The debate on the use of the burqa and niqab in public spaces has re-emerged on the Spanish political scene. There are various proposals on the table and it seems that, this time, there is a political interest in regulating it. For the moment, Congress has rejected Vox's proposal, but the far-right's insistence on this issue has been decisive in prompting the rest of the parliamentary spectrum to start taking positions. In this regard, Junts has put forward an alternative proposal focused on people's security and identification – rather than on religious freedom –a path that the PSOE has shown itself open to studying. PP and ERC have also had their say, proposing a ban that would not entail fines for women, but rather participation in social activities. However, the possible constitutionality of a law of this nature in Spain raises profound legal questions that oblige us to look towards Strasbourg and analyze the limits of our own fundamental rights system.A void of precedents: the weight of organic law

Currently, the Constitutional Court (TC) does not have clear jurisprudence or precedents that would allow us to accurately predict its verdict on a general ban. "The Spanish legal framework is in a situation of uncertainty. We are in a territory of fictional constitutionalism," points out María Itziar Gómez Fernández, former TC lawyer and professor of constitutional law at the Carlos III University of Madrid, in conversation with ARA.Until now, the only relevant pronouncement in Spain came from the Supreme Court (TS) following municipal ordinances that prohibited the full veil in spaces like those in Lleida. Joan Lluís Pérez Francesch, professor of constitutional law at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, explains to ARA that "the TS made it clear that any limitation of a fundamental right such as religious freedom should be done through an organic law that regulated the limitations related to religious freedom".The mirror of the ECHR

Given the lack of internal doctrine, the gaze is inevitably drawn to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which has already ruled on measures adopted in France and Belgium. However, a fundamental difference in context should be highlighted. "In France and Belgium, the principle of secularism is very clearly contained in their constitutional texts," explains Gómez. In contrast, "in Spain, we have a system of respect for religious freedom that is constitutionally enshrined," which could oblige the Constitutional Court to look at the issue with different eyes.One of the key points of Strasbourg's jurisprudence has been the strategy of moving away from the strictly religious sphere to save the constitutionality of the ban. Pérez Francesch points out that "if it is linked to religious freedom, religious freedom always wins, as any limitation of it is very difficult to justify." "These countries used concepts such as public safety and, above all, the principle of 'democratic coexistence,'" he highlights.Red lines: against general bans

Despite the ECtHR's endorsement of certain bans, there are red lines that the Spanish Constitutional Court would have to scrupulously respect to adapt to the Council of Europe system. The main premise is that "general bans are not useful, they are not valid. A universal prohibitory measure cannot be applied based solely on abstract concepts such as security or gender dignity," highlights Gómez."The TC could not analyze a ban in block, but would have to focus on specific measures. It is not the same to restrict the use of the burqa in an administrative office for identification reasons as to do so on the street or in a university," indicates the former lawyer. "These specific issues are what would allow for a specific proportionality judgment."The proportionality test and the search for real purpose

To determine the constitutionality of a possible law, the TC will have to apply a three-step proportionality test: analyze whether the purpose of the ban is suitable, necessary, and proportional. For suitability, the key is the purpose. "The legislator would have to openly declare what it intends: is it a real security problem or is it a paternalistic view?" highlights Gómez Fernández. "In what way do we consider that prohibiting a piece of clothing worn only by women protects their dignity?" It would also be necessary to assess whether the measure is proportional or if "flies are being killed with cannons," he explains. "If the limitation affects an infinitesimal percentage of the population and generates a persecution effect towards a certain religion, it is very likely that the measure will be considered disproportionate depending on the circumstances of the specific case."The snag of control

The arrival of the norm at the TC would also not be exempt from uncertainty. Parliamentary arithmetic would complicate an unconstitutionality appeal if the major parties agreed on the law. Without the minimum of 50 deputies or senators needed to challenge it directly, abstract control could be initially blocked. However, the path would not be closed: any affected woman could go to the Constitutional Court via an appeal for protection. As happened in France and Belgium, the review of the norm would come from the bottom up, through the protection of individual rights and specific litigation.

]]>

One of the most recurring and passionate social debates is the extent to which we are free to make our decisions. Was the choice of vacation destination in the most fashionable Eastern country made freely? Fashion—which, in a strategy to disguise its coercive nature, is now called trend– Does it curtail our freedom?

]]>

French athlete Sounkamba Sylla was nearly barred from participating in the Olympic opening ceremony last summer because she is Muslim and wears a veil. French athletes are prohibited from wearing any religious symbols during international competitions they participate in with the French national team, but shortly before the start of the Paris Games, the government warned that it would not allow symbols to be worn during the opening ceremony either. Sylla, a 4x400m relay runner, stood her ground. She was finally able to participate after reaching an agreement with the government: she wore a cap, the same one she later wore to compete in the Games.

]]>

The debate over the use of the Islamic veil inevitably leads me to a contradiction. I believe in the values that characterize the democratic states of the European Union. For me, one of those values is freedom. But an equally important one is secularism. Combining the defense of two values that often collide is the challenge we face. And it's a challenge that is no longer conceptual, but one that touches our everyday lives, because demographic changes have made religious diversity a street-level issue in Catalonia, directly affecting a portion of our fellow citizens.

]]>

I've always been uncomfortable with how, in the name of religious interpretation, women (it's always women) must cover their bodies, modify them, deform them, mortify them, and hate them so that they are no longer desired. The idea of the headscarf (we're not talking about the wigs worn by Orthodox Jews or the headscarves worn by Christian grandmothers because those no longer exist, or still don't exist) makes us uncomfortable because of what it represents. In a distant time, without exposed belly buttons, tongue piercings, bare knees, horn-rimmed glasses, diamonds in teeth, visible underwear and panties, women's hair was (and still is) a symbol of sin, beauty, and desire. It had to be covered. Orthodox Jews shave their heads (and, yes, they wear wigs). We can say, now, that the headscarf is a symbol of identity, of feminism, and of whatever is necessary, of empowerment. We can turn it around, like in the word queerAnd everything depends, of course, on the perspective—which is unique, which is her own—of the woman who accepts or desires this garment that serves no purpose (it's not a sun hat, it's not a rain boot) except to bring comfort to others. I, as with bullfighting, would make this cultural, ancestral, and infamous practice die out alone with the next generation.

]]>

The Islamic veil isn't exactly the tip of the iceberg, but it's close. The veil is a sign, a symbol, proof of how the human landscape of our streets has changed, and it's a subject of political debate.

]]>

The far right has long understood that agenda control is crucial in politics—that is, deciding which issues occupy public debate—and therefore focuses its efforts on placing certain issues at the center of discussion. Its favorite topics are immigration, insecurity, political party corruption, and, in general, anything it believes serves as a vehicle for hate speech and its authoritarian and anti-democratic values. It is therefore difficult to understand how a party like Junts could have fallen into the Catalan Alliance's trap in the Parliament and made it known that it has a similar position to Silvia Orriols's party on the issue of the Islamic veil, even though it ultimately voted against it.

]]>

I look at the images of a demonstration of girls wrapped up in a veil because they want to go to school with an Islamic headscarf. The banners say: "Don't make us choose between our religion and our education."

]]>