Belgian laïcité: the paradox of telling Muslim women what to wear in order to be free

When a court in Belgium last June, ruled that banning religious symbols, including the hijab, is permitted in universities, the public opinion was strongly divided. On one side, some saw it as a way to lift societal pressure to wear the headscarf, while  on the other side, some saw it as one more attempt to stigmatize Muslim women. 

While a public conversation on the separation of church and state, and freedom of religion, is a sign of a healthy democracy, the debate in the last two months flared up with vile anti-Muslim remarks that often found space in mainstream media. 

Among them, the newspapers Le Vif and La Libre published two op-eds by the Collectif Laïcité Yallah (Yallah Secularism Collective) which described Muslim women wearing the hijab with sarcasm and paternalism, while denying that Islamophobia is a form of racism, and that the headscarf could be a free choice. 

For La Libre, in an opinion piece titled “The Islamic veil is not a clothing detail”, the Collectif Laïcité Yallah starts from the point that the Muslim headgear is a “political and religious symbol of domination on women”. It insists that societal pressure to wear the headscarf is a serious issue and agrees with the court ruling, according to which “the objective of protecting the students who do not want to make their religious or political beliefs visible against the social pressure of those who do is a legitimate objective”. The article blames “young veiled women [for being] ready to sacrifice their future to escape the pedagogical demands of their teaching” and for “present[ing] the headscarf as a marker of their identity and the education as a foil”. This piece also attacks Muslim women who wear the headscarf saying that they “play the victim”, and that it is not true that state and society are perpetrators of discrimination.  

This piece talks about Muslim women, and their alleged oppression and victimisation, without asking them or involving them in the discussion. This op-ed is invalidating the experience of those who experience discrimination and are particularly affected by the court ruling. In July, a thousand Muslim women took to the streets in Brussels to protest against the ban and a social media reaction revolved around #TouchePasAMesEtudes (Don’t touch my studies) and #HijabisFightBack. Their argument is that, rather than “helping them”, as the ruling claims, the ban of religious symbols amplifies the existing barriers and forms of discrimination that Muslim women already face in society.  

On Le Vif, the op-ed “Would the municipality of Molenbeek renounce to the constitutional principle of neutrality?” takes a stance on the court ruling, but shifts the focus from public education to the workplace. The article is a comment on the news that authorities of the municipality of Molenbeek-Saint-Jean in Brussels are working on amending the workplace regulations within the administration, to allow municipality civil servants to display religious symbols. 

This piece builds on the Yallah Secularism Collective’s stand on community pressure to wear the headscarf and to comply to Muslim teachings. It claims that “Secularism recognizes (and encourages) the emergence of the free citizen freed from all authority. It allows everyone to aspire to become what they want to be, including by freeing themselves from their community of origin.” 

The paradox of this statement is blatant. It says that citizens should be free, and should be freed from authority, while telling them at the same time what they have to wear and not to wear. It depicts community pressure as curtailing freedoms, but fails to see state pressure, or rather state obligation, as a form of restriction of freedom. In doing so, it also rejects the possibility that wearing the headscarf can be a free choice.  

The Constitutional Court decision was in response to a complaint initiated by a group of Muslim women who were studying at a university college where wearing religious symbols is not allowed. The ruling stated that the ban of religious symbols in higher education was not contrary to the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 

The ban is not compulsory, but it is allowed and can be enforced to achieve the so-called “neutrality”. Yet, even the Constitutional Court admits that the ruling might disproportionately affect certain minorities. 

The media have a role in facilitating a discussion around public issues. However, promoting stereotyped views of Muslim women, and endorsing a ban that affects their life without including their voices, directly imposes on the freedom of Muslim women, and undermines the concept of freedom itself.