# data[].attributes.headline
Religious Headwear Ban & Clash with Constitutional Values

# data[].attributes.subject
Religious Headwear Ban & Clash with Constitutional Values

# data[].attributes.body
This newspaper article demonstrates a clash between the Canadian ban on religious headwear ban for public officials (such as teachers) and several of the elements within the Canadian constitution (such as freedom of religious expression).  So what should be done when laws don't match a country's values?  Also, this source brings up the concepts of at what level does a country let tradition be a detriment to inclusivity and freedom of expression?  Should traditional culture be protected to the level of exclusion?

📰Newspaper
🤼Demonstrates clash of concepts
⚖️Balanced perspective, focusing more on effects
🇨🇦Canadian Issue

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Protesters rally against Quebec's Bill 21, which prohibits some public-sector workers from wearing religious symbols at work, on Dec. 14. (Justin Tang/AP)

Erin O'Toole, leader of Canada's Conservative Party - whose embattlement owes in large part to a persistent inability to demonstrate right-wing bona fides - has finally found an issue where he's prepared to be a dogmatic reactionary: Quebec's headscarf ban for public-sector workers.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
Last month, after the ban was evoked to remove a Muslim schoolteacher from her classroom duties, O'Toole reportedly let it be known to his parliamentary caucus that no public dissent on the issue would be tolerated. During the last federal election, the Conservative boss prided himself on handling the matter with the greatest of finesse: Sure, he explained, he had reservations in theory about banning religious headgear, but he also respected Quebec's right to pass its own laws and would never pick a fight over an issue it holds so dear. Though his public rhetoric is often opaque, this is still basically his position today.

O'Toole's alleged decree has been of a piece with other high-level responses in Canada to the schoolteacher's firing, a move that's made the Quebec headgear ban, which is known as Bill 21 and has been theoretically controversial for months, suddenly feel more real. As has been the case throughout the law's life, recent reactions have been harsh and judgmental - not to the Quebec government, of course, but to other Canadians who feel they have a right to weigh in.

Former senator André Pratte condescendingly told readers of the National Post that English Canadians are just falling "into the trap set by the province's separatists" when they make a fuss over Quebeckers getting fired for practicing their religion and that people without skin in the game should just "shut up." This is, we assume, the O'Toole position too, given the Tory leader nursed fantasies in the last election that his party was on the brink of winning Quebec's nationalist vote - and presumably one doesn't get there by insulting one of the movement's marquee initiatives.

The idea that Francophone nationalists are playing 10-dimensional chess was similarly brought up by the Globe and Mail editorial board, who in a recent offering portrayed Quebec's Premier François Legault - the architect of Bill 21 - as Canada's most cunning political mind.

Demonstrating that one doesn't argue Canadian politics so much as cite legends, the board bemoaned "an English-language election debate moderator asking a question on Bill 21 that was so ignorantly conceived and badly phrased" it proved "a gift to Mr. Legault."

(For the forgetful, this supposedly horrifying episode consisted of Shachi Kurl asking federal separatist leader Yves-Francois Blanchet, "Quebec is recognized as a distinct society but for those outside of the province please help them to understand why your party also supports these discriminatory laws.") The Globe had earlier demanded some of the law's critics "take a back seat and put a sock in it."

This sort of rhetoric is based on the premise that the appeasement of Quebec is the highest purpose of Canadian politics and that the province's aggressive nationalism must never be permitted to flare into separatism. To the extent Quebec's comfort conflicts with other elements of the Canadian regime, it's accordingly the former that must take precedent.

This theory runs counter to the hierarchy of priorities outlined in the Canadian constitution. The purity of Francophone Quebec culture is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is why Legault is in the process of getting the document changed to stick in words to that effect. Free exercise of religion is, however, which is why Legault had to exploit the constitution's contentious and rarely used "notwithstanding clause" to pass Bill 21 as an explicitly unconstitutional law.

That legislation of this sort can pass in Canada exposes deep structural flaws in Canadian democracy. It's always shocking when Canadians are reminded that many of their supposedly fundamental rights can be suspended by simple legislation, and it's not irrational for those who hear about a government doing so to react with horror and outrage.

The Quebec government's defense is similarly little more than chauvinistic tautology: "Our culture believes this thing is bad." This is a rationalization, not an argument. Defending a religious headgear ban on the grounds French Quebeckers find headscarves and turbans obnoxious is not the sort of threadbare argument anyone should be implying meets what should be an extraordinarily high standard for rights-defying legislation.

As I've discussed before, members of the Quebec political class really do seem to be descending into a spoiled, sheltered state where they don't want to argue, they don't want to justify, and they don't want to defend; they just want to pass laws wildly at odds with Canadian liberal norms then get flamboyantly offended when called out. Playing along is optional, however, and it's depressing to observe how many elite Canadians who clearly know better have decided to pretend the choice between hurt feelings and soft authoritarianism is a difficult one.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Quebec's religious headgear ban is at odds with Canadian liberal norms. Why are politicians afraid to say so?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Erin O'Toole, leader of Canada's Conservative Party - whose embattlement owes in large part to a persistent inability to demonstrate right-wing bona fides - has finally found an issue where he's prepared to be a dogmatic reactionary: Quebec's headscarf ban for public-sector workers.

