Download - Migrant Women, Citizenship and the Veil

Civic Integration MigrantWomen and theVeil at theLimits of Rights

SiobhaŁ n Mullallyn

Controversies surrounding the wearing of the veil by Muslimwomen in Europe have coincidedwith a resurgence of interest inlsquopathways to citizenshiprsquo and integration testingThis article arguesthat the historical vestiges of discrimination in immigration and citizenship laws persist today inthe scrutiny of the cultural afraslliations and practices of aspiring immigrants and citizens Muslimwomen have been placed at the center of such scrutiny increasingly decentned by the arbiters ofbelonging as les anormeaux This article explores recent legislative developments on the wearingof the veil in France and examines these developments in the light of the expansion of integrationtesting and human rights lawrsquos normative commitments tomore justmulticultural arrangements

It is the situation of women that was taken as the theme of actionThe domi-nant administration solemnly undertook to defend this woman pictured as humi-liated sequestered cloistered Around the family life of the Algerian theoccupier piled up a whole mass of judgments appraisals reasons accumulatedanecdotes and edifying examples thus attempting to concentne the Algerian withina circle of guilt1

Le voile inteŁ gral est un signe militant drsquoappartenance a un projet de socieŁ teŁ qui creŁ e un espacepriveŁ au sein meŒ me de lrsquoespace public et dans lequel les lois de la ReŁ publique nrsquoont pas drsquoeiexclet

2

Recent years have witnessed a spate of litigation and debate on the wearing of theveil by Muslim women and girls in Europe3 Repoundecting broader geo-politicsMuslimwomen have been placed at the center of the human rights versus Islamicworld dialectic Controversies surrounding thewearing of the veil have coincidedin Europe with a retreat from the politics of multiculturalism4 the language ofmulticultural accommodation being replaced by policy agendas that are more

nSenior Lecturer Faculty of Law University College Cork Research for this article was supported bya grant from the Irish Research Council for the Human Rights and Social Sciences Research andwriting were completedwhile Iwas a Senior Fellow inResidence and Fulbright Scholar at the Genderand Sexuality Law Program Columbia Law School and at the Institute for International Law andPublic PolicyTemple University I am grateful to Katherine Franke Suzanne Goldberg Peter SpiroJaya Ramji-Nogales Martha Fineman Mathilde Cohen MaŁ iread Enright and Eoin Daly for theircomments and suggestions on earlier drafts I am also grateful to the editors and to the anonymousreviewers for their helpful comments

1 F Fanon ADying Colonialism (NewYork Grove Press 1967) 382 AssembleŁ Nationale lsquoRapport DrsquoInformation Sur La Pratique Du Port Du Voile Integral Sur LeTerritoire Nationalrsquo 26 January 2010109

3 For commentary see AVakulenkolsquoIslamicDress inHumanRights Jurisprudence ACritique ofCurrent Trendsrsquo (2007) 7 Human Rights Law Review 717 D McGoldrick Human Rights and Reli-gionThe Islamic Headscarf Debate in Europe (Oxford Hart 2006) C JoppkeVeil Mirror of Identity(Cambridge Polity 2009)

4 C JoppkelsquoThe retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state theory and policyrsquo (2004) 55 BritishJournal of Sociology 237

r 2011The AuthorThe Modern Law Reviewr 2011The Modern Law Review Limited

Published by Blackwell Publishing 9600 Garsington Road Oxford OX4 2DQ UK and 350 Main Street Malden MA 02148 USA

(2011) 74(1) 27^56

likely to appeal to the values of social cohesion and civic integration5 The pre-occupationwith integration ofmigrant communities is repoundected in the resurgenceof interest inlsquopathways to citizenshiprsquo and integration testing both at EU level andinMember States6 In recent years this preoccupation has been marked by awill-ingness to deploy juridical and punitive tools of immigration control to monitormandatory integration requirements7 Newly expanded forms of integration test-ing seek to assess the newcomerrsquos commitment to liberal democratic idealsincluding gender equality8 This lsquogender turnrsquo in immigration and citizenshippracticemarks a challenging departure and raises questions as towhat are the costsof such inclusion Securing equality in citizenship lawswas a central focus of fem-inist activism at an international level for the most part of the 20th century andcontinues to be a concern today9 While directly discriminatory laws have dis-appeared in Europe the categories of gender sexuality and lsquoracersquo continue to bepivotal to immigration and citizenship practices today10 The historical vestiges ofdiscrimination in immigration laws persist in the lsquoanxious scrutinyrsquo to which thecultural afraslliations and practices of aspiring citizens are subjected Muslimwomen have been placed at the center of such scrutiny increasingly decentned bythe arbiters of belonging and membership as lsquoles anormeauxrsquo11

