42 Runnymede Perspectives

8. Headscarf Debates as a Prism for Conceptions of National Identity Sawitri Saharso and Doutje Lettinga University of Twente Enschede/VU University

cannot wear their headscarf at work. Again, in Introduction 2001, when a court clerk was refused to wear a We have been involved in a European project headscarf, the Green Party’s MP, , comparing the political debate and regulating of compared the headscarf to ethnicity, social class, the Islamic veil (see www.veil-project.org). Doutje or sexual preference. She claimed the idea that Lettinga and I constituted the Dutch team. Our the headscarf might be a symbol of oppression is contribution is based on the work we have done mistaken, as it is simply a symbol of identity. The for VEIL. All over Europe, headscarves, or more underlying problem is the discrimination Muslim generally the veil, have become a controversial women face from mainstream society. Therefore, subject.1 One important insight we gained from the Greens proposed that dress rules be adjusted comparing national cases is that the controversies so that Muslim women could participate in society. over the veil are in reality not so much about the veil The right to wear a headscarf was confirmed in a as about national identity. That is, about European policy directive in 2003. states reconfiguring and reconsidering themselves as they are becoming increasingly more multicultural In 2004, , the chair of the Commission and multi-religious societies in a globalizing world. Blok in charge of evaluating the integration policy, There are national differences in the response to the expressed the view which was dominant at the time: veil, but over time a convergence can be identified, “The main point is that it is someone’s own choice. which we find worrying because, in the end, it is If you want to restrict it, you need to show good limiting the space for Islamic women to choose reasons for it.” Public neutrality was considered whether they want to veil. We will illustrate our claim as an insufficient reason for restriction. It was not with data from our research on headscarf debates that the Dutch did not care about neutrality, but in France and the , and conclude with they did not perceive the headscarf as a danger to some comparative observations with reference to public neutrality. This view was laid down again in Britain. a policy document. The preceding year saw cases in the courtrooms associated with the niqab. Two Dutch regulation is by and large accommodative, students brought a case before the Commission while French regulation has been prohibitive, on Equal Treatment, which was then dismissed culminating in the prohibitive of 2004 that forbid following the Commission’s judgment that a niqab the wearing of signs or clothing, such as the veil, is dysfunctional when teaching young children. which conspicuously manifest students’ religious However, in two other cases on the use of the niqab, affiliations in the realm of public schools. Inthis the Commission on Equal Treatment ruled in favour paper, we present an analysis of the political debates of the women. on the veil in France and the Netherlands covering the time period of 1989–2007. We review how the In 2005, right-wing politician, , problem of the veil was defined and discussed in proposed a motion to the Dutch parliament to parliament to get a better understanding of these ban the burqa in public spaces. His proposal national differences in responses to the veil, and was strategically timed to be discussed during a also to see whether a change occurred over time. national debate surrounding terrorism. The burqa became framed as a problem of security and The Netherlands public order. Liberal MP said: ‘When While the regulation on veiling in the Netherlands people cover their face in public, whether this is largely accommodative, we are seeing a gradual is with a burqa or with a balaclava, this seriously decrease in tolerance. An example of this occurred affects other people’s feelings of safety, and the in 1999, when a teacher-trainee was forbidden to concern for a civil public order involves that we wear a headscarf in the classroom. This sparked a do not tolerate such face covers.’ The burqa was small opposition party, Groen Links (the Greens), also framed as a symbol of gender inequality within to argue that it hampers emancipation if women Islam. A right-wing majority in Parliament voted Secularism, Racism and the Politics of Belonging 43

Table 1. The Netherlands Time and Frame Policy conflicts 1999 Not allowing headscarves hampers emancipation & Right to wear headscarves t e a c h e r integration, the problem is discrimination by society in schools and civil service t r a i n e e , (Green Party). Other parties: Mainly framed as confirmed in directive 2003 court clerk conflicting with neutrality, but not strong enough to warrant a ban. (but socialists associated niqab with Headscarf gender inequality within Islam)