# data[].attributes.headline
Does Religious Headwear Count in Dress Codes?

# data[].attributes.subject
Does Religious Headwear Count in Dress Codes?

# data[].attributes.body
This Pro and Con debate on dress codes determines from both the pro & con sides that religious headwear such as headscarves is included in the dress code debate.  Neutrally, clothing is a cultural determiner or signifier.  Within this debate:
FOR dress codes identify religious headwear as potentially dangerous for situations such as prisons, where they could be used as weapons, or places of entertainment like theaters, where they could hide a shooter from identification.
AGAINST dress codes identify religious headwear as inclusive, publicly decent, and developing a sense of community.

🖥️Organization (.org) Website
⚖️Balanced perspective
🇺🇸 USA perspective
🌎Global perspective
🔗Linked with other issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While the most frequent debate about dress codes may be centered around K-12 schools, dress codes impact just about everyone's daily life. From the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs (which exploded in popularity in the 1960s and 70s in reaction to the rise of hippies) to COVID-19 pandemic mask mandates, employer restrictions on tattoos and hairstyles, and clothing regulations on airlines, dress codes are more prevalent than we might think.

While it's difficult to pinpoint the first dress code-humans started wearing clothes around 170,000 years ago-nearly every culture and country throughout history, formally or informally, have had strictures on what to wear and not to wear. These dress codes are common "cultural signifiers," reflecting social beliefs and cultural values, most often of the social class dominating the culture. Such codes have been prevalent in Islamic countries since the founding of the religion in the seventh century, and they continue to cause controversy today-are they appropriate regulations for maintaining piety, community, and public decency, or are they demeaning and oppressive, especially for Islamic women?

In the West, people were arrested and imprisoned as early as ​​1565 in England for violating dress codes. The man in question, a servant named Richard Walweyn, was arrested for wearing "a very monsterous and outraygeous great payre of hose" (or trunk hose) and was imprisoned until he could show he owned other hose "of a decent & lawfull facyon." Other dress codes of the time reserved expensive garments made of silk, fur, and velvet for nobility only, reinforcing how dress codes have been implemented for purposes of social distinction. Informal dress codes-such as high-fashion clothes with logos and the unofficial " Midtown Uniform" worn by men working in finance-underscore how often dress codes have been used to mark and maintain visual distinctions between classes and occupations. Other dress codes have been enacted overtly to police morality, as with the bans on bobbed hair and flapper dresses of the 1920s. Still other dress codes are intended to spur an atmosphere of inclusiveness and professionalism or specifically to maintain safety in the workplace.

Should Dress Codes Be Implemented and Enforced?

Pro 1

Dress codes enforce decorum and a serious, professional atmosphere conducive to success.

High school athletes at St. Louis Park High School in Minnesota agreed that their teams' dress code days (which include dressing up on game days) positively contributed to team unity. Brendan Donahue, a hockey player, said participating in dress code days better prepared him for games. He stated, "The dress codes add a further feeling of connection, teamwork and bond by wearing the same thing. It acts as a uniform much like our jerseys. Our dress code of dressing up adds a feeling of professionalism to our team and sport."
Read More

Pro 2

Uniformly mandated dress codes promote safety.

From school chemistry labs to manufacturing jobs, some dress code requirements are obviously about safety. Many places require protective glasses, steel-toed boots, fire-resistant jackets, hard hats, or reflective vests, for example.

Other items of clothing may be restricted for less obvious safety reasons. Leggings, for example, are frequently made from synthetic, flammable materials that could react with spilled chemicals and catch fire. Similarly, skin-baring clothing may also be banned around chemicals to prevent burns.

Religious headscarves have been banned in some settings, such as prisons, because wearers could be strangled by the garments in an altercation.

Still other dress codes, such as no full-face masks (like Halloween masks) allowed in movie theaters, are intended to help prevent shootings and other violence.

Other clothing restrictions at schools and public places may seem arbitrary but are used to protect against gang activity. Colors, brands, and logos may be gang-affiliated in certain locations. As Lincoln Public Schools in Nebraska explained, "Clothing and accessories associated with gangs and hate groups have the potential to disrupt the learning environment by bringing symbols that represent fear and intimidation of others into classrooms. The identification and prohibition of this clothing help decrease the impact of gangs and hate groups in school. These rules also protect students who are unaware they are wearing clothes with a gang or hate group affiliation."
Read More

Pro 3

Dress codes promote inclusiveness and a comfortable, cooperative environment while eliminating individualistic attire that can distract from common goals.

As Bonneville Academy, a STEM school in Stansbury Park, Utah, explained, "The primary objective of a school dress code is to build constant equality among all the students. When all the students wear the same style of dress, then there will be the same kind of atmosphere across the school campus. This pattern encourages the student to concentrate more on their academic and co-curricular activities... then all the learning becomes more interesting and relevant... Students who are used to dress[ing] properly will be well equipped to evolve into the actual world, especially when they enter into the ever-competitive job market."

Susan M. Heathfield, a management and organization development consultant, stated, "Employees appreciate guidance about appropriate business attire for your workplace-especially when you specify a rationale for the dress code that your team has selected." Simply knowing whether suits are required or jeans are appropriate removes guesswork for employees, which leads to a more comfortable work environment. Similarly, dress codes can make a disparate group of people feel like a team-no one is left out or judged differently solely on the basis of the way they dress.

Dress codes can also make workplace hierarchies friendlier and more work-conducive. A manager who dresses in suits with ties may intimidate employees who wear branded polo shirts and khakis, preventing effective communication.

