The Veil of the Ban: A Legal, Social & Political Discourse

JACLYN GIFFEN

Introduction

In 2009, a public debate surrounding the issue of face covering in public spaces arose in France, specifically targeting the wearing of burqas and niqbas by French-Muslim women. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, when addressing parliament, expressed his strong dislike for the Islamic veil, calling it not a sign of religion but rather a sign of subservience. He stated that “[the veil] will not be welcome on French soil. We cannot accept in our country, women imprisoned behind a mesh, cut off from society, deprived of all identity. This is not the French republic’s idea of women’s dignity.”[1] France is home to Western Europe’s largest population of Muslims; about five million in total.[2] However, it is estimated that only 2,000 women in France wear the burqa. 

The concept of secularism, or “laïcité”, is a founding principle of the French Republic, and the French people hold separation between church and state as sacred. The idea of laïcité itself is anchored in the first article of the French Constitution (1958), which states that “France is an indivisible, secular, democratic and social republic.”[3] With this prime importance of state secularism, peoples’ private religious beliefs are not to be overtly displayed in the public sphere. This concept was first invoked in 2004 when the French State banned any form of religious symbol or manifestation thereof – including Islamic headscarves – from primary and secondary state schools.[4] French lawmakers believed that this ban would encourage integration into the country “and help the country understand itself in light of increasing religious and ethnic diversification.”[5] There was a severe reaction that followed the law’s entry into force, including riots and daily violence which demonstrated the tension and social repercussions of the law. However, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) upheld the law, stating that the limitation on the freedom of religion and its manifestations were justifiable according to the doctrine of proportionality, and thereby granted France a wide margin of appreciation based upon the principle of secularism being a founding principle of this state.[6]

The Court also notes that in France, as in Turkey or Switzerland, secularism is a constitutional principle, and a founding principle of the Republic, to which the entire population adheres and the protection of which appears to be of prime importance, in particular in schools. The Court reiterates that an attitude which fails to respect that principle will not necessarily be accepted as being covered by the freedom to manifest one’s religion and will not enjoy the protection of Article 9 of the Convention (see Refah Partisi (Prosperity Party) and Others, cited above, § 93). Having regard to the margin of appreciation which must be left to the member States with regard to the establishment of the delicate relations between the Churches and the State, religious freedom thus recognised and restricted by the requirements of secularism appears legitimate in the light of the values underpinning the Convention.[7]

However, the most recent French Law, Act prohibiting concealment of the face in public space[8] was passed by the Senate of France on the 14^th of September in 2010. This law is a further extension and bans the wearing of any face-covering, including masks, helmets, balaclavas, and of course, the Muslim burqa and niqab, in any public space whatsoever, and in the course of employment within the public sector. Examples of ‘public spaces’ include anything such as the street, museums, shops, public transportation, parks, banks, etc. After a decision in October of 2010 by France’s highest court that stated that the French law to ban full-facial veils in public was in accordance with the constitution, except in the case of places of worship,[9] the law came into full force in April 2011. Those who violate the law have to pay a fine of up to 150 Euros, and/or participate in citizenship education. Those who force another to wear face coverings can also be penalised with a fine of 30,000 Euros and one year in prison; this can be doubled if the victim is under the age of majority, or 18 years of age. The police are not empowered to forcibly remove the veil, although there have been continued incidents of assault by citizens against these women who are in non-compliance with the law.[10]

It remains to be seen if this new law, and others similar to it which are now being implemented in six other European countries, are in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. This paper will review responses for and against the ban, relevant articles within the European Convention on Human Rights, its relevant case law at the European Court of Human Rights, and conducts a legal analysis of the recent Public Space Banning laws. Finally, it will be considered whether or not a banning of the Muslim veil could be instituted within Canada. Whether or not one holds a religious belief, it is the role of the state to uphold pluralism, and to ensure tolerance between competing groups. The European Court of Human Rights has emphasized this importance within a democratic society, and thus should reject laws which legislate banning of Muslim veiling in all public places.