2004 In general: right to religion trumps public neutrality Policy document: confirms right police except for certain functions (dress signalling authority, to wear the headscarf, except impartiality) (all parties except List ) for court personnel and certain N i q a b police functions (students) 2005-2007 Burqa framed as security & public order problem and 2009 in preparation to ban Burqa as a symbol of submission. Must be banned therefore burqa and niqab in schools, labour (Geert Wilders Freedom Party, followed by majority market and public transport in Parliament) through a motion supporting prohibitive laws on to be very effective, and despite the militant lay-man the burqa. In 2009, the government announced its I am, I don’t accept a repressive aspect to be the plans to introduce regulations that would forbid the dominant face of laicité. Laicité wants to convince, wearing of all types of garments which cover the to persuade and to be shining. That is the laicité face (including balaclavas) in schools, both public that should be maintained in our schools. (..) The and private, for school-goers and visitors alike. The aim of our public and lay school is to welcome, to reasons given included issues on interpersonal persuade, to integrate, that means, to realize the interaction, communication, public safety and active goals of education in another way than through a citizenship. A directive has been sent to Ministerial politics of a priori exclusion.’ The Socialists saw departments to prohibit this type of clothing in public causes of the headscarf problem to include social offices as well. Wilders’ initial motion (to banthe deprivation and alienation, and they did not want to burqa in all public spaces) was rejected because further isolate Muslim girls in their communities. This it infringed on equality and religious freedom, and was reflected in their policy (see table below). was considered disproportional. This explains the more moderate law of the current government. During the 1990s, the Socialists gradually lost their trust in the integrative and emancipative power of France the public school, as Muslim girls stayed unwilling In 1989, three Muslim girls were excluded from a to give up their veil and hence appeared rather College in Creil. In what later came to be known as unassimilable on this point. The fact that girls the Creil affair, the socialist government condemned insisted on wearing the headscarf was no longer the ban on headscarves. Some wondered if this was considered as stemming from marginalization, but inspired by the displays of Dutch multiculturalism , framed as expressing separatism and political Islam but the Socialists had other reasons to oppose the and. the policy changed accordingly. ban. They agreed with the Right that the Republican’s promise of equality could only be maintained if At the turn of the 21st Century, the Socialists agreed citizens were treated as abstract individuals, instead with the analysis of the Right and the left-wing of as members of ethnic-religious communities. They parliamentary groups Republic et Liberté (RL) and defended their belief that the school would liberate Radicale, Citoyen et Vert (RCV) that some Muslims Muslim girls. Michel Rocard (then prime ) rejected integration, secularism and the Republican said: ‘I don’t believe a pure authoritarian procedure project of equality. These fundamentalist groups forced their ideology upon others and particularly 44 Runnymede Perspectives

Table 2. France Time & conflicts Frame Policy 1989 Headscarf in public schools conflicts with public Council of State: headscarves Creil affair, 3 girls neutrality (laïcité) & integration: symbol of not necessary incompatible with expelled from alienation (marginalization) & gender: the laïc laïcité, if not acts of pressure, school school liberates (socialist party) provocation, proselytism, propaganda 1994 Integration: headscarf symbol communalism, Decree Bayrou: ostentatious Several conflicts in rejection French values and political Islam symbols not allowed in public schools, strike on And a symbol of gender inequality (socialists schools, room to negotiate behalf gym teacher now follow right wing (RPR) + Republican left about ‘light’ scarves, bandanas (no headscarf for wing (Groups RL, RCV) safety reasons)