The recently published Report of the French Parliamentary Commission onthe wearing of the lsquovoile inteŁ gralrsquo (face-veil) the Gerin Report proposes a series ofmeasures un accord republicain designed to restrict the wearing of the burqa andniqab on French territory12 These measures include expanded integration condi-tions to be applied to aspiring immigrants and citizens Building on recent

5 See E Guild C A Groenendijk and S Carrera Illiberal Liberal States Immigration Citizenship andIntegration in the EU (Farnham Ashgate 2009) D Kostakopoulou lsquoMatters of Control Integra-tionTests Naturalisation Reform and Probationary Citizenship in the United Kingdomrsquo (2010)36 Journal of Ethnic andMigration Studies 829

6 See for example HomeOfraslce UKBorderAgencyThe Path toCitizenshipNext Steps inReformingthe Immigration System (February 2008) On the compatibility of citizenship testing with liberal-ism see EUDOForumonCitizenship (2010) lsquoHowLiberal are CitizenshipTestsrsquo at httpeudo-citizenshipeucitizenship-forum255-how-liberal-are-citizenship-tests (last visited 18 October2010) On the expansion of integration testing in Europe see lsquoCitizenshipTests in a Post-NationalErarsquo International Journal of Multicultural Societies Special Issue (2008) Vol 10(1) discussing recentdevelopments in theNetherlandsDenmark France and theUK See alsolsquoMigration andCitizen-ship Attribution Politics and Policies inWestern Europersquo Special Issue (2010) Vol 36(5) Journal ofEthnic andMigration Studies edited by MVink and R de Groot

7 C Dauvergne lsquoGlobalizing Fragmentation New Pressures onWomen Caught in the Immigra-tion Law ^ Citizenship Law Dichotomyrsquo in S Benhabib and J Resnik Migrations and MobilitiesCitizenship Borders and Gender (NewYork NewYorkUniversity Press 2009) 333^355 334

8 In France see lsquoRapport DrsquoInformation Sur La Pratique Du Port DuVoile Integral Sur LeTerri-toire Nationalrsquo ((Paris 26 January 2010) (Report of the Gerin Commission)

9 See ILA FinalReport onWomenrsquos Equality andNationality in International Law (London InternationalLawAssociation 2000) Article 9 of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms ofDiscrimination AgainstWomen on nationality remains one of the most heavily reserved of thetreatyrsquos provisions For the full text of reservations see httpwwwunorgwomenwatchdawcedawreservationshtm (last visited 15 October 2010)

10 See S A BergerlsquoProduction andReproduction of Gender and Sexuality in Legal Discourses ofAsylum in theUnited Statesrsquo (2009) 34 Signs Journal ofWomen inCulture and Society 659 discussingthe continuing centrality of the categories of gender and sexuality in asylum law

11 M Foucault and others Les Anormaux Cours au Colle ge de France (1974^1975) (Paris GallimardSeuil1999)

12 n 2 above187

Civic Integration MigrantWomen and theVeil

28r 2011The AuthorThe Modern Law Reviewr 2011The Modern Law Review Limited

(2011) 74(1) 27^56

jurisprudence of the Conseil drsquoEŁ tat the Report suggests that the wearing of theniqab or burqamay repoundect a failure to comply with essential French values justify-ing a refusal of citizenship or residence statusThe establishment of the Parliamen-tary Commission in June 2009 followed on from a speech delivered by PresidentNicolas Sarkozy at the Palace of Versailles inwhich he declared that the burqawasnot welcome on French territory13 Clearly seeking to position the debate as oneof Frenchvalues he argued that the issuewas not a question of religion but rathera question of protecting the liberty and dignity of women Debates on the wear-ing of the veil in France have coincided with a consultation on national identitylsquoLe grand deŁ bat sur lrsquoidentiteŁ nationalersquowhich Eric Besson (Minister for Immigration)has said will seek to redecentne familiar concepts of citizenship and national belong-ing14

