Battlefield: Islamic Headscarves Doutje Lettinga & Sawitri Saharso VU Amsterdam/University of Twente Enschede, The Netherlands s.saharso@utwente.nl 1
Individual home assignment lecture Saharso In France and some eight federal states in Germany a teacher at a public school is not allowed to wear a headscarf. In the Netherlands, however, she may wear a headscarf. How would the responsible political leaders argue the ban/non ban on Islamic headscarves? And inspired by which national historical legacy? Which argumentation you agree most with? Political leader Argumentation Historic legacy Nicholas Sarkozy (PS) president of France Mayor Klaus Wowereit (SPD) of Berlin Annette Schavan (CDU) Culture Minister Baden- Württemberg (1995-2005) Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende (CDA) 2
Structure of my presentation The Islamic headscarf as a form of value conflict Institutional contexts matter National contexts matter The debate on headscarves: time and place matter 3
Resolving value conflicts The liberal approach: first establish limits of tolerance in principle, then determine whether practice is consistent with them The democratic approach: consult all parties involved and will generate a compromise all parties are willing to accept as result democratic deliberation Difference: first may be liberal, but not necessarily democratic, second democratic, but not necessarily liberal Commonality: both work from certain assumptions about political life =>how does public deliberation in real existing liberal democracies take place? => insight in conditions for fair balancing or democratic 4 deliberation.
The headscarf as a value conflict. Case: the public school Conflict primary school in Haarlem: trainee vs. schooldirector Educational neutrality vs reli freedom What does neutrality mean in context of the school? Commission on Equal Treatment: the fact that the claimant (the trainee) professes a religion and expresses this through the wearing of a headscarf does not preclude that she does not possess this open attitude and is capable of teaching in accordance with the character of the school as a public educational institution. (Judgement 99-18, 4). 5
Context 2: Headscarves in the police force The compelling interest of a neutral police justifies restriction of religious freedom religious freedom is a fundamental, constitutional principle that cannot easily be overridden the principle of non-discrimination demands that neutrally intended policies do not disproportionably disadvantage ethnic or religious minority groups Equal representation promotes impartiality and greater trust, because prevents identification of one particular group with exercise state power 6
The headscarf as a case of value conflict One principle, neutrality, can mean different things in different institutional contexts: Education: can you teach mutual respect while wearing a headscarf? Police: the impartiality-and-trust-throughdiversity argument: which differences matter and what does the public think? 7
National contexts: regulation Prohibitive approach: bans all forms of Islamic women s head and body covering in public institutions. France, Turkey and some German federal states Selective prohibition: ban restricted to certain places and certain kinds of bodily covering, such as the niqab and burqa Finland, Sweden and The Netherlands Non-restrictive tolerant models: allow for the practice of all forms of covering: hijab, jilbab, burqa and niqab Denmark, the United Kingdom, Greece and Austria 8
Explaining national differences: Citizenship regimes: 3 ideal-typical models civic assimilationist (France), ethno-cultural (Germany), multicultural (the Netherlands) Empirically established: Rules for access to citizenship Integration policies Thesis: Recognition of cultural and religious diversity is related to type of citizenship regime National citizenship traditions are contested and may shift over time. Convergence/divergence? Other determinants? 9
Policy: comparing national cases Nl: easy access to citizenship + culturally pluralist model. Expectation: accommodative policy. Reality: selective ban Dutch policy regarding immigration and integration departed from minority group model, multiculturalism no longer the policy paradigm But reality of policy on headscarf matches expectation: fairly generously right to cover. 10
Germany 8 federal states: ban on headscarf Culturally and reli monist model, but rules access changed in 2000 5 states ban headscarf, but allow crucifix, because Christianity is constitutive for German national culture (Schavan) => ethno-cultural tradition citizenship 3 states (e.g. Berlin) ban all religious symbols from public office => German left allergic to asserting group identities in public sphere. Reaction to German past national socialism. European identity: yes. National identity: no. Reject ethno-cultural tradition, in favor of French laicism, not Dutch multiculturalism. Former DDR: because of socialist experience reluctant to again oppress religion 11
Austria High barriers for immigrants to become citizens, Christian cultural monism is hegemonic Conflict over headscarf virtually absent; nonrestrictive headscarf policy Explanation: Islam recognised religion since 1912, as it was an indigenous religion within Austrian empire. Recognized reli s have right to organize own affairs without state intervention. Headscarf seen as belonging realm reli community, not realm of the state. 12
Comparing national headscarf policies No trend towards convergence Yet, citizenship models too limited to explain national differences Methodological recommendation: historical institutional approach within the institutional framework of pillarization liberal principles are interpreted as prescribing that a ban on burqas is unconstitutional and religious freedom includes a right to cover for public servants in public institutions Citizenship models cannot explain it all. 13
Public debate in Nl An analysis of public debate 1998 2007 in the Netherlands: Relatively strong representation of minority actors in Dutch debate. About 70 percent of claims made by majority actors, mostly men; 30 percent by minority actors, mostly women. Dutch actors in debate are in favour of accommodating Islamic head-and body covering. Gender arguments marginal in the debate and feminists not strongly represented in debate Shifts over time: Increase in minority women s participation in debate, at expense of majority men. Polarisation: majority men less, minorities more in favour of accommodation 14
Parliamentary debate Nl 1998 2007 Parliamentary debates: 4 meta frames 1998-2003: 6 documents. Left dominates discussion. non-discrimination and participation frame victimization frame 2003-2007: 21 documents. Centre-right takes over. Burqa and niqab new issues. 3. universalism and non-differentialism frame 4. Islam as a threat frame & victimization frame 15
non-discrimination and participation frame (Greens) Doesn t a ban on religious symbols in court discriminate women with an Islamic faith? Diagnosis: Muslim women with headscarves face discrimination (structural and social) while participating in Dutch society Prognosis: create space for diversity (headscarf) by changing institutions and regulations to enhance participation Call for action: state and Dutch society 16
victimization frame (Socialists, Liberals, populist Right) The burqa is a symbol of oppression, which conflicts with our values Diagnosis: Muslim women oppressed by culture and community, which hinders participation and emancipation. Victim & later also problem holder. Prognosis: emancipate Muslims through integration courses. Integration by emancipating women. No multicultural relativism by allowing face-covers. Call for action: Muslims, but state decides means/content 17
universalism frame (Christian parties, Liberals, Socialists) Face-covers markers of separation, symbols of two different worldviews, uncivilized. Diagnosis: accommodation of female head and body clothing undermines egalitarian citizenship and social cohesion/ public safety. Prognosis: integration by adopting dominant norms of face to face communication) Call for action: Muslim women and state. Burqa = balaclava, thus general ban. 18
Islam as a threat frame (populist right) We have been liberated ages ago from inquisitors and Ayatollahs, and we would like to keep it like that Diagnosis: Muslims threaten Western modernity (secularism, gender-equality). Covered Muslim women dangerous and oppressed Prognosis: Assimilation (to leitkultur ), protecting secularism Call for action: Strong state 19
Conclusion Discrepancy fairly consistent legal ruling in Nl and political debate In the political debate all parties, left and right, linked the headscarf to other social anxieties and thereby selectively employed liberal values and principles Over the years a shift in frames: headscarf more frequently associated with national identity and social cohesion. Headscarf no clear cut case clashing values, but highly elusive symbolic concept, yet not so elusive as not to reflect national particularities: in Nl. debate relatively open to Muslim wo/men, gender arguments not strong, feminists virtually absent from debate. 20