Draft on Headscarf Ban Faces Criticism

As early as 2020, the Constitutional Court (VfGH) overturned a ban decided under the black-blue coalition in elementary schools, because a regulation targeting only Muslims contradicted the state's mandate of religious neutrality. According to the ministry's statement, it is also questionable whether the new regulation will hold.

A gender- and religion-neutral formulation that does not exclusively target the Islamic headscarf would be necessary, emphasizes the Ministry of Justice. "Otherwise, the draft again risks failing the equality principle of Art. 7 B-VG."

What is meant by "honor cultural behavioral obligation"

In the draft law, an attempt is made to address the concerns of the VfGH from 2020, and the headscarf is only banned under the condition that it is worn as an expression of an "honor cultural behavioral obligation." However, what this is supposed to be is not clearly defined in the legal text or in the explanations - making enforcement correspondingly difficult. Furthermore, the ban assumes that only clothing of girls can be understood as an "expression of an honor cultural behavioral obligation."

The ministry also criticizes that the impact assessment does not contain any reliable number of those affected and that there apparently have been no consultations with the affected group of children and adolescents. It is also questionable whether it meets constitutional requirements if the "target state" is stated as no girls wearing a headscarf according to Islamic tradition in school in the future - "and not, for example, to prevent or avoid discrimination or child welfare violations."

There is also no justification for the regulation to apply to girls aged six to 14, regardless of their different maturity and development, and why the child protection concepts, which have been mandatory in schools since the 2024/2025 school year, are not sufficient for their protection. The proposed legal text is also not a sufficient basis for sanctioning the "headscarf ban" with administrative fines of up to 1,000 euros, because it mentions further "newly to be created administrative offenses" but does not yet specify them. A draft law that cannot be fully assessed in content contradicts quality assurance in legislation.

Criticism from Islamic Religious Community

Primarily, content criticism comes from the Islamic Religious Community (IGGÖ) and the Alevi Religious Community. According to the IGGÖ, the planned regulation "contradicts the constitutional human rights guarantees of religious freedom, equal treatment, and parental rights to religious education" and opposes the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The regulation discriminates against a specific population group and neither protects the welfare of the child nor promotes the self-determination of girls. Instead, it would effectively exclude religiously dressed female students from regular classes or bring them into conflict with their religious beliefs. The assessment of whether wearing a headscarf is an expression of "honor" or "coercion" is also not compatible with state neutrality.

The headscarf is not a religious obligation for Alevi women and may be worn for cultural or rural traditional reasons, as emphasized in the religious community's statement. However, a ban on the symbol of a single religious group places it under general suspicion. From past experience, it is known that both headscarf bans and mandates can lead to societal counter-movements and can even strengthen fundamentalist tendencies. In practice, the ban poses a risk of misunderstandings, stigmatization, and loss of trust between students, parents, and the school.

The Chamber of Labor (AK) also refers to the Constitutional Court's ruling in its statement: The current draft law attempts to argue more differentiatedly compared to the text of the law that was annulled by the highest court at the time and to establish a new objective, namely the welfare of the child or self-determination and protection from familial coercion, or to structure the procedure in multiple stages. However, at its core, it remains a selective ban on headscarves that exclusively affects Muslim girls. "The new objective does not change the fundamental problem: State coercion is not a suitable means to strengthen self-determination - and thus remains disproportionate."

Discrimination Feared Due to Headscarf Ban

In total, over 400 statements have been submitted so far, the majority from private individuals. Institutions such as the Evangelical Church, the Free Churches, the Initiative for a Discrimination-Free Education System, and the Equal Treatment Advocacy have expressed concerns about discrimination due to the headscarf ban, while SPÖ-affiliated teacher representatives see a "gross misalignment" with the goal of promoting child welfare. The compulsory school teachers' union generally welcomes the draft in its objective to strengthen the self-determination of female students. However, it should not result in "additional burdens" for schools.

(APA/Red)

This article has been automatically translated, read the original article here.