Response to the Ban

For the Ban

Although highly unpopular within the Muslim populations in France, the Pew Global Attitudes Project which surveyed five different countries found that French citizens backed the ban by a margin of more than four to one; 82% of people polled approved, while only 17% disapproved, which was the widest support the Washington-based think tank found in any of the countries surveyed. Clear majorities also backed the burqa bans in Germany, Britain and in Spain, while two out of three Americans opposed it.[11]  Legislator Berenger Poletti, of President Sarkozy’s party, said that face-covering veils “are a prison for women, they are the sign of their submission to their husbands, brothers or fathers.”[12] The niqab and burqa are stated by the proponents of this law to be a gateway into extremism and an attack on secularism, which is a central value in France. “Given the damage [veiling] produces on those rules which allow the life in community, ensure the dignity of the person and equality between the sexes, this practices, even if it is voluntary, cannot be tolerated in any public place,” the French government said when it sent the measure to parliament in May.[13]

Other countries, such as Belgium, Italy, and 4 other European countries have or will introduce similar bans within the next few months. Some have called for the implementation of similar legislation within the United Kingdom, although current Prime Minister Cameron has said that they will not be introducing such legislation.[14] Within America, the US State Department spokesman, Mark Toner, although uncritical of France’s ban, stated that America would not implement such legislation, and that they “support freedom of religion and expression, and that includes the right to express religious beliefs through religious attire.”[15]

The feminist perspective has been invoked in support of the law. Amanda Ervin, from the Alliance of Iranian Women, stated that Muslim women who have immigrated to the West “want their husbands and their fathers to be forced by the Western laws to let them have choices. And if the day they gave them a choice, they will take the Hijab off.”[16] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a native-born Somalian and former Dutch parliamentarian who has spoken out about Islam’s underlying misogynistic tendencies, said the ban would help protect women coerced to wear the veil by their families. “Laws should protect them,” she said at the final morning of the Women in the World summit in New York in March 2011. She also argued that the debate surrounding the veil should serve as a catalyst for discussion surrounding honour killings and other violence against women inside Europe’s Muslim immigrant communities which are also often justified as religious practice. “If the debate on the veil is going to open up that conversation, then it is a welcome debate,” Hirsi Ali urged.[17]

Against the Ban

Although some have used the feminist perspective for their support of the ban, there has been an outcry by human rights organizations and others which state that women’s bodies are being used to fight the perceived threat of Islamic radicalism. Isobel Coleman, from the Council on Foreign Relations, worried that the ban would serve to further exclude women from public spaces and restrict their freedom of choice. She likened France’s ban to the bans in Muslim countries of Western clothing, stating that both were equally insidious. “Clothing bans, whichever way they fall, are part of excluding women from the public space,” said Coleman. “We begin to limit women’s choices.”[18] Liesl Gerntholz, from Human Rights Watch, pointed to the fact that the law does not differentiate between women who freely choose to wear the veil as a religious or cultural statement, and others who are forced into the practice. He stated that this is problematic.[19] Socialist Senator Bariza Khiari, one of France’s few Muslim politicians, fears that some women who this law targets will simply “withdraw into themselves, stay in the house.” She stated her regret at instituting a ban instead of implementing education projects as the Socialist Party had called for. [20]

There has also been concern that the bill might simply provoke terror groups to target France or its citizens. There have already been calls by Islamic Maghreb to “seek vengeance against France.”[21] The police in France are not entitled to forcibly remove the veil, but only to confront the women. There is currently no training for the police in terms of how to handle these interactions, and there are fears that this risks problematic relationships with “certain” communities.

The problem with the law is that in an attempt to protect women’s freedoms, it ultimately results in an infringement upon those very freedoms. It seems that women’s bodies have become enveloped within the discourse against the threat of religions, with Islam being targeted due to the essentialist definitions which characterize it as inherently violent, oppressive and anti-democratic.[22] As Naomi Wolf argued, ideological battles are often waged with women’s bodies as their emblems, and Western Islamophobia is no exception. She questions if the West is “radically misinterpreting Muslim sexual mores, particularly the meaning to many Muslims of being veiled or wearing the chador? And are we blind to our own markers of the oppression and control of women?”[23] When she travelled to homes of typical Muslims in Morocco, Jordan and Egypt, the women she spoke with did not feel at all subjugated by their chador or headscarf. They stated, contrarily, that they felt liberated from the intrusive, commodifying, and basely sexualising “Western Gaze”. Many women spoke about when wearing Western clothes that they are stared at, objectified, and are constantly measured against standards which are impossible to live up to. “When I wear my headscarf or chador, people relate to me as an individual, not as an object; I feel respected.” Although this is not expressed in a traditional Western feminist set of images, it is a recognisably Western feminist set of feelings, says Wolf.[24]