Coinciding with the resurgence of interest in integration proposals to restrictthe wearing of the veil have emerged in several western European states15 Theveiled Muslim woman presents a visible challenge to the statersquos coercive powersof surveillance and exclusion By lsquospeaking backrsquo to dominant cultural norms tothe dominant ethnos of the state she challenges the statersquos (and Europersquos) projectof governance In liberal democratic states the law is presumed to support thepursuit of competing conceptions of the good life In practice we know that thisfreedom is strictly regulated and the choices made subject to constraints For theaspiring citizen or immigrant the failure to make the right choices justicentes theheavy intervention of the state This intervention is evident in newly decentnedpathways to citizenship and in the introduction of juridical forms and statusessuch as the welcome and integration contract (contrat drsquoacceuil et drsquointeŁ gration(CAI)) in France and the attachment of integration conditions to residence familyreunicentcation and citizenship statuses throughout Europe16 Through such new

13 See A ChrisacentslsquoNicholas Sarkozy says Islamic veils are not welcome in FrancersquoThe Guardian 23June 2009 at httpwwwguardiancoukworld2009jun22islamic-veils-sarkozy-speech-france(last visited 15 October 2010)

14 The full title of this ministerial position is Minister for Immigration Integration National Iden-tity and Solidarity Development See lsquoLe the me de lrsquoidentiteŁ nationale divise a droite comme agauchersquo Le Monde 29 October 2009 at httpwwwlemondefrpolitiquearticle20091029le-theme-de-l-identite-nationale-divise-a-droite-comme-a-gauche_1260381_823448html (lastvisited 15 October 2010)

15 Belgium is themost recent state to consider legislation imposing a general restriction on thewear-ing of the burqua or niqab in public spacesThe bill approved unanimously by the lower chamberrsquosHome Aiexclairs Committee on 31March 2010 would make it a crime to be in a public place withonersquos face partially or wholly concealed in a way that would make identicentcation impossibleVio-lators would be subject to a centne of 15 to 25 euros andor a prison sentence of one to seven daysTwenty out of 589 municipalities in Belgium already prohibit wearing full Muslimveils in pub-lic Similar local restrictions exist in parts of Italy and the Netherlands See Human RightsWatch Belgium lsquoMuslim Veil Ban Would Violate Rightsrsquo (Brussels 21 April 2010) at httpwwwhrworgennews20100421belgium-muslim-veil-ban-would-violate-rights (last visited15 October 2010) See also n 2 above at 71

16 In France seeLoi no 2003^1119 relative a la ma|ldquo trise de lrsquoimmigration au seŁ jour des eŁ trangers enFrance et a lanationaliteŁ of 26November 2003 and Loi no 2006^911 relative a lrsquoimmigration et a lrsquointegration See alsoLoi no 2007^1631 relative a la ma|ldquo trise de lrsquoimmigration a lrsquointeŁ gration et a lrsquoasile of 20 November 2007introducing the Contrat drsquoacceuil et drsquointeŁ gration pour la famille (CAIF) Article 7 At EU level seeCouncil Directive concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents2003109 [2004] OJ L 1644 2312004 and Council Directive 200386EC of 22 September 2003

SiobhaŁ n Mullally

29r 2011The AuthorThe Modern Law Reviewr 2011The Modern Law Review Limited(2011) 74(1) 27^56

technologies of citizenship the immigrant is pushed tomanage her own pathwayto citizenship She must lsquoearn citizenshiprsquo17 demonstrating integration and accep-tance of the non-negotiable norms of the dominant cultureThese norms includeprescriptions as to acceptable forms of dress and covering and as with debates onthe wearing of face-veils a demand to be visible viewed in the French context asan essential precondition to vivre-ensemble (living together)

