Brussels Teachers Challenge Court Ruling on Islamic Veils in Schools

In 2017, ten students from the Haute École Fransisco Ferrer in Brussels decided to file a complaint against the school’s internal regulations, in any case the paragraph that prohibited the wearing of "any philosophical, political or religious symbol" and which they considered discriminatory. They will be dismissed on June 4, 2020 by the Constitutional Court, which considers that "the prohibition of wearing religious symbols is not contrary to the obligation of respect for neutrality within official education and does not violate the freedom of religion guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights", reports the RTBF.

But another judgment will be handed down by the Court of First Instance on November 24, 2021, declaring that "this prohibition should be provided for by a decree, due to its importance, and not by the simple internal regulations of the school". The court therefore declares "that this prohibition constitutes indirect discrimination and orders its cessation to the City of Brussels". The City of Brussels takes note of the decision to the great regret of the teachers who say they have been abandoned.

Following this decision, several teachers supported by the school management as well as other schools, have therefore decided to initiate proceedings in order to obtain the annulment of the November 2021 judgment which they consider "prejudicial to their interests". Before the judge last Wednesday, Dominique Grisay, the lawyer for the Collective, stated that "the approach does not so much concern the question of the right to be able or not to wear the veil at school but a much more important question, the question of whether it is still possible in Belgium to have a type of education linked to free examination, with a pedagogy of neutrality and also a neutrality of appearance".

Véronique van der Plancke, the lawyer for the students, considers on the other hand that the real motive is only the wearing of the veil, regardless of the argument of her colleague. She finds it absurd that a decision made less than a year ago is still being challenged "because certain organizations believe that it clashes with their own vision of society". She adds that the subject no longer has its place in a court, but should be the subject of a "broad public debate".