In reaction and civil protest against the law, a French Muslim businessman and also former presidential candidate and spokesman for “Don’t Touch my Constitution”, Rachid Nekkaz, has set up a fund to pay the fines of Muslim women who choose to continue to wear the niqab in public. Although he is not in favour of veiling, he believes the law is unconstitutional. He stated he was in favour of a law to convict those who force women to wear the niqab and stay at home, however.  He also was in favour of previous plans to restrict the ban only in closed public places, like banks, shopping centres, council offices and in schools.[25] He states that he is attempting to “neuter the law”, in order to render it inefficient and to show that it does not work. [26] One of the women who have refused to comply has said that she is not under family pressure to wear the face covering: “I have made this choice freely; I chose to wear it of my own accord four months ago. I’m not married and live with my parents and my parents are not in favour of it; they have never told me I had to wear it or that I had to take it off.”[27] His fund, which has one million euro in total, has also been established to help pay for the legal challenges to this law. Nekkaz has vowed to take his legal challenge through the French and Belgian courts, and finally to the European Court of Human Rights as the court of last resort.[28]

European Convention on Human Rights

If these laws which ban the wearing of the veil in public spaces are taken to the European Court of Human Rights, as it seems they inevitably will be if Mr. Nakkaz has anything to do with it, then what articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention) could be invoked? The first would be Article 9 of the Convention which grants the Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion. The second would be Article 10 which encompasses Freedom of Expression. Both of these articles are subject to limitations, as set out in paragraph (2) of the articles, where it is “necessary in a democratic society in the interest of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or, for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”[29]

In Kokkinakis v. Greece, the court upheld that:

While religious freedom is primarily a matter of individual conscience, it also implies inter alia, freedom to ‘manifest [one’s] religion’. Bearing witness in words and deeds is bound up with the existence of religious convictions.[30] 

Thus, according to Article 9, freedom to manifest one’s religion was upheld not only in exercise in the community of others, ‘in public’ and within the circle of those whose faith one shares, but also ‘alone’ and ‘in private’.[31] However, in Leyla Sahin v. Turkey, the Court recognized the significance of secularism and stated that “in countries where several religions coexist, that it may be necessary to place restrictions on the manifestation of religious beliefs in order to reconcile the interests of different groups and to ensure that everyone’s beliefs are respected.”[32] Accordingly, a wide margin of appreciation was granted in the regulation of the wearing of religious dress or symbols in teaching institutions. The banning of headscarves in universities in Turkey was upheld in this decision.

In examining the three general tests by which restrictions on the right to religious freedom can be allowed, as set out by Article 9(2), Javier Martinez-Torron points to four interpretive principles that have been employed to help adjudicate on limitations on the freedom of religion. The first principle is that freedoms protected by Article 9(1) are to be understood in the widest sense, and that limitations are to be understood in a narrow way. Rights thus need to be given the utmost protection and limited only when necessary. The article is aimed at protecting pluralism, and democracy cannot exist without it; thus, by giving a wide scope to religious freedom helps to protect pluralism and democracy.[33] Secondly, any limitation to religious freedom must be both “prescribed by law” and “necessary in a democratic society”. Necessary in a democratic society is defined as “a society based on pluralism and upon the supremacy of law” where “necessary” means that there has to exist a pressing social need that has to be evaluated according to the facts at hand.[34] The third principle regards the doctrine of margin of appreciation. This conceptualizes the idea that each country is entitled to leeway in the adjudication of individual rights and national interests vis-à-vis universal values. There is recognition by the Court that states must have some scope for discretion between competing values, and this doctrine ensures that flexibility.[35] This margin of appreciation is said to vary as a result of two factors: first, the more objective the restrictive measure, the less discretion the national authorities have; and secondly, when the restriction applies to an individual’s private life, and not the community, the margin of appreciation would be less than if it applied to the whole community.[36] The final principle is that there must be a balance between national and universal values, so consideration is made that the restriction of a right be consequential to the act. The aim, thus, is to achieve a delicate balance between rights and limitations enacted in a fair way.