Further, dress codes mean employees and customers or clients won't be distracted by individualistic clothing. For example, a customer of Nebraska State Bank & Trust Co. complained to the bank's president about a branch employee's outfit of mismatched tunic and leggings, fringed boots, and large earrings. A customer complaint can not only alienate the customer but also distract employees from their tasks and potentially embarrass or shame the employee whose outfit sparked the complaint.
Read More

Con 1

Dress codes reinforce racist standards of beauty and dress.

As the National Women's Law Center summarized, "Black girls face unique dress and hair code burdens. For example, some schools ban styles associated with Black girls and women, like hair wraps. Black girls also face adults' stereotyped perceptions that they are more sexually provocative because of their race, and thus more deserving of punishment for a low-cut shirt or short skirt."

Assistant Superintendent and Principal of Evanston Township High School, Marcus Campbell spoke about changing an outdated dress code: "if certain females were not a certain body type, if they had more curves or they had certain features that were developed, they were dress coded over another young lady who may not have the same features but were wearing the exact same items. Our young women of color were dress coded more than our white girls were. So we found it to be racist, we found it to be sexist, we found it to be antiquated. It was not body positive, and there was just trouble all around with our dress code, and we knew we needed to make a change."

Black male students are often "dress coded" at schools for hoodies, low-rise or baggy pants, and do-rags. Black boys were also more likely to be disciplined (suspended, for example) for a dress code violation than non-Black students.

As Dialectic, a company that counsels workplaces, concluded, "Traditional dress codes work to police certain kinds of bodies. They ensure that employees follow the practices of the dominant culture. Under the guise of professionalism, dress codes tend to punish marginalized groups of employees for refusing to conform."
Read More

Con 2

Uniformly mandated dress codes are seldom uniformly mandated, often discriminating against women and marginalized groups.

Girls in school are frequently "dress-coded" for "too short" shorts and skirts, "too thin" tank top straps, leggings, and other clothing that might be a "distraction to boys."

Fourth-grade teacher ​​Marci Kutzer said these rules send a clear message to girls: "A boy's education can be compromised by your gender. Please do what you can to neutralize it."

The problems follow women into the workplace. A leaked training presentation from Ernst & Young coached women to "look healthy and fit" with a "good haircut, manicured nails, well-cut attire that complements your body type," but not to wear too-short skirts because "sexuality scrambles the mind."
Read More

Con 3

Dress codes bolster religious and cultural intolerance.

Only in 2019 did US Congress change the 1837 rule that banned headwear of any sort, including religious headwear such as kippahs, hijabs, and turbans.

While the United States protects religious expression and cannot ban religious wear as France has banned burqas and hijabs, American dress codes frequently use acceptability standards to less explicitly ban religious garb.
Read More
Discussion Questions
1. Consider the official dress codes in your daily life. How are dress codes implemented in your school, workplace, and/or religious institutions? Do you find these appropriate? Restrictive? Explain your answer(s).

2. Consider the unofficial dress codes in your life. What do your friends think is acceptable for various occasions? What do you wear when visiting a place of worship or to grandma's house for a special dinner? How do you dress differently when hanging around with friends than when going on a date? Do you find these formal and informal codes appropriate or restrictive? Explain your answer(s).

3. If you have to choose one, would you prefer a uniform policy for school and work, just a dress code, or neither? Explain your answer.
Take Action
1. Consider the pros of dress codes with Bonneville Academy.

2. Analyze students' rights about school dress codes with the ACLU.

3. Examine the history of rules and laws about clothing and the contemporary repercussions with law professor Richard Thompson Ford.

4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the "other side of the issue" now helps you better argue your position.

5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives.
Sources

23.

Lincoln Public Schools, "Increased Awareness of Dress Code Guidelines Related to Gangs, Hate Groups," lps.org (accessed Mar. 1, 2022)

More Social Debate Topics
1. Should Students Have to Wear School Uniforms? - Proponents say uniforms may increase student safety. Opponents say uniforms restrict expression.

2. Is Cancel Culture (or "Callout Culture") Good for Society? - Proponents say cancel culture allows people to seek accountability. Opponents say it amounts to online bullying.

3. Are Social Media Sites Good for Our Society?- Proponents say social media spreads information faster than any other media. Opponents say it enables the spread of unreliable information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dress Codes - Top 3 Pros and Cons | ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some argue that dress codes are important to promote success, safety, and inclusivity. While others argue that dress codes are racist, sexist, and culturally intolerant.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ending of Congress' 181-Year Ban on Headwear

# data[].attributes.subject
Ending of Congress' 181-Year Ban on Headwear

# data[].attributes.body
Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, a Somali-American Muslim and refugee, and one of 2 Muslims elected to congress in 2018, became the first member of Congress to wear a religious headscarf on the floor after a 234 for - 197 against vote decided the long-held hat ban would not include religious head-wear.  Omar's tweet demonstrates the opinion that a perspective FOR religious head-wear is welcoming, inclusive, and focused on love.

🐦Personal Tweet
🧑🏾‍⚖️Demonstrates Change in Law
🇺🇸USA Perspective

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
Yesterday, Congress voted to lift a 181 year ban on headwear to make the #116thCongress more inclusive for all. 

I thank my colleagues for welcoming me, and I look forward to the day we lift the Muslim ban separating families all over the U.S. from their loved ones.

