Cornerstone Forum A Conversation on Religious Freedom and Its Social Implications No. 240. September 11, 2018 Denmark’s Recent “Burqa Ban” – Unnecessary, Counterproductive, and Hypocritical Kareem P. A. McDonald Program Associate, Religious Freedom Institute’s Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team Six countries in Europe have now passed nationwide or partial bans on face-veils, and others have legislation pending for additional bans. Speaking critically of either the bans or the Muslim practice of veiling engenders a firestorm of debate, as former Mayor of London and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Boris Johnson did with an article in the Telegraph denouncing the ban in Denmark, while also bluntly criticizing in demeaning fashion the practice of covering the face. The response to the controversy has largely focused on questions of free speech, with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) labeling the remarks as “inflammatory and divisive” but not within its jurisdiction to prosecute. Yet, what of the more fundamental question about the public expression of religious belief? Is it appropriate, as the European Court of Human Rights said in its 2014 ruling in S.A.S vs. France, that veiling must be restricted in favor of the principle of “living together” and promoting “tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no democratic society.” What are the implications of religious freedom for protecting the right to public expressions of faith, even those expressions which may seem to resist cultural assimilation? To see all posts in this series visit: Debating Burqa Bans At the start of last month, Denmark became the latest country in Europe -- joining France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany--to completely or partly legislate against the wearing of burqas or niqabs in public. Muslim women who violate the ban risk being fined 1,000 kroner, and repeated violations can result in fines of up to 10,000 kroner ($1,550) and imprisonments of up to six months. Advocates of the burqa ban in Denmark have cited various justifications for the new law such as: public safety, desires to “liberate” oppressed Muslim women who wear the burqa or niqab, promote gender equality, and generally to improve the integration of Muslim women in the country. There are, however, serious flaws with the motives and justifications for the new law. In short, the law is unnecessary, will undoubtedly prove to be counterproductive, and reveals a rank hypocrisy on the part of the Danish government. While the new legislation provides for a general provision prohibiting any “garment that covers the face in public”, it is popularly referred to as the “burqa ban”. This is an apt name for the new piece Religious Freedom Institute | McDonald Cornerstone Forum | No. 240 September 11, 2018 of legislation because there can be no doubt that the target of the new law is the burqa and the niqab, and the Muslim women who wear these garments. The only reason that the new legislation does not specifically mention burqas and niqabs, as an early draft version of the law did, is because Denmark’s human rights obligations and anti-discrimination provisions would have prohibited this. The Danish Justice Minister and leader of the Conservative People’s Party, Søren Pape Poulsen, admitted as much in an interview with a Danish newspaper, Jyllands Posten, when he explained that the original draft of the law would be in violation of the Danish Constitution’s anti-discrimination provisions and as such, the subsequent proposal would prohibit other garments that cover the face, such as balaclavas. The target of the new law, however, is and always has been the burqa and the niqab. Søren Espersen, from the right-wing and Islamophobic Danish People’s Party, expressed his annoyance at “all the contortions we have to make in order to avoid “discrimination”. This is about the burka and niqab and nothing else. Let us just discriminate. I do not give a damn.” Shortly after the burqa ban was approved by the Danish Parliament, Espersen’s party colleague, Martin Henriksen, stated that “the parliament says very clearly that the burka and niqab do not belong in Denmark. They are incompatible with Danish culture.” The new legislation received overwhelming support in the Danish Parliament and not just from the right-wing parties but also from the main opposition party, the center-left Social Democrats. Back in 2014, the then-justice minister, Mette Frederiksen, opposed calls for a burqa ban, saying that “in my opinion it is out of proportion to start legislating about it.” A few years later and now as leader of the Social Democrats and the opposition, Frederiksen declared her support for a burqa ban. This is not entirely surprising because under Frederiksen’s leadership, the Social Democrats have increasingly taken a hard line on the issues of immigration and integration, in Frederiksen’s attempts to position her party closer to the Danish People’s Party, who will most likely hold the balance of power in the Danish Parliament after next year’s general election in the country. The target of the new law is and always has been the burqa and the niqab, and it would be utterly insincere and disingenuous to suggest otherwise. But why are the burqa and the niqab such a “problem” for supporters of the new legislation? After all, there are very few Muslim women who wear the niqab and even fewer who wear the burqa. In 2009, researchers from the University of Copenhagen conducted a survey of Muslim women in Denmark and found that only around 200 women or 0.1-0.2% of Muslim women wear the niqab and none wear the burqa. According to the main author of that report, Margit Warburg, there is no evidence to suggest that this figure has dramatically increased since then. Only around 5% of Denmark’s 5.7 million inhabitants are Muslim and so what we are really speaking about is a minority out of a minority out of a minority. Ironically then, one could say that the first “problem”with Denmark’s new burqa ban is finding a burqa to ban. An apparent concern for public safety and security was cited as one of the reasons why Denmark needed a burqa and niqab ban. Members of the Danish People’s Party stated that “a ban will strengthen safety for all of us [because] both terrorists and other criminals can blur their identity with face coverings while conducting terrorist acts of crimes.” The governing Venstre party has also used security concerns to justify their new position of supporting a burqa ban. They explained that while “Venstre has not previously supported a ban…times change and we have to change with them. Considerations have to be given to public safety. The terrorist threat to Denmark is serious [and, as Religious Freedom Institute | McDonald 2 Cornerstone Forum | No. 240 September 11, 2018 such] we need to be able to see each other’s face in the public space.”Venstre’s change of position on the burqa ban has arguably more to do with their desire to maintain the support of the Danish People’s Party, who provide the crucial support in the Danish Parliament needed for Venstreto remain in power, and less to do with genuine security concerns. Denmark is not suffering from a crime spree conducted by groups of burqa clad Muslim women. Muslim women in burqas or niqabs, or anyone in a burqa or niqab, have not been involved in any of the recent major terrorist incidents in Denmark. Furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights, in its famous ruling in SAS v. France, made it clear that blanket bans on burqas and niqabs cannot be justified with reference to concerns for public safety. The serious problem with the “public safety” argument is that it perpetuates the negative stereotyping and prejudice that associates all Muslims with violence and terrorism. It fuels the idea that Muslims are different and do not belong, heightens tensions in local communities, and alienates the overwhelming majority of Muslims who oppose terrorism and are actually vital allies in the fight against violent extremism. This is where the new law will also prove counterproductive. The Social Democrats leader, Mette Frederiksen, has claimed that the burqa is a symbol of women’s oppression. She justified her support for the burqa ban by saying, “I support gender equality, and the purpose of the burka is to make women invisible in the public space.” Preben Bang Henriksen, from the Venstre party,expressed his unhappiness that“a large group of women in this country cannot be integrated” and the need to “ensure that [these women] do not act in a way that they cannot be integrated.”Claims that a burqa ban promotes gender equality while helping to integrate women who wear the niqab or burqa have been popular justifications offered by supporters of the new law. The same arguments were advanced by supporters of France’s burqa ban but, eight years on, it is clear the law has been counterproductive, and Denmark now risks suffering the same consequences. French sociologist and filmmaker, Agnès De Feo, has claimed that France’s burqa ban has been “a total failure”. Speaking about the situation in France now, she has explained that “we now live in a society where people think it’s normal to insult Muslim women wearing the full veil just because they are disobeying the law.”Indeed, there has been a series of disturbing incidents in France over the last few years were Muslim women have been attacked and had their face coverings forcibly removed. One of the most disturbing of these incidents was a case in which a pregnant Muslim woman wearing a veil was violently attacked by two men; shortly after the attack she suffered a miscarriage.