These four principles together state that the right to freedom of religion is wide in scope, narrow in limitation, laws must be open, precise and predictable, that limitations meet a pressing social need, and that a margin of appreciation is allowed for each state, but that the aim of the restriction must be proportionate.[37] In addition to proportionality, it also must be asked if the law was necessary. The idea here is that “the limitation must be designed and administered so as to impose the least restrictive burden consistent with protecting a truly compelling state interest.”[38] Was the law banning the veil the least restrictive option available to the state? Was the reason a compelling state interest?

It seems that the indiscriminate application of a ban in all public areas is disproportionate to the aim pursued; especially in light of the far-reaching implications it has for individuals to express their religious beliefs. A Belgian lower court has stated that the concern with these new bans is that it concerns the entire public space; that the freedom to come and go in all public places is integral to our freedoms and that this is completely erased by this restriction. It also stated that it has not been justified that such an intrusive restriction is necessary in a democratic society. “The court criticizes the fact that the authorities limit themselves to the argument that there is a need to identify individuals at every time and in the entire public space in order to protect the public order, without justifying this argument. Hence, the judge refers to the fact that a lot of other situations exist where individuals are not identifiable, like in the case of individuals protecting themselves against the cold”.[39] The Belgian judge refers to the willingness of the applicant in this lower court case to show her face when needed, such as during a police control or in the school of her children for identification purposes. It seems tenuous at best that the measure is proportionate with the aim to be achieved.

The margin of appreciation which might be granted to France in order to interfere with Article 9 of the ECHR is based upon three justifications. First, the need to protect secularism; second, is public security; and third, is gender equality.  The principle of secularism, although previously used by the Court to justify banning of veils within schools, should only be binding on society or individuals by virtue of specific demands on public services, such as in schools to maintain neutrality within the exercise of their duties. The need to identify peoples’ faces is the core of the public security argument, but there are already existing provisions in France which require people to identify themselves at particular times, and thus uncover their faces. If the ban was only limited to situations where identification is of great importance, then the ban would be proportionate to the measures to be achieved. Thirdly, the claim of gender equality, although justified in certain circumstances when the veiling is forced, is unpersuasive when applied to a complete banning of the veil. A complete proscription might serve to aggravate the situation by restricting women’s freedom to their private homes. The Court stated in Leyla Sahin v. Turkey that the banning of headscarves would protect the freedoms of those who do not wish to wear a headscarf. However, the Court will need to consider that women might legitimately feel the need to wear the veil as part of their personal duty to their faith, and not due to coercion from others. By stating the no woman can choose to do so is perpetuating the patriarchal forces which claim that the “weak women” need to be told what to do for their own good. The consequence of the ban is a deprivation of the possibility to exercise their personal freedoms. In addition to this, article 14 of the Convention, which protects against discrimination based on a protected ground, could be invoked since the law disproportionately affects women (gender) who are Muslim (religion). 

Canadian Context

Although Canada is touted as a country of multiculturalism, which is enshrined within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is still a society which believes in the separation of church and state, while still placing a high value on the s. 2(a) right to Freedom of Conscience and Religion. An additional protection granted under the Canadian Charter is the sec. 15 Equality Rights which allows Canadians the right to be free from all discrimination on the basis of religion. Limitations on these rights, as stated in s. 1, are available “only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”[40] Could a ban, similar to the European laws being implemented, on the covering of the face in public spaces be implemented in Canada?

The Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC) has asked Ottawa to introduce legislation to ban the wearing of masks, niqabs and the burqa in all public dealings. The MCC stated that not only is this a security hazard, which has allegedly led to bank robberies in Canada and abroad, but they also claim that the burqa and niqab are political symbols of Saudi inspired Islamic extremism. They state that since within the Quran there is no direct requirement for Muslim women to cover their faces, that invoking religious freedom to conceal one’s identity is disingenuous. Farzana Hassan, communications director of the MCC said that “it is of utmost importance that the Canadian government take the lead and end this medieval misogynist practise once and for all.”[41]

However, the Supreme Court has stated that religious freedom includes “the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear or hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination.”[42] Thus, it is ones own conscience which decides whether a belief is constituted as a religious belief. Also, a very recent case which made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada has served to provide a greater protection for religious freedom. Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys surrounded a ban on the wearing of a kirpan, which resembles a metal dagger and is seen by some Sikhs as a religious object to be worn at all times. The school, school board, the school’s “council of commissioners”, and Quebec Court of Appeal felt that although it was an infringement upon religious freedom, it was justified under a section 1 analysis. They stated that there was a direct and rational connection between the prohibition of wearing the kirpan and the objective of maintaining a safe environment. However, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the absolute prohibition against wearing a kirpan infringed on the freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter. The infringement could not be justified under s. 1 because the prohibition did not minimally impair the right to freely express ones religion, even in the context of a public school.[43]  Thus, it seems apparent that if any legislation which banned the wearing of the burqa or niqab was introduced within Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada would strike it down since it would unlikely be seen by the Court as a minimal impairment of women’s and religious rights.

Although this paper has demonstrated that the public space banning laws should not be upheld at the ECtHR, it seems that it is possible to argue that they are more congruent with the laws in France than with Canadian common law. The history of laïcité within France and the principle of secularism built within their constitution  provides an additional justification to their limiting of religious freedoms, as according to recent European Court decisions. [44] Although there may be some proponents of the Canadian population who would support a similar law, the lack of homogeneity within Canada ensures that protections of minorities are held to a high standard. The implementation of such legislation could only arguably occur through Parliament’s use of a Sunset Provision, or otherwise known as the notwithstanding clause, located within the Canadian Charter in s. 33.[45]

Conclusion

Although some French people believe that the veil is a sign of unwillingness to integrate into the French way of life and an inability to incorporate the principles of equality and citizenship, seen within a human rights framework it should be the women who choose to, or not to, wear the veil. An absolute ban limits the freedom of movement on those women who may choose to wear the traditional religious coverings. The full public spaces banning seems to be disproportionate to the justifications given for limiting these freedoms. Additionally, one must question whether a ban on veiling is a good way to improve the integration of these women within European society, and how imposing a ban contributes to their liberty.

Human rights activists have fought against forced veilings and these laws are wrong and oppressive. Yet forcing a woman not to wear the garment is also a violation of her rights. Banning women who are already oppressed only serves to isolate them further. Instead of merely banning a garment, governments should be looking at the root causes of inequality. Through the creation of established community groups in whom the women can trust and respect, their education in women’s rights could be advanced. The majority of France’s Muslim population is concentrated in poor suburbs. It is here that public services are already unduly stretched. If these vulnerable women are restricted from using these public services, it will only serve to drive them into further seclusion and in fact contribute to their repression. Unrestricted access to public services would give women more opportunity to escape if they were in fact being forced to wear veils. “Through education and access, France stands a better chance at liberating women. A ban will only veil the underlying issue.”[46] Pluralism is a founding principle of democracy. Although secularism is needed within public government, this does not preclude the right of all to practice their religion and belief in the manner of their choosing and conscience. It remains to be seen how the European Court will decide this future case, but as it has been shown, the law is a clear violation of the freedom of religion as stipulated under the Convention.

Bibliography

LEGISLATION

Statutes

Loi no. 2010-1192 du 11 octobre 2010 interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public, J.O., 12 October 2010, 1.

Loi n° 2004-228 du 15 mars 2004 encadrant, en application du principe de laïcité, le port de signes ou de tenues manifestant une appartenance religieuse dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics, J.O. 15 March 2004, 1.

Constitutional Statutes

Constitution Française, Paris 1958, J.O., 5 October 1958, 9151. 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982.

JURISPRUDENCE

Aktas, et. al v. France, no. 24351/94, (24 April 2003).

Dogru v. France, no. 27058/05, [2008] E.C.H.R. 47. 

Kervanci v. France, no. 31645/04 [2008] E.C.H.R. 47.

Kokkinakis v. Greece, [1994] 17 E.H.R.R. 397.