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
Yesterday, Congress voted to lift a 181 year ban on headwear to make the #116thCongress more inclusive for all. 

I thank my colleagues for welcoming me, and I look forward to the day we lift the Muslim ban separating families all over the U.S. from their loved ones.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Yesterday, Congress voted to lift a 181 year ban on headwear to make the #116thCongress more inclusive for all.

I thank my colleagues for welcoming me, and I look forward to the day we lift the Muslim ban separating families all over the U.S. from their loved ones.
— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) January 4, 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
Yesterday, Congress voted to lift a 181 year ban on headwear to make the #116thCongress more inclusive for all. 

I thank my colleagues for welcoming me, and I look forward to the day we lift the Muslim ban separating families all over the U.S. from their loved ones.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
Yesterday, Congress voted to lift a 181 year ban on headwear to make the #116thCongress more inclusive for all. 

I thank my colleagues for welcoming me, and I look forward to the day we lift the Muslim ban separating families all over the U.S. from their loved ones.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
Yesterday, Congress voted to lift a 181 year ban on headwear to make the #116thCongress more inclusive for all. 

I thank my colleagues for welcoming me, and I look forward to the day we lift the Muslim ban separating families all over the U.S. from their loved ones.

# data[].attributes.body
Employers in Great Britain Can Force Employees to Dress "Neutrally."  Piers Morgan, a morning show host, and Muslim guests discuss the two sides of the issue.  This issue covers topics such as the level of freedoms employers should have, an employee's choice to be employed or not with a certain company, and the role the government has in determining how a company should be run.  This source goes beyond the government level and the individual level and looks at the very divided middle level between the two.

🎦 YouTube Video
⚖️Balanced perspective
🤼Demonstrates clash of perspectives
🇬🇧 Great Britain Perspective

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Piers Morgan Debates Headscarf Ban With Muslim Women | Good Morning Britain

# data[].attributes.headline
Head Covering: An Inter-Religious Discussion

# data[].attributes.subject
Head Covering: An Inter-Religious Discussion

# data[].attributes.body
This YouTube video comes from an inter-religious discussion on the religious "imperative" for females to wear head coverings of all shapes and sizes. Speakers include Dr. Mary Boys, of  Union Theological Seminary, Rori Picker Neiss of Yeshivat Maharat and Tayyibah Taylor of Azizah Magazine, and moderator Dr. Carol Ingall of the Jewish Theological Seminary.  It was a part of the "What to Wear" event on March 11th, 2012.  It includes multiple religious perspectives, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.  This source shows the religious reasons for giving the right to religious headwear.

🎦 YouTube Video
🌎Global perspective
🔗Linked with other issues
🤝Demonstrates an agreement of perspectives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Head Covering: An Inter-Religious Discussion

# data[].attributes.body
~3 minute podcast audio from 2021 analyzes the French vote to ban minors (under 18) from wearing the Hijab.  This source brings up the issue of religious extremism and demonstrates the perspective that religion can go too far, as well as whether minors are old enough to make religious choices for themselves.  This issue goes beyond the French ban of the burkah, which is a full-body religious covering, in public areas.  This source also brings up the question of whether a country can support gender equality when it lets genders be physically separated and identified from one another.

🔊Podcast Audio
🇫🇷French issue and perspective
🤼Demonstrates clash of religion and politics, secularism

# data[].attributes.headline
Questions and Answers on Restrictions on Religious Dress and Symbols in Europe

# data[].attributes.subject
Questions and Answers on Restrictions on Religious Dress and Symbols in Europe

# data[].attributes.body
This source is a neutral analysis of the various restrictions on religious headwear in Europe.  Its purpose is to inform readers about the issue and answer their questions, relying on facts and not opinions.  This source brings International Human Rights to this debate and addresses what they cover and what role they have compared to a country's governmental laws.  Through their research and analysis, the human rights laws and human rights organizations determine these restrictions to be against human rights.

🖥️Organization (.org) Website
⚖️Balanced perspective
🌎Global perspective
🔗Linked with other issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A growing number of European countries have passed or are contemplating restrictions on religious dress in public places. The impetus for these restrictions is the debate in Europe about the wearing of Muslim veils. The debate reflects tensions in increasingly pluralist societies struggling with integration, national identity and security.

While many of the proposed and adopted measures are purportedly neutral-banning all religious dress or symbols or face coverings on paper -the public and political debate has focused on the different veils worn by Muslim women: the hijab, or headscarf, which covers the hair; the niqab, which covers the face and neck, leaving the eyes visible; and the burqa, a full-face and body covering.

There are no complete and reliable figures on how many women in these countries wear full-face veils, but it is clear that they constitute a very small minority. Estimates in France range from 700 to 2000 women, about 150-200 in Denmark, while in Belgium the figure may be around 300-400.

In France, civil servants, including teachers, are prohibited by law from displaying religious symbols, and students may not attend public schools if they display any kind of "ostentatious" religious symbol, including the headscarf, the Sikh turban, and the Jewish headcovering (kippah). Authorities have said that this ban would also apply to 'large' Christian crosses but the ban has not been applied to 'normal' sized crucifixes worn around the neck. In Germany, eight out of sixteen Länder (states) have passed laws prohibiting teachers in public schools from wearing visible religious clothing and symbols, with parliamentary debates and explanatory documents making it clear that the Muslim headscarf was the principal target. Two of these Länder impose the same restriction more widely on some or all other civil servants.

