
I have just been reading the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights on France’s so-called burqa ban. I find it troubling to say the least. The court recognises that the ban explicitly targets women of a Muslim minority, but it still comes to the conclusion that the law is not in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the press release:
While the Court was aware that the disputed ban mainly affected certain Muslim women, it nevertheless noted that there was no restriction on the freedom to wear in public any item of clothing which did not have the effect of concealing the face and that the ban was not expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question but solely on the fact that it concealed the face.
To me, this is absurd. Assume that the Taliban took power in a European country and they wanted to enforce the Islamic prohibition of monasticism. All they had to do to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights would be to design the ban as general rules. They could for example make a law that prohibits groups of adult people living together in single-sex units and then legitimise the effects on nuns and monks by saying it’s a rule that applies to everyone.
What makes state secularism great is its unique ability to tolerate people regardless of religion. In an ideal secularism, the state remains mute on religious matters. But what this ruling makes legal is a state secularism that does the opposite.
(Seen in the picture is a group of Afghan women wearing burqas outside a USAID-supported health-care clinic.)