Leyla Sahin v. Turkey, no. 44774/98 [2005] 44 E.H.R.R. 78 [GC].

Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256, 2006 SCC 6.

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295.

Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) v. Turkey, no. 41340/98 [2003] 37 E.H.R.R. 1 [GC].

SECONDARY MATERIALS: BOOKS

Little, D. “Religious liberty” in J. Witte, Jr. and F. S. Alexander, eds. Christianity and Law: an Introduction (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008).

Ovey, Clare & Robin C.A. White. The European Convention on Human Rights, 4^th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).

SECONDARY MATERIALS: ARTICLES

Adrian, Melanie, “France, the Veil and Religious Freedom” (2009) 37 Religion, State and Society 345.

Ahlul Bayt News Agency, “French Businessman Pays Burqa Fines” (23 August 2011), Online: Ahlul Bayt News Agency <http://abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&id=261374>.

AFP, “US backs right to wear religious attire” The Straits Times (13 April 2011), Online: The Straits Times <http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_656186.html>.

Baker, Katie, “Is France’s Veil Ban Protecting or Repressing Muslim Women?” The Daily Beast (12 March 2011), Online: The Daily Beast Blog < http://blogs.thedailybeast.com/women-in-the-world/connect/2011/3/12/women-in-the-world-veil-ban>.

BBC News, “France Sets up Burka Commission” (June 23, 2009), Online: BBC News <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8114590.stm>.

BBC News Europe, “Women in face veils detained as France enforces ban” (11 April 2011), Online: BBC News <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13031397>. Benvenisti, E. “Margin of appreciation, consensus, and universal standards” (1999) 31 International Law and Politics 843.

CNN Wire Staff, “French burqa ban clears last legal obstacle” CNN World 7 (October 2010), Online: CNN News < http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-07/world/france.burqa.ban_1_french-burqa-ban-ban-last-year-full-face-veil?_s=PM:WORLD>.

The Connexion, “Woman defies new ban on veil” (11 April 2011), Online: The Connexion <http://connexionfrance.com/Woman-arrested-protest-Avignon-France-veil-burqa-niqab-12662-view-article.html>.

Doland, Angela, “France BURQA BAN: French Parliament Approves Ban on Face Veils” Huffington Post (13 July 2010), Online: Huffington Post < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/13/france-burqa-ban-french-p_n_644433.html>.

Euronews, “Veil fines spark challenge” (17 August 2011), Online: Euronews < http://www.euronews.net/2011/08/17/veil-fines-spark-challenge/>.

Fox News, “Clash of Civilizations: France’s Burqa Ban Met with Fierce Opposition” Hannity (13 April 2011), Online: Fox News <http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/transcript/clash-civilizations-frances-burqa-ban-met-fierce-opposition>.

Green, Todd, “What not to Wear: Dictating Islamic Fashion in France” Huffington Post (16 September 2010) Online: Huffington Post <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-green-phd/what-not-to-wear-dictatin_b_718793.html>.

Kielburger, Craig & Mark, “Ban on veils risks another form of oppression” The Toronto Star (15 March 2010), Online: The Toronto Star <http://www.thestar.com/news/globalvoices/article/779796--ban-on-veils-risks-another-form-of-oppression>.

Kirby, Emma Jane, “Sarkozy stirs French Burka debate” BBC News, Paris (22 June 2009), Online: BBC News < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8113778.stm>.

Martinez-Torron, J. “Limitations on religious freedom in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights” (2005) 19 Emory International Law Review 578.

Muslim Canadian Congress, “Muslim Canadian Congress wants Canada to Ban the Burka” (8 October 2008), online: Muslim Canadian Congress <http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/20091008.html>.

Nieömoller, Martin, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, D.C., Online: <http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392 >.

Ouald-Chaib, Sila, “Local ‘burqa ban’ violates human rights according to Belgian judge” Strasbourg Observers (16 February 2011), online: Strasbourg Observers <http://strasbourgobservers.com/2011/02/16/local-%E2%80%9Cburqa-ban%E2%80%9D-violates-human-rights-according-to-belgian-judge/ >.

