Author:

Abstract:

© Cambridge University Press 2014. This chapter confronts the stated motives of the Belgian legislator who banned face covering in public with the experiences and views of women who wear the face veil in Belgium. Contrasting the insider experiences of the women concerned with the assumptions of the Belgian legislator, it argues that on account of its relying on erroneous assumptions, the Belgian ban does not actually serve its stated purpose, that it is disproportionate and that it denies procedural justice. Belgium’s face veil ban Belgium would have been the first country to ban the wearing of face veils in public on its entire territory, if a political crisis hadn’t caused the early dissolution of Parliament in May 2010, at a time when the Chamber of Representatives had already voted the ban, and the Senate, which ‘evoked’ the bill, was due to vote it in a matter of weeks. After elections the political crisis continued, and Belgium was ruled by a caretaker government for over a year. It was during that time that several ‘burqa ban’ bills were tabled again, as parliamentary initiatives, and that one of them was adopted after brief discussion by a near-unanimous Chamber. A request for expert hearings did not receive sufficient support to be granted, and the same fate befell a request for the advice of the Legislative Division of Council of State, a body that advises on the legality and constitutionality of proposed legislation. Moreover, this time the Senate opted against evocation. The ‘Act of 1 June 2011 to institute a prohibition on wearing clothing that covers the face, or a large part of it’, was published in the Belgian Official Journal on 13 July 2011 and entered into force ten days later. This means that, following France – which had adopted its ‘burqa ban’ in the summer of 2010 – Belgium is the second European country banning the Islamic face veil in public.