In September 2010 the French parliament adopted a law prohibiting the concealment of one's face in public, with the declared intention to prevent the wearing of Muslim veils that cover the face in public places. The law, which was approved by the French Constitutional Council in October 2010, makes it a crime to coerce women to wear such veils, punishable by a year in prison and a 30,000 Euro fine. Once the law enters into full effect, in the spring of 2011, women who violate the law will be subject to a fine of up to 150 Euros ($209) and/or compelled to attend a "citizenship" course.

A law containing similar restrictions was approved by the lower chamber of the Belgian parliament in April, and remains pending approval by the Senate. The Spanish senate adopted a nonbinding resolution in June 2010 calling on Spain to outlaw in public places clothing or accessories that completely cover the face, saying that a majority in Spain considers the full Muslim veil "discriminatory, harmful, and contrary to the dignity of women and real and effective equality between men and women." The Spanish government has said it would include a ban in a future reform of Spain's law on religious freedom. A plan to ban veils was included in the October 2010 coalition government agreement in the Netherlands. Comparable nationwide measures have also been proposed in a variety of other countries, including Italy, the United Kingdom and Denmark, while a number of municipalities in Belgium, Spain, and Italy already have, or are considering implementing, local bans in place.

The debate raises challenging questions about the interplay between different sets of fundamental rights, in particular rights associated with freedom of religion and the rights of women. It also poses questions about the appropriate role of the state in matters of religion and traditional practices, including how, when and where the state can legitimately restrict the wearing of religious dress and the display of religious symbols.

Q: What does international human rights law say about religious dress and symbols?

Q: What do international human rights bodies say?

Q: What is Human Rights Watch's position on state interference in religious dress and symbols?

Q: What about countries where women are forced to wear the headscarf, niqab or burqa?

Q: When governments ban or mandate religious dress, aren't they simply reflecting the social consensus in their country?

Q: But isn't the veil a symbol of women's subjugation?

Q: What about girls who are forced by their families to wear the veil?

Q: Shouldn't the burqa and niqab be banned for security reasons?

Q: Isn't banning of religious dress and symbols in public places an appropriate way to preserve secularism?

Human rights law guarantees the right to freedom of religion, including the right to manifest one's religious beliefs through worship, observance, practice and teaching in private and in public. Human rights law requires states to guarantee the right to a private life, which includes the right to autonomy, for example the freedom to choose what to wear, in private and in public. States must ensure the right to equality or non-discrimination, particularly that there should be no discrimination on the grounds of religion or sex. And finally, states are bound to protect the rights of religious minorities within their borders.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has clarified that the concept of worship includes the display of symbols, and that observance and practice can include the wearing of distinctive clothing or head coverings.

Like the vast majority of rights, neither religious freedom nor the right to autonomy is an absolute right under human rights law. Governments can limit these rights, but only when they can demonstrate convincingly that restrictions are necessary to protect public safety, public order, health, or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. This is a high threshold for a government to justify.

The governments attempting to ban the wearing of full-face veils have not demonstrated that the wearing of veils poses such a significant threat under any of the permitted grounds of restrictions, to the extent that would justify outright bans. In addition, under international law any restriction on religious freedom must be nondiscriminatory and proportionate. While proposed and existing bans are crafted in neutral terms-prohibiting concealment of the face in public-the declared aim and logic behind these bans is to counter the wearing of full-face veils, and these bans are likely to have a disproportionate impact on Muslim women. In other words, these bans are discriminatory in practice.

Whereas some of the purported reasons for the bans on veils - the need to ascertain a person's identity, the need to protect women from oppression - may be legitimate aims, the response of a complete and public ban, including the punishment of the women who wear the veil, is disproportionate. Less restrictive measures are possible to meet these aims and some of these are discussed below.

Human Rights Watch is aware of arguments that full-face and body covering veils do not constitute a religious practice sanctioned or prescribed by Islam but is instead a cultural practice with roots in geographically limited areas. It is not our role to enter into a theological debate. The crucial point is that it is not up to the state to define or interpret the meaning of religious symbols; what is decisive is that the individual considers it to be a manifestation of his or her religious belief. The right to freedom of religion and belief protects religious minorities but also dissenters within religious majorities and atheists. Under international human rights law, the state should neither deny nor impose particular religious beliefs or particular manifestations of religious beliefs.

International human rights bodies have criticized restrictions on headscarves and veils. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Thomas Hammarberg called general bans on the burqa and niqab "an ill-advised invasion of individual privacy," stressing also the importance of the right to freely manifest one's religion and the right to non-discrimination. The secretary general of the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly also oppose such bans. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed its concern that the ban on religious symbols in schools may neglect the basic principle of the best interests of the child and the right to education, and called on France to ensure that no child was excluded or marginalized from the school system as a result of its laws.

The European Court of Human Rights gives governments considerable latitude when assessing whether restrictions on religious dress for public servants and in public buildings are compatible with human rights law. In a series of cases, the Court has upheld restrictions on students and teachers wearing headscarves and turbans in schools and universities. It has also upheld a newly-imposed requirement in France that a Sikh remove his turban for his driver's license photograph. (The Court has yet to hear any cases involving restrictions on the Jewish kippah under the French law.)