Muslimwomen and girls have invoked the protections of the European Con-vention on Human Rights (ECHR) to support their claims to religious freedomand to challenge restrictions imposed on religious dress18 These challenges how-ever have largely failed Recognition and inclusion in the universal register ofrights discourse comes at a cost As with mandatory civic integration require-ments in the immigration context the promise of empowerment through rightsis constrained and limited The recent advisory opinion of the Conseil drsquoEŁ tat onproposals to prohibit the wearing of the burqa and niqab in public spaces inFrance19 demonstrates that rights protections (both ECHR and constitutional)may impose some limits on the terms of belonging and restrictions imposed bystatesThe continuing willingness of states to test the limits of human rights lawhowever are evident in the recent adoption by France of legislation prohibitingthe wearing of the face-veil20 despite the advice given by its ownConseil drsquoEŁ tat asto the potential conpoundict with constitutional and ECHRprotections

The French Government has also repeatedly ignored the criticisms of UNhuman rights bodies UN human rights treaty bodies have proven themselveswilling to challenge restrictions on the wearing of the veil in France and to ques-tion their impact onminority and immigrant communitiesThelsquoconstructive dia-loguersquopursued by the treaty bodies suggests that international human rights lawdrawing on a multicultural conception of citizenship and a promise of cosmopo-

on the Right to Family Reunicentcation OJ L 25112 3102003 For commentary see S Carrera InSearch of the Perfect CitizenThe Intersection Between Integration Immigration and Nationality in the EU(LeidenMartinus Nijhoiexcl Publishers 2009) ch 6 andM BeaujeaulsquoLe mode le franc ais drsquointeŁ gra-tion dans tous ses eŁ tats Entre reŁ afraslrmations reŁ publicaines et tentations populistesrsquo (2008) 10 Inter-national Journal on Multicultural Societies 27 On developments on family reunicentcation at the EUlevel see D Kostakopoulou S Carrera andM JesselsquoDoing and Deserving Competing Framesof Integration in the EUrsquo in E Guild et al n 5 above

17 Earning the right to citizenship by speaking English working hard and paying taxes obeyingthe law and demonstrating lsquoactive citizenshiprsquo is at the centre of a new lsquoarchitecturersquo of citizenshipintroduced in the UK Borders Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 See further D KirwanlsquoBecoming a British Citizen A Learning JourneyrsquoCitizenship Review (December 2007) at httpwwwjusticegovukreviewsdocsbecoming-a-citizenpdf (last visited 18 October 2010) UKHome Ofraslce Secure Borders Safe Havens Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain (CM 53872002) Impact Assessment of Earned Citizenship Proposals Borders Citizenship and Immigra-tion Bill 15 January 2009 at httpwwwialibraryberrgovukImpactAssessmentIAID=c1ed-f4ef304242a19eab026d6c72d97a (last visited 18 October 2010)

18 See Leyla Sahin vTurkey (Application no 4477498) Grand Chamber Judgment of 10 November2005 (2005) 19 BHRC 590Dogru v FranceApp 2705805 [2008] ECHR1579 (4 December 2008)R (Begum) v HeadTeacher and Governors of Denbigh High School [2007] 1 AC 100 discussed furtherbelow

19 Conseil drsquoEŁ tat EŁ tude relative auxpossibiliteŁ s juridiques drsquointerdiction du port du voile inteŁ gral 25March 201020 Project de Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans lrsquoespace public No 2520 19 May 2010 passed by

the National Assembly 13 July 2010The law is to be referred to the Conseil Constitutionnel for anassessment of its constitutionality



(2011) 74(1) 27^56

litanism has the normative resources to challenge thicker cultural requirements ofbelonging imposed by states The extent to which human rights bodies will bewilling to apply the same standards in the immigration and citizenship contexthowever is not yet clearThe advisory opinion of the Conseil drsquoEŁ tat did not chal-lenge the Gerin Commissionrsquos proposals concerning immigration and citizenshippractices and indeed its own recent jurisprudencewould suggest an acceptance ofintegration conditions that include thicker restrictions such as prohibitions on thewearing of the face-veil for immigrants and aspiring citizens21