Pew Global Attitudes Project, “Widespread Support for Banning Full Islamic Veil in Western Europe” Pew Research Center (8 July 2010), online:  <http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/07/08/widespread-support-for-banning-full-islamic-veil-in-western-europe/>.

The Telegraph, “Should Britain ban the Muslim veil?” (23 November 2006). Online: The Telegraph <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/yourview/1535601/Should-Britain-ban-the-Muslim-veil.html>.

Wolf, Naomi, “Behind the veil lives a thriving Muslim sexuality” Sydney Morning Herald – Opinion (30 August 2008), Online: Sydney Morning Herald  <http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/behind-the-veil-lives-a-thriving-muslim-sexuality/2008/08/29/1219516734637.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1>.

GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

Conseil constitutionnel, Décision no 2010-613 DC du 7 octobre 2010, J.O., 7 October 2010, 1.

INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS

Treaties

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 4 November 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221 at 223, Eur. T.S. 5 [ECHR].

---

[1] Emma Jane Kirby, “Sarkozy stirs French Burka debate” BBC News, Paris (22 June 2009), Online: BBC News < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8113778.stm>.

[2] BBC News, “France Sets up Burka Commission” (June 23, 2009), Online: BBC News <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8114590.stm>.

[3] Constitution Française, Paris 1958, J.O., 5 October 1958, 9151. Article 1: “La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale.”

[4] Loi n° 2004-228 du 15 mars 2004 encadrant, en application du principe de laïcité, le port de signes ou de tenues manifestant une appartenance religieuse dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics, J.O. 15 March 2004, 1.

[5] Melanie Adrian, “France, the Veil and Religious Freedom” (2009) 37 Religion, State and Society 345. 

[6] Dogru v. France, no. 27058/05, [2008] E.C.H.R. 47 at para. 69 and 72: See also Kervanci v. France, no. 31645/04 [2008] E.C.H.R. 47; Leyla Sahin v. Turkey, no. 44774/98 [2005] 44 E.H.R.R. 78 [GC]; Aktas, et. al v. France, no. 24351/94, (24 April 2003); Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) v. Turkey, no. 41340/98 [2003] 37 E.H.R.R. 1 [GC].

[7] Dogru v. France, no. 27058/05, [2008] E.C.H.R. 47 at para. 72.

[8] Loi no. 2010-1192 du 11 octobre 2010 interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public, J.O., 12 October 2010, 1.

[9] Conseil constitutionnel, Décision no 2010-613 DC du 7 octobre 2010, J.O., 7 October 2010, 1.

[10] BBC News Europe, “Women in face veils detained as France enforces ban” BBC News (11 April 2011), Online: BBC News <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13031397>.

[11] Pew Global Attitudes Project, “Widespread Support for Banning Full Islamic Veil in Western Europe” Pew Research Center (8 July 2010), Online:  <http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/07/08/widespread-support-for-banning-full-islamic-veil-in-western-europe/>.

[12] Angela Doland, Doland, Angela, “France BURQA BAN: French Parliament Approves Ban on Face Veils” Huffington Post (13 July 2010), Online: Huffington Post  <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/13/france-burqa-ban-french-p_n_644433.html>.

[13] CNN Wire Staff, “French burqa ban clears last legal obstacle” CNN World 7 (October 2010), Online: CNN News < http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-07/world/france.burqa.ban_1_french-burqa-ban-ban-last-year-full-face-veil?_s=PM:WORLD>.

[14] See The Telegraph, “Should Britain ban the Muslim veil?” (23 November 2006). Online: The Telegraph <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/yourview/1535601/Should-Britain-ban-the-Muslim-veil.html>.

[15] AFP, “US backs right to wear religious attire” The Straits Times (13 April 2011), Online: The Straits Times <http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_656186.html>.

[16] Fox News, “Clash of Civilizations: France’s Burqa Ban Met with Fierce Opposition” Hannity (13 April 2011), Online: Fox News <http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/transcript/clash-civilizations-frances-burqa-ban-met-fierce-opposition>.