Human Rights Watch disagrees with the Court's interpretation in these cases. Human Rights Watch believes the Court failed to give proper weight to the need for states to have strong justifications for these restrictions, the impact these restrictions have on the lives of the people concerned (including Sikh men and boys in France), and the discriminatory impact of bans that predominantly affect women and girls wearing headscarves. In many of these cases the Court has ruled without requiring the government to produce a justification for its restrictions.

It is also notable that in a February 2010 case against Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that general restrictions on religious dress in public areas applied against members of a minority group violated their right to freedom of religion. That suggests it would find a general public ban on face-covering veils to be incompatible with human rights law.

Human Rights Watch takes no position on whether the wearing of the headscarf or face covering veils is desirable. We oppose both policies of forced veiling and blanket bans on the wearing of religious dress. Insofar as religious freedom is involved, we defend this right in the same spirit we defend freedom of expression - we uphold the right to express opinions which some deem contrary to the principles of human dignity, tolerance and respect, and which may deeply offend, because of the fundamental importance of freedom of religion and expression in democratic societies.

We also oppose laws prohibiting civil servants, including teachers, from wearing religious symbols at work, unless it has been shown that those symbols have a direct impact on their ability to perform their jobs. Authorities can prohibit teachers in public schools from actively proselytizing their religion to their students, but schools can address this on an individual basis through internal disciplinary procedures. Allowing individual employees of the state to manifest their beliefs by wearing a religious symbol does not constitute endorsement by the state nor does it undermine state neutrality or the ability of the state employee to uphold that duty. On the contrary, it demonstrates respect for religious diversity.

It may be reasonable for the state to prohibit the wearing of full-face veils in certain jobs, when concealment of the face is shown to interfere with essential occupational requirements. For example, it may be legitimate to require civil servants in contact with the public and teachers in public schools to show their faces at all times. But such restrictions should be tailored to where showing one's face is an essential requirement of the job. And such restrictions could not be legitimately applied to the wearing of religious symbols that do not cover the face such as a headscarf, kippah, crucifix or turban.

Human Rights Watch is opposed to policies of forced wearing of veils or other religious clothes, such as those in Aceh (Indonesia), Saudi Arabia, Iran, parts of Somalia, Gaza, the Russian republic of Chechnya, and Afghanistan under the Taliban, as a violation of women's rights to personal autonomy, as well as their freedom of religion, conscience and belief. We recognize and have documented that practices and policies justified on religious grounds sometimes have a negative impact on women's rights, and that women and girls are subjected to violence and oppression in the name of religion.

Human Rights Watch rejects the argument that state-imposed rules on veiling in parts of the Muslim world and bans on religious dress in Europe are simply reflections of societal norms in those countries. Human rights principles protect all individuals and give special protection to members of minorities, often against laws that reflect oppressive societal norms. Furthermore many of the laws, both those in Europe attempting to ban certain religious clothing and those in other parts of the world requiring it, are relatively new.

Nor do we find compelling related arguments that policies of forced veiling are expressions of a shared societal concept of decency analogous to laws prohibiting public nudity. It is important to note that decency laws prohibiting public nudity are virtually universal, are not associated with and do not lead to other limitations on rights, and are not the subject of significant dissent. In contrast, forced veiling -and in particular forced wearing of the niqab and the burqa-are associated with serious human rights violations. Moreover, the purpose, meaning and nature of veils vary widely among communities and nations, and are hotly contested issues within Muslim communities.

At the same time, restrictions on wearing the veil in public life are as much a violation of the rights of women as is the forced wearing of the veil. Muslim women, like all women, should have the right to dress as they choose, and to make decisions about their lives and how to express their faith, identity and morals.

One of the principal arguments used in favor of bans is that they help liberate women who are coerced into veiling. For many, full veiling is a powerful symbol of the oppression and subjugation of Muslim women. The burqa has associations with the Taliban, who systematically violated the fundamental rights and freedoms of Afghan women, leaving them with the lowest life expectancy in the region and some of the highest rates of maternal death.

Coercing women to wear the veil is one of an alarmingly vast array of gender-specific abuses committed against women of all religions, traditions, and societies around the world. States have an obligation to eradicate violence and discrimination against women in public and in private, including through an appropriate use of criminal law to punish those responsible.

But generalizations about women's oppression do a disservice to one of the basic tenets of gender equality: the right to self-determination and autonomy, the right to make decisions about her life without interference from the state or others. There are undoubtedly women who are forced to wear the veil or feel tremendous pressure to do so against their own convictions. There are also European Muslim women who have spoken out to say that veiling was their own decision, citing motivations such as an expression of their faith and a desire to assert their identity. It is important to acknowledge that veiling can be a choice, in the same way that other convictions or conduct that have been shaped by societal, family or religious influences are experienced by the individual as an expression of their personality.

The right to autonomy, a core principle of women's rights, is understood to be a part of the right to a private life guaranteed under international human rights law. The right to autonomy encompasses the right to make decisions freely in accordance with one's values, beliefs, personal circumstances and needs. Exercise of this right presupposes freedom from coercion as well as freedom from illegitimate restrictions. It also includes the right to adopt a lifestyle which others in society disapprove of, or deem harmful to the person who pursues it.

At a practical level, it is hard to see how proscriptive laws targeting women serve the cause of women's equality. Local laws and the nationwide French ban enacted in October 2010 provide for a variety of sanctions on women who violate the terms of the ban, including fines, good "citizenship" courses and community social work. The ban pending final approval in the Belgian Senate envisions up to seven days in prison.