The expansion of integration testing and the imposition of thicker integrationconditions has not yet been tested under European or international human rightslaw Yet this expansion clearly engages rights that are protected both at Europeanand international levels ^ rights to religious freedom freedom of expression to cul-tural identity to private and family life and to non-discrimination International lawhas typically had little to say about state practices on immigration and citizenshipIndeed citizenship laws are sometimes viewed as the last bastion of state sovereigntyMore recently however we have seen a greater willingness from internationalhuman rights bodies to question the historical discretion enjoyed by states in immi-gration matters22 States however have pushed back against the expansion of rightsto non-citizens appealing to national security public order and to requirements ofcohesion and integration23 The values of secularism and gender equality have alsobeendeployed in this push backThere is a danger thatwith this push the promise ofcosmopolitanism that provides the normative underpinnings of human rights lawand the possibility of more just multicultural arrangements may be lostThe poten-tial of human rights law to challenge statesrsquo prerogatives in matters of immigrationand citizenship and to protect the rights ofmigrantsmayalsobe severelydiminished

FRANCETHE VEIL SECULARISM ANDNATIONAL IDENTITY

On 26 January 2010 the widely anticipated Parliamentary Commission Reporton the wearing of the voile integral (face veil) in France was published24 The 200page report includes recommendations for legislative and policy initiatives todeter and limit the practice which is described as a challenge to the FrenchRepublic and to republican values Against those who question Francersquos preoccu-pation with the veil the Report argues that the veil represents more than a pieceof cloth it repoundects a system of values a set of social and family constraints thatweigh on the veiled Muslimwoman25 The measures proposed by the Commis-

21 DeŁ cision du Conseil drsquoEŁ tat du 27 Juin 2008 available at n 2 above 64222 See for example CERD General Recommendation XXX pt 4 See also D SWeissbrodtThe

Human Rights of Non-Citizens (Oxford and NewYork Oxford University Press 2008) At EUlevel see Chakroun v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken C-57808 European Court of Justice 4March 2010 on the lawfulness of integration abroad requirements imposed by the Netherlandsin the context of the Family Reunicentcation Directive (Council Directive 200386EC of 22 Sep-tember 2003 on the right to family reunicentcation)

23 See generally A Edwards and C FerstmanHuman Security and Non-Citizens Law Policy and Inter-national Aiexclairs (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2010)

24 n 2 above25 ibid 45

SiobhaŁ n Mullally


sion are presented as lsquoun accord republicainrsquo26 clearly repoundecting the desire to reinforceand bolster a collective sense of national identity designed to decentne the terms ofbelongingThe grand debate on national identity and proposals for restrictions onveiling in public spaces have taken place against a background of expanded inte-gration testing for immigrants and aspiring citizens in France which clearly placethe responsibility of integration on the aspiring immigrantThis requirement toself-discipline with potentially punitive consequences in the event of failure iscontinued and strengthened further in the Commissionrsquos reform proposals

The Gerin Report recommends the introduction of prohibition on wearingthe burqa or niqab to be applied to all persons using or accessing public servicesA more general prohibition on face-veiling the Report suggests could beconsidered at some time in the future27 The decision to recommend a limitedprohibition was met with a heated response from Parliament with some repre-sentatives calling for a broader prohibition to apply to all public spaces and reject-ing what they referred to as a lsquodemi-loirsquo28 Their response repoundects broader divisionson the role of law in regulating the practice of veiling in France Notably how-ever concern as to the impact of the Reportrsquos proposals on Muslimwomen andgirls and on minority and immigrant communities more generally was voicedby only a few The Chair of the Commission Andre Gerin (Communist MP)highlighted the possibility that a general prohibition on veiling might be struckdown by the Constitutional Court or by the European Court of Human Rightsand the necessity of working within the limits of rights protectionsThese limitsare pushed however By restricting the scope of the proposed prohibition theCommission hopes that the requirements of proportionality key to ECHRpro-tections on religious freedom and freedom of expression will be met The con-cern to work within the limits of proportionality requirements and to ensureeiexclectiveness is evident also in the discussion on enforcement Rather than pro-posing the imposition of centnes or other penalties for non-compliance the Reportproposes that a refusal to remove a face-veil will lead to a denial of public servicesthough how this will be enforced in public transportation ^ on the Paris metrofor example ^ is unclear The message and implications of this prohibition areclear however Cultural diiexclerence is to be pushed to the realms of the privatethe public sphere is to remain culture free neutral universal The disciplinaryreach of the state is also expanded to encompass multiple sites of contact and sur-veillance (This claimed neutrality of the public sphere must be questioned how-ever as a substantive lsquothickerrsquo conception of French national identity and ofsecularism are revealed in the Reportrsquos proposals)29 The inquiry has been criti-