2004 Same frames, but become stronger (2002 Right Stasi commission Law: Commission Stasi wing UMP majority in parliament) + decree conspicuous religious signs or installed Bayrou ineffective, for still many conflicts clothing prohibited in public schools. Headscarves always conspicuous. threatened the freedom and equality of young tool to emancipate individual citizens from (Catholic) secular Muslim girls. We can clearly see this communities seeking to control their members. diagnosis in a legislative proposal of 2003, in which The French Republicans sought to secure national some Socialists proposed to ban all religious, cohesion by integrating citizens into a public realm political and philosophical symbols from schools where they were to share the same universal values (law proposition no. 2096 put forward by Georges of equality, freedom and solidarity (Scott, 2007). Sarre (PS) and signed by Jaques Desallangre, In contrast to France, Dutch secularism sought to Jean-Pierre Michel, Pierre Carassus and Michel protect the freedom of religious minorities from the Suchod). Donning the headscarf was framed as a liberal state. Furthermore, secular (leftist) liberals in ‘contestation of French values and culture’ (referring the Netherlands were forced to make a compromise to gender-equality and the freedom of individual with Catholic and Calvinist minorities over political conscience), and ‘a rejection, often imposed on and social life. In the late 19th century, these had young girls, of the Republican and laic model of established local and regional politically organized integration’. A growing communalism in the suburbs religious subcultures to oppose the liberal’s secular would contribute to this fundamentalism that nation-building project, later joined by the social fragmented the nation into separatist and potentially democrats that likewise had begun to organize violent communities where the rights of women parties, professional and leisure time associations were being undermined. On March 15th 2004, the (Kersbergen & Manow, 2008). This resulted into the French government passed the law that banned the segmentation of Dutch society along confessional wearing of conspicuous signs of religious affiliation. lines, known as pillarization. Given this background it is understandable why veiling is more contested in France than in the Netherlands. The two countries’ Comparison and responses to the veil follow from their nation-building Contextualization process. Why is veiling more contested in France than in the Netherlands? It is often argued that the French It should be noted, however, that even in France adhere to a strict interpretation of public neutrality there was a time when politicians did not consider the because of their Republican tradition. French headscarf as conclusively incompatible with the laic secularism developed not only as a mechanism to public school. After 2003, Dutch tolerance towards free the state from religious influence, it also was a veiling declined. This was in a context in which Secularism, Racism and the Politics of Belonging 45