Our research has found that the ban on teachers wearing headscarves in parts of Germany led observant Muslim women to abandon their chosen career, resulting in a loss of independence, social standing and financial wellbeing, although there are no reliable figures on how many women are affected. For women who are coerced by family members into wearing a headscarf, blocking access to these professions will not protect them from oppression. Moreover, this type of state regulation appears to aggravate discrimination against women who wear the headscarf in the private employment sector. Far from empowering them, the bans may lead to a deterioration in their social position.

Even in the case of face-covering veils, the arguments are not convincing. For those women who are compelled to cover themselves, a ban on full-face covering veils in all public spaces may mean they trade what critics call an "ambulatory prison" for one made of brick and mortar: their homes, as their male relatives may refuse to allow them out of the house without their veils. Strong social censure within Muslim communities against the wearing of full-face veils, and against forced veiling generally, will likely do more to empower women than laws and fines. State coercion and punishing the victims will not uproot oppression. What is needed is education, access to support and economic possibilities as well as effective means to seek justice against those who are oppressing them.

For those who cover themselves by choice, a ban forces them to choose between the ability to participate fully in society and the manifestation of their religious faith.

A ban imposed in public buildings and public transportation, as opposed to all public spaces, risks having an equally devastating impact on the ability of veiled women to conduct their lives, making commonplace activities-taking the bus, attending a parent-teacher conference in a public school, filing documents at a municipal office, even getting medical attention in a hospital-impossible while following their religious beliefs.

There is a tension between the rights of parents to educate their children according to their beliefs and the child's right to personal autonomy (which increases with age). Under international law, states must respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the child's exercise of their basic rights. Reasonable people can, and often do, disagree vehemently over what is appropriate parental behavior, including everything from spiritual education to dietary regimes.

States, however, can intervene with parents' choices on behalf of their children only when there is demonstrable actual or potential physical or psychological harm. Indeed, states must take appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect children where parents are responsible for physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, mistreatment or exploitation. It is important to note that under international law, states must also take all appropriate measures to ensure that children are protected against discrimination or cruel punishment on the basis of the beliefs of their parents or family members.

As a general rule, it is inappropriate for the state to regulate whether parents can require their children to wear religious dress in conformity with the parents' own convictions, unless this compulsion is associated with psychological or physical mistreatment. As a child approaches 18 she or he should have increasing autonomy, including in the choice over what she or he wears.

Human Rights Watch takes the view that blanket restrictions on students wearing religious dress and symbols in schools are contrary to international human rights law. Such restrictions may disproportionately affect religious minorities, stigmatize members of those minorities, and have a negative impact on children's enjoyment of the right to education, often with a disproportionate impact on girls. Schools may have policies on uniforms but these should accommodate religious requirements, whether the religion is Muslim, Sikh, Jewish, Christian or other. Case-by-case restrictions may be legitimate when the school administration can demonstrate that specific dress, including full-face veils, interferes with the child's ability to learn or participate fully in the life of the school. In this case, the paramount duty of protecting the best interest of the child may justify a restriction.

Laws requiring female students to wear the headscarf or veil at school equally violate the obligation of state authorities under international law to respect the rights of parents to raise their children in conformity with their own convictions, the rights of the child to personal autonomy, as well as the duty to avoid coercion in matters relating to religious freedom.

A wholesale ban on the full Muslim veil is a disproportionate response to the legitimate and concrete need in a variety of situations to ascertain someone's identity. Airport checks, school pick-ups, administrative dealings with state officers and cashing a check are all obvious examples of where a person may need to prove their identity. Appropriate and sensitive measures can be adopted to satisfy both the individual's right to manifest her religious beliefs and her duty to identify herself. In all the situations mentioned above, a woman wearing the full veil can be taken aside to show her face to a female guard, teacher, state or bank employee. Forms of religious dress that do not inhibit identification, such as the wearing of the headscarf or the Sikh turban, should not be the subject of restrictions in the name of security.

Some supporters of general bans cite the overarching need to preserve public order and refer to the existence in some countries of laws prohibiting people from walking around masked except on specific occasions (for example, carnival time). There is no compelling evidence that wearing the full Muslim veil poses more of a threat to public order than other means of covering the face, including protective masks for health reasons and winter headgear. It is worth noting that existing laws that prohibit the masking of the face in public are in fact rarely enforced except in specific circumstances, such as political demonstrations. Finally, bans on concealing one's face in public are unlikely to deter individual's intent on committing a crime from covering their faces, by any number of means, to escape identification.

Human rights law requires the state and state authorities to refrain from discriminating on the basis of religious beliefs. This means the state should be neutral in matters of religion-an important guarantor of religious freedom. In some European states, state neutrality requires that state institutions refrain from imposing any particular set of religious views, while at the same time allowing for free expression of religious beliefs within society. But an aggressive secularism that attempts to prevent individual manifestation of religion, such as bans that deny the wearing in public places of a manner of dress linked to a particular religious faith, undermine, rather than protect, this principle.

There is a clear distinction between institutional display of symbols associated with a particular religion, which could be perceived as an affirmation of a particular religious message, and individual manifestation of private beliefs by employees of public institutions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Questions and Answers on Restrictions on Religious Dress and Symbols in Europe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A growing number of European countries have passed or are contemplating restrictions on religious dress in public places. The impetus for these restrictions is the debate in Europe about the wearing of Muslim veils. The debate reflects tensions in increasingly pluralist societies struggling with integration, national identity and security.

