What does the headscarf ban decision regarding the 2024 Paris Olympics mean? What is the extent of the headscarf ban implemented in France? How does the French judiciary defend the bans, and what does international law say about them? Can secularism justify a headscarf ban? What are the stances of the ECHR and the UN on the headscarf ban?
1. What does the headscarf ban decision regarding the 2024 Paris Olympics mean?
Statements by Amelie Oudea-Castera, the Sports Minister of France, whose citizens are almost 10 percent Muslim, indicate that headscarves will be banned at next year's Olympic Games in Paris. Castera stated that her government opposes the use of any religious symbols at the Games "to ensure absolute neutrality in public services," and that French female athletes will not wear headscarves during the Paris Olympics.[1] France also implemented a headscarf ban on football players participating in the FIFA Women's Football World Cup, which it hosted in 2019.[2] International organizations, which are closely watched due to the global nature of the event, have stated that they do not agree with the ban, even if they do not explicitly oppose France's decision. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) also stated that IOC rules will apply in the Olympic village where the athletes will be accommodated, and that there will be no restrictions on religious dress or headscarves. In response to a question from an Anadolu Agency reporter, UN Human Rights Office spokesperson Marta Hurtado cited the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, to which France is a party, stating that no one can dictate what women can or cannot wear.
2. What is the extent of the headscarf ban implemented in France?
For many years, France has implemented practices that restrict religious freedoms with an oppressive secularism. The bans, which specifically target Muslims, focus on the headscarf, the most visible religious symbol, and the attire of Muslim women. Unable to reconcile secularism with freedom of religious dress, and using their choices to restrict individual freedoms, French governments banned headscarves and other religious symbols in public schools in 2004, the use of veils in public spaces in 2011, and finally, last August, the long garments worn by Muslim women, called "abayas," on the grounds that they violated secularism. Furthermore, the Jewish kippah and clothing bearing the cross symbol are also prohibited in schools in France. Education Minister Gabriel Attal stated that these bans would ensure neutrality in schools, while President Emmanuel Macron defended the ban by stating that there was a "minority challenging the secular republic."
3. How does the French judiciary defend the bans, and what does international law say about them?
The French Council of State (Conseil d’État) rejected the objections, arguing that the abaya ban did not seriously violate religious freedom and the right to education.[4] The Council of State had previously ruled that the burkini ban—described by far-right politician Marine Le Pen as “the garment of Islamist propaganda”[5]—was not unlawful. An examination of the current situation in France reveals a worrying expansion of the ban, extending from public officials to those who use public services. Such bans, fueled by a rigid secularist approach, are becoming increasingly widespread thanks to the rhetoric of the rising far-right. Just as in other continental European countries, the far-right in France is influencing mainstream politics. International agreements to which France is a party provide a framework protecting clothing choices that symbolize religious symbols. According to the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, no one's freedom to manifest their religion or beliefs may be restricted as long as it does not violate public safety, order, health, morality, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. The UN Human Rights Committee, established to ensure the implementation of the Covenant, states that freedom of worship, within the scope of freedom to manifest religion or belief, may include not only ceremonial acts/rituals but also "the wearing of certain clothing or the headscarf."[6] The European Convention on Human Rights also stipulates that everyone has the freedom to manifest their religion or belief, either alone or in community with others, in public or private, through worship, teaching, practice, and observance. This restriction may only be imposed for the protection of public safety, public order, public health or morality, or the rights and freedoms of others. It is evident that the French practice of secularism finds no basis in international human rights law.
4. Could secularism justify a headscarf ban?
Both the Turkish experience and the practice of secularism in other liberal democracies suggest that a different kind of secularism is possible. In the authoritarian model of secularism, where secularism is virtually sanctified as a new religion, not only are religious and state affairs separated, but individuals are also required to eliminate religion from their lives in almost every public setting. Thus, the state intervenes in religious expression and preferences, which should be protected in pluralistic democracies as long as they do not violate public safety or the rights of others, and the aim is to ensure that "individuals' thoughts and behaviors are dominated by a rational, scientific, and positivist mindset, not religious values."[7] In other words, secularism aims to secularize the individual, not the political regime. However, from a libertarian perspective, secularism grants as much freedom as possible to all beliefs while purging public law of religious provisions and maintaining the state's neutral position vis-à-vis religious beliefs. Only in this way can secularism claim to foster harmony, not conflict, between religion and the state, which are social realities. In France, religion and state appear to operate not in harmony but in conflict, and this oppressive approach has caused serious social unrest, particularly among the country's Muslim community. In this context, we can say that if France fails to transition to a liberal understanding of secularism, as in a true liberal democracy, its social peace will be at risk.
5. What are the stances of the ECtHR and the UN on the headscarf ban?
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the UN Human Rights Committee, two leading international human rights protection mechanisms, appear to have developed different positions on the headscarf ban. The ECtHR, which deemed the headscarf ban in Turkey legitimate, ruled that "the headscarf may be restricted in order to ensure a peaceful coexistence among students of different religions and thus protect public order and the rights of others," and ruled that the headscarf ban did not violate the freedom to manifest religious belief.[8] In its decision regarding the headscarf ban in France, the Court argued that the headscarf could become a source of oppression and exclusion against other students, and that the ban implemented in public schools served to protect the freedom of conscience and public order of others, arguing that the state was legitimately exercising its discretionary power.[9] The ECtHR, tasked with protecting individual freedoms and the coexistence of different beliefs, acted selectively with these decisions, recognizing that pluralism is only possible if religious attire is not preferred. However, the greatest harm to pluralistic democracy comes from the assumption that it only allows for one lifestyle, contrary to its very essence. As the Turkish Constitutional Court has rightly stated, what needs to be done is not to resort to a ban based on the assumption that freedom of the headscarf would be an element of oppression, as the ECHR has deemed legitimate, but rather to "take measures that will not prevent the majority from exercising their freedom of religion and conscience, and that will prevent the minority from being oppressed by the majority, and that will ensure that individuals live in mutual recognition and tolerance."[10] Indeed, the UN Human Rights Committee underlined in a 2004 decision that freedom of worship also includes the wearing of religious clothing in public spaces.[11] [1] “UN Rights Agency Slams France’s Decision to Bar Its 2024 Olympic Athletes from Wearing Headscarf”, France 24, 27 September 2023. [2] “France’s Headscarf Ban Casts Shadow Over Upcoming Olympic Games”, Daily Sabah, 2 October 2023. [3] “Schools in France Send Dozens of Muslim Girls Home for Wearing Abayas”, Aljazeera, 5 September 2023. [4] “Top French Court Upholds Ban on Muslim Abayas in Schools”, France 24, 7 September 2023. [5] “French Burkini Ban Upheld as Grenoble Loses Legal Challenge”, BBC, 21 June 2022. [6] Lema Uyar, Commentaries on Human Rights at the United Nations: Human Rights Committee and Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1981-2006, (Istanbul Bilgi University Publications, Istanbul: 2006), p. 57. [7] Ergun Özbudun, Turkey’s Constitutional Crisis, (Liberte Publications, Ankara: 2008), pp. 156, 158. [8] ECtHR, Leyla Şahin/Turkey, Application Number: 44774/98, 10 November 2005. [9] ECtHR, Belgin Doğru/France, Application Number: 27058/05, 4 December 2008. [10] Constitutional Court, Application Number: 2014/256, Date of Decision: 25 June 2014. [11] UN Human Rights Committee, Application Number: 931/2000, 5 November 2004.