new political players had made their appearance Monsma & Soper, 1997 and Fetzer & Soper, 2005). on the Dutch scene (Pim Fortuyn, Ayaan Hirsi How this affects the space for the religious claims of Ali). The integration policy was blamed as being Muslims, and in particular, how this plays out in the too multicultural, allowing Islamic radicalism. This framing and regulating of the veil is not so obvious. was at a time when Islamic violence had not only First, the big difference with both France and the manifested itself internationally, but also on Dutch Netherlands is that in these two countries there are soil. Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh was murdered legal rules which restricts, in the case of France, or by a radical fundamentalist in 2004. In this climate, accommodates, in the case of the Netherlands, the Dutch politicians felt the necessity, it appears, to wearing of the veil, while in Britain there is no formal distance themselves from multiculturalism. Re- regulation. There exists a rather accommodative assertion of Dutch national identity and Dutch or laissez-faire practice as Kilic (2008: 444) calls it values became a theme. One way of doing this towards the veil. Secondly, until 2006 when former was by making a firm stand against the burqa. Foreign Affairs Minister Jack Straw publicized his The change in attitude of Dutch politicians towards article (‘I want to unveil my views on an important veiling that likened the Dutch political debate to the issue’, The Lancashire Telegraph, 6 October 2006) French debate was a reconfiguration of the Dutch in which he expressed his discomfort with women ideal of a multicultural and multi-religious society in wearing niqabs (a garment that covers the face, a globalizing world. The consequences for Muslim but leaves the eyes uncovered), Britain had not women were limitations on their freedom to wear the experienced a widespread public debate on veiling veil, due to manifestations of Dutch policy. (Kilic 2008: 434). Given the privileged position of the Church of England as the established religious We did not research the British veil debates (see authority, the absence of a public debate and the Kilic, 2008), and therefore limit ourselves to just a accommodative practice is surprising as one would few comparative observations regarding Britain. expect that the space for Muslims’ religious claims In the literature on citizenship and immigrant would be limited in Britain. This is the more so if one integration, Britain and the Netherlands are usually realizes that the multicultural framework in Britain lumped together as two multicultural countries and is set by the Race Relations Act that determines contrasted with France as an example of a civic the space for recognition of minority claims. As assimilationist or universalist integration regime Muslims are considered a religious group, and not (see Koopmans et al., 2005). When we look at these as a racial or ethnic group like Jews or Sikhs, this countries through the lens of state-church relations, works to the disadvantage of Muslims (Modood France gets characterised as following a model of 2006). Yet this is not reflected in debates or strict secularism and the Netherlands as a case of policies regarding the veil. Up to this day, veiling principled pluralism. State neutrality means in the in the UK is relatively uncontested and the policy Dutch context of pillarization that the state does not reaction accommodative. While we were inclined ban religion from the public sphere, as in France, on the basis of our comparison between France but that it does not discriminate between religious and the Netherlands to conclude that the framing and non-religious institutions. Therefore, religious and regulating of the veil is more determined by a groups not only have the right to establish their own country’s self image as a nation and the way state- schools, but also receive full public funding. This church relations are institutionalised in the nation- gave Muslims and other newly-established religious building process than by its integration regime, minorities the opportunity to make religious claims this explanation certainly will not do for Britain, but and get them accommodated. Treating Islam neither is an explanation in terms of integration differently from the established religions would regimes. amount in Dutch eyes to discrimination. The UK is an altogether different case, as the Church of England is the established religious authority in England, but Notes 1. We will use ‘the veil’ as a shorthand to refer to all not for the rest of Britain. Yet despite the decline of forms of Muslim women’s head- and body- covering formal ties between Parliament and the Church of together, such as chador, jilbab or niqab. When we England, there exist comparatively strong formal want to refer to a specific form of veiling, such as and legal ties between church and state. The British the headscarf or the burqa, this will be mentioned Monarch also represents the head of the church as such. and has considerable authority in church affairs, such as the power to appoint archbishops. The 2. Fortuyn had founded his List Pim Fortuyn (LPF) in church itself continues to have an important political February 2002. After his assassination in May 2002 role in the workings of the state, as some bishops his party gained a huge election victory (26 seats in Parliament). Hirsi Ali was in 2003 elected as a MP for have reserved seats in the House of Lords (see 46 Runnymede Perspectives

the Dutch liberal party. She castigated Islam for its Koopmans, R., Statham, P., Giugni, M., and Passy, gender inequality. They were later followed by Geert F. (2005) Contested Citizenship: Immigration and Wilders, a dissident member of the liberal party who Cultural Diversity in Europe. Minneapolis, MN: formed in 2004 his Patij voor de Vrijheid (Party for University of Minnesota Press. the Freedom) and by , again a former liberal MP who founded her movement ‘Trots op Modood, T. (2006), ‘British Muslims and the Nederland’ (Proud of the Netherlands) in 2007. Politics of Multiculturalism’, in: Modood, Tariq, Triandafyllidou, Anna and Zapata-Barrero, Ricard (eds) Multiculturalism, Muslims and Citizenship. References London/New York: Routledge. Fetzer, J. S. and Soper, C. J. (2005) Muslims and the State in Britain, France, and Germany. Cambridge: Monsma, S. and Soper, C. J. (1997) The Challenge Cambridge University Press. of Pluralism: Church and State in Five Democracies. Lanham, MD: Roman and Littlefield publishers. Kilic, S. (2008) ‘The British Veil Wars’, in: Sevgi Kilic, Sawitri Saharso and Birgit Sauer (eds) Scott, J.W. (2007) The Politics of the Veil. Princeton The Veil: Debating Citizenship, Gender and and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Religious Diversity, Special Issue of Social Politics. International Studies in Gender, State, and Society Van Kersbergen, K. and Manow, P. (eds) (2008), 15(4): 433–454. Religion, Class Coalitions, and Welfare State Regimes. New York: Cambridge University Press.