Belgium – New Measure on Religious Symbols in School Prompts anti-Muslim narratives
This article is part of the Media Monitoring Highlights of June, a monthly overview of the most significant results of our monitoring of traditional and new media in Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, and the United Kingdom.
Date of publication: 24 June 2020
Media outlet: Sceptr, alternative media covering news in Belgium and the Netherlands
Author: Tom Lallemand
Headline: “Headscarf now permitted in principle in Ghent city schools”
Links: https://bit.ly/2Zc7zZ1
Description of the anti-Muslim and anti-migrant content: This month the Municipality of Gent passed a measure which stipulated that from September 1st 2020, all public high schools will allow students to wear religious symbols. Speaking of the new measure, Green party politician and Education council member in Gent Elke Decruynaere said: "Students must be able to be 100% themselves, but there must be respect". The main aim of the measure was to promote more tolerance and inclusion, with Decruynaer explaining: “Students are given the freedom to choose for themselves and to open up to diversity. Students must be themselves and start the search with themselves and society. It is a privilege that young people learn to deal with diversity and other opinions right from the school desks. They should just start talking to it and not avoid the subject with a ban.”
Not everyone was happy with this new measure. Sceptr published an article with the headline “Headscarf now permitted in principle in Ghent city schools” which focusses solely on the headscarf and explains how nationalist party N-VA is against the measure. On Twitter, N-VA politician Anneleen Van Bossuyt shared her exasperation at the new measure, and right-wing populating Vlaams Belang policitian Tom Van Grieken shared the Sceptr article on Facebook along with the message: “Incomprehensible. The headscarf is a symbol of the oppression of women.”
Myth debunked: There are a few elements to this case to discuss. Firstly, the focus on only headscarves in regard to the new measure, which in actuality now allows all religious symbols to be worn in high school. This includes a necklace of the cross, for example, or a kippah, which is not mentioned in any articles on this topic. Why the sole focus on the headscarf? Banning the headscarf has been a topic in several European countries, including Belgium; however, only focusing on this element of the new measure further highlights this one expression of religion and negates the full picture. Furthermore, it feeds into the ‘Islamisation’ narrative, which is often employed by the far right. Sceptr was not the only news outlet to focus only on the headscarf, many news outlets in Belgium did so too. Sceptr’s inclusion of the N-VA reaction to the measure, and lack of inclusion of any other views, clearly shows bias. This bias is further confirmed by Tom Van Grieken’s sharing of the Sceptr article on Facebook. We have shown several times how Tom Van Grieken shares dangerous anti-Muslim and anti-migrant narratives, and how these are often mirrored in Sceptr. We can see that in a way, they are almost working together here to establish a larger sensationalist narrative. Van Grieken is followed by almost half a million people on Facebook, promoting Sceptr’s inflammatory and often dangerous content to a large audience.
Lastly, there is a key voice missing in almost all pieces on this topic: Muslim women. The majority of articles focussed on the headscarf, but none included the perspective of Muslim women and how they feel about this new measure. Journalism is about accurate reporting and showing all sides to a story, something which is clearly missing here. How do young Muslim women in Gent feel? Are they happy about the new measure, or maybe concerned? Their voices are lost in this discussion, a discussion which is cantered around them.
More to read:
