juan Herrera School opposed the wearing of hijab in the classroom by a 13-year-old Moroccan girl; her parents simply transferred her to a public school. Minister of Education Pillar Castillo estimated late December 2003 in the daily El Pais that even if the displayed religious signs in schools are not “appropriate” they, nevertheless, should not be “forbidden.” If the government is adopting such a reserved attitude, explains the daily, it’s because most of the golden crosses have been removed from public educational institutions and especially because school councils enjoy sufficient autonomy to make their own decisions regarding the subject.
___________________________________________________________________
Holland
The 300,000 Muslims in Holland (1.9 percent of the population) still enjoy a generally tolerant atmosphere. The law forbids all religious discrimination, and the hijab is present in public schools.
___________________________________________________________________
Turkey
Turkey is the only Muslim country that has experienced a radical process of secularization. It is also one of the rare states in the world that has added secularization in its constitutional texts. Article 2 of the Constitution of 1982 declares that “the Republic of Turkey is a democratic state, secular and socialist, respecting human rights with the spirit of social peace, national solidarity and justice, conforming to the nationalism of Ataturk.” The law forbids the wearing of hijab in schools, in universities, and in public offices. The Justice and Development Party (AKP) of Prime Minister M. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which came to power in November 2002, took into consideration the secular heritage of Kemal Ataturk. 
The University of Istanbul denied a student, Leyla Sahlin, to pass her examinations in the Faculty of Medicine because she was wearing hijab. In the eyes of the European Court of Justice, Turkey has not violated Article 9 on the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. And considering the circular presented to it by Leyla claiming “the interference of the state in her right to practice her religion,” the court nevertheless maintained that this “interference has its roots in the Turkish laws” and accepted that “the issue of contention pursued essentially legitimate purposes; that of the protection of the rights and freedom of the ‘others’ and the protection of order.” The European Court of Human Rights saw that “the necessity of the ruling was based on two principles that reinforce and compliment each other; secularization and equality.”
___________________________________________________________________
References:
Dominique Vidal, “Exception Française,” Le Monde Diplomatique, February 2004.
“Le Port du Foulard,” in http://www.islam.lu/, August 2004.
Source: http://www.islamonline.net/English/In_Depth/hijab_campaign/articles/01.shtml
No comments:
Post a Comment