# data[].attributes.headline
Religious Garb and Grooming in the Workplace: Rights and Responsibilities

# data[].attributes.subject
Religious Garb and Grooming in the Workplace: Rights and Responsibilities

# data[].attributes.body
While not an opinionated source, this source is for the right to wear religious head-wear.  The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) created this informational resource to provide answers to common questions of U.S. citizens on "how federal employment discrimination law applies to religious dress and grooming practices, and what steps employers can take to meet their legal responsibilities in this area."  Ultimately, religious dress and grooming is protected under Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  This 2014 source sticks to facts and is considered a technical assistance document.

🖥️Government (.gov) Website
🧑🏾‍⚖️Demonstrates Current & Continued Law
🇺🇸USA Perspective

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Religious Garb and Grooming in the Workplace: Rights and Responsibilities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This publication by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) answers questions about how federal employment discrimination law applies to religious dress and grooming practices, and what steps employers can take to meet their legal responsibilities in this area.

# data[].attributes.body
This balanced source comes from Human Rights Law Review and looks at both sides of the debate, coming up with several perspectives from each side not always discussed in regular sources on this debate.  Ultimately, the outcome of religious head covering bans is unknown because both sides have such strong arguments.  The author did point out that there is a clash between traditional European laws and values of freedoms towards speech and religion & the more recent restrictive laws and actions taken against religious headwear.  This source points out that taking away rights to religious headwear could be encouraging some of the fundamental and more extreme values and behaviors some Europeans are so concerned about.  This source is a good read for hearing both perspectives of the debate as well as their impact on future outcomes.

🗃️PDF article
⚖️Balanced perspective
🌎Global perspective
🇪🇺European issue
🔗Linked with other issues

# data[].attributes.body
In this highly opinionated source, a government official of a state in India expressed one perspective of this debate, expressing that Muslim women must be freed and this religious headwear (full body wear) is not just oppressive but embodies an evil act.
This source brings to light religion and secularism, separation of church and state, as well as the place of full-body coverings like the burka (burqa) in debates just on head coverings.

🖥️Website
🇮🇳 Indian issue and perspective
🤼Demonstrates clash of religion and politics, secularism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
BJP leader Anand Swarup Shukla on Wednesday stoked controversy by comparing the practice of wearing burqa to that of triple talaq and said both were "evil customs".

Shukla, who is a minister in the Uttar Pradesh government, further said that Muslim women will soon be "freed" and will not have to wear the burqa anymore.

Shukla's comments come just a day after he wrote to the Ballia district magistrate, complaining that he is facing difficulties while discharging his duties due to loudspeakers at mosques. He further urged authorities to fix the volume of the loudspeakers to a uniform level.

"Muslim women will be freed from 'burqa' like triple talaq. There will come a time when they will get rid of it. There are many Muslim countries where 'burqa' is banned," Shukla told reporters, without elaborating on his claim.

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019 makes the practice of instant divorce through "triple talaq" among Muslims a punishable offence.

Under the provisions of the Act, a Muslim man who pronounces "triple talaq" upon his wife can be sentenced to a jail term that may extend to three years.

Shukla, the Uttar Pradesh Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs minister, said 'burqa' is "inhuman and evil custom" and added that those with progressive thinking are shunning it and not pressing for its use.

On his letter to the DM in which he raised objection to the volume of loudspeakers at the mosque near his house, the minister said on Wednesday that those having problems should dial '112' and inform police about it, adding if proper steps are not taken, he will decide further course of action.

"Namaaz is offered five times in a day, and throughout the day. As a result of it, I face problems in doing Yoga, meditation, puja (worship) and discharging government duties," Shukla had said in the letter, referring to the Kajipura Madina Masjid in his constituency.

Shukla had said there are a number of schools in the vicinity of the mosque and the practice hampers the students' studies there.

(With PTI inputs)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
wearing burqa is an evil custom just like triple talaq: bjp leader anand swarup shukla

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Muslim Women Will Soon Be Freed From Having To Wear Burqa: BJP Leader Anand Swarup Shukla

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BJP leader Anand Swarup Shukla on Wednesday stoked controversy by comparing the practice of wearing burqa to that of triple talaq and said both were "evil customs". Shukla, who is a minister in the Uttar Pradesh government, further said that Muslim women will soon be "freed" and will not have to wear the burqa anymore.

# data[].attributes.body
This comic demonstrates a highly-opinionated perspective against religious coverings.  There are two messages within this comic that must be closely analyzed to understand the meaning and draw conclusions.  The purpose is to identify what proponents of this perspective see is the truth behind religious coverings (a very negative one), and therefore discredit the most common reason Muslim women give for wearing religious coverings.

🤡Comic
🇺🇸Western perspective
🤼Demonstrates clash of perspectives

# data[].attributes.body
One common response from country bans of religious head coverings is for protests to break out, especially by Muslim women. This image source comes from a protest in France after attempts to ban the hijab.  It features a heavily-opinionated poster that is for religious headwear freedoms.  It expresses the belief of many on this side of the debate that hijab should be a choice and that head coverings are a form of identity and self-expression.

🖼️Image
🇫🇷French Issue & Perspective
🤼Demonstrates clash of perspectives
🤼Demonstrates clash of religion and politics, secularism