[17] Katie Baker, “Is France’s Veil Ban Protecting or Repressing Muslim Women?” The Daily Beast (12 March 2011), Online: The Daily Beast Blog < http://blogs.thedailybeast.com/women-in-the-world/connect/2011/3/12/women-in-the-world-veil-ban>.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Angela Doland, Doland, Angela, “France BURQA BAN: French Parliament Approves Ban on Face Veils” Huffington Post (13 July 2010), Online: Huffington Post  <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/13/france-burqa-ban-french-p_n_644433.html>.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Todd Green, “What not to Wear: Dictating Islamic Fashion in France” Huffington Post (16 September 2010) Online: Huffington Post <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-green-phd/what-not-to-wear-dictatin_b_718793.html>.

[23] Naomi Wolf, “Behind the veil lives a thriving Muslim sexuality” Sydney Morning Herald – Opinion (30 August 2008), Online: Sydney Morning Herald <http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/behind-the-veil-lives-a-thriving-muslim-sexuality/2008/08/29/1219516734637.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1>.

[24] Naomi Wolf, “Behind the veil lives a thriving Muslim sexuality” Sydney Morning Herald – Opinion (30 August 2008), Online: Sydney Morning Herald  <http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/behind-the-veil-lives-a-thriving-muslim-sexuality/2008/08/29/1219516734637.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1>.

[25] The Connexion, “Woman defies new ban on veil” (11 April 2011), Online: The Connexion <http://connexionfrance.com/Woman-arrested-protest-Avignon-France-veil-burqa-niqab-12662-view-article.html>.

[26] Ahlul Bayt News Agency, “French Businessman Pays Burqa Fines” (23 August 2011), Online: Ahlul Bayt News Agency <http://abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&id=261374>.

[27]Ibid.

[28] Euronews, “Veil fines spark challenge” (17 August 2011), Online: Euronews <http://www.euronews.net/2011/08/17/veil-fines-spark-challenge/>.

[29] Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 4 November 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221 at 223, Eur. T.S. 5 [ECHR]. Article 9(2).

[30] Kokkinakis v. Greece, [1994] 17 E.H.R.R. 397.

[31] Clare Ovey & Robin C.A. White. The European Convention on Human Rights, 4^th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006) at 308.

[32] Ibid. at 310.

[33] J. Martinez-Torron, “Limitations on religious freedom in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights” (2005) 19 Emory International Law Review at 595.

[34] Ibid. at 599.

[35] E. Benvenisti, “Margin of appreciation, consensus, and universal standards” (1999) 31 International Law and Politics at 843-844.

[36] Ibid. at 601.

[37] Melanie Adrian, “France, the Veil and Religious Freedom” (2009) 37 Religion, State and Society 358-359.

[38] D. Little, “Religious liberty” in J. Witte, Jr. and F. S. Alexander, eds. Christianity and Law: an Introduction (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008) at 253.

[39] Sila Ouald-Chaib, “Local ‘burqa ban’ violates human rights according to Belgian judge” Strasbourg Observers (16 February 2011), online: Strasbourg Observers <http://strasbourgobservers.com/2011/02/16/local-%E2%80%9Cburqa-ban%E2%80%9D-violates-human-rights-according-to-belgian-judge/ >.

[40] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, s. 1, 2, 15.

[41] Muslim Canadian Congress, “Muslim Canadian Congress wants Canada to Ban the Burka” (8 October 2008), online: Muslim Canadian Congress <http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/20091008.html>.

[42] R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295.

[43] Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256, 2006 SCC 6.

[44] Dogru v. France, no. 27058/05, [2008] E.C.H.R. 47 at para. 69 and 72: See also Kervanci v. France, no. 31645/04 [2008] E.C.H.R. 47; Leyla Sahin v. Turkey, no. 44774/98 [2005] 44 E.H.R.R. 78 [GC]; Aktas, et. al v. France, no. 24351/94, (24 April 2003); Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) v. Turkey, no. 41340/98 [2003] 37 E.H.R.R. 1 [GC].

[45] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, s. 33. This allows Parliament an override power to implement a law, even without the support of the Supreme Court, and nullifies any judicial review by overriding Charter protections.

[46] Kielburger, Craig & Mark, “Ban on veils risks another form of oppression” The Toronto Star (15 March 2010), Online: The Toronto Star <http://www.thestar.com/news/globalvoices/article/779796--ban-on-veils-risks-another-form-of-oppression>.