26 ibid 18527 n 2 above 18928 See lsquoVoile inteŁ gral plusieurs deŁ puteŁ s deŁ noncent une szlig demi-loi rsquo 26 January 2010 at http

wwwleparisienfrsocietevoile-integral-plusieurs-deputes-denoncent-une-demi-loi-26-01-2010-792402php (last visited 16 October 2010)

29 On the shifting nature of laiciteŁ see P KahnlsquoLa laicite Est-elle une valeurrsquo (2007) 39 SPIRALE -Revue de Recherches en EŁ ducation 29 J R Bowen Can Islam Be French Pluralism and Pragmatism in aSecularist State (Princeton Princeton University Press 2010) E M Daly lsquoReligious Liberty andthe Rawlsian Idea of Legitimacy the French La|laquo citeŁ Project between Comprehensive and Politi-cal Liberalismsrsquo (2010) 5 Religion and Human Rights 11



(2011) 74(1) 27^56

cised by leadingmembers of theMuslim community in France and elsewhere asfurther stigmatising Islam by focusing on a marginal phenomenon amongstFrench Muslims It is estimated that approximately 1900 women wear the face-veil in France Given such small numbers the necessity and proportionality ofthe Statersquos response might be questioned even if were to accept that a legitimateaim was being pursued The Report acknowledges that the wearing of the face-veil in France is amarginal phenomenon but argues that it is the tip of an icebergthe visible face of a broader phenomenon Echoing the majority judgment of theEuropean Court of Human Rights in the Leyla Sahin case30 restrictions on veil-ing are represented as a response to a pressing social need to safeguard againstrising religious fundamentalism and in the French context the specter of com-munitarianism and salacentsme31

The Gerin Reportrsquos proposals on immigration and citizenship laws haveattracted less commentary repoundecting the seeming inevitability and greater legiti-macyof coercivemeasures in this centeldThe proposed reforms go beyond a policingof the public sphere and buildingon established precedents seek to sanctionprivateways of life that do not conform to republican valuesThe proposals do not departfrom but rather continue nowwell established trends in immigration and citizen-ship law both in France and more broadly at EU levelThe Commissionrsquos Reportrecommends changes to legislation governing immigration and asylum to expli-citly include equality between women and men and secularism amongst thevalues that applicants for family reunicentcation or long-term residence shoulddemonstrate familiarity with32 Drawing on the formula of the Conseil drsquoEŁ tat in its2008MmeM decision the Commission recommends refusal of a residence permitfor anyone manifesting a lsquoradical religious practicersquo incompatible with republicanvalues including in particular the value of gender equality Such a refusal theCommission suggests would be justicented on grounds of the applicantrsquos failure tointegrate33 On naturalisation the Commission recommends amending the CivilCode to explicitly provide that a radical religious practice incompatiblewith essen-tial French values notably the principle of equality between women and menwould be considered a failure of assimilationlsquoun deŁ faut drsquoassimilationrsquo

34

The proposed restrictions on veiling are justicented as necessary to safeguard theprinciples of la|laquo citeŁ (secularism) liberty equality between women and men andfraterniteŁ TheReport notes that Francersquos commitment to secularism set out in arti-cle 1 of the Constitution and in the 1905 law on separation of church and stateimposes constraints on the State and state action Notably however constraintson the display of religious symbols are presumed to also apply more broadly aspart of the social contract to which all must adhere Manifestations of religiousbelief the Commission argues should be concentned within the cultural limits ofthe nation statelsquodans les limites culturelles de la communauteŁ nationalersquo

35 The application

30 Leyla Sahin vTurkey (Application no 4477498) Grand Chamber Judgment of 10 November 2005(2005) 19 BHRC 590

31 ibid 5032 n 2 above Proposition no1618933 ibid34 ibid Proposition no17 18935 ibid 87

SiobhaŁ n Mullally


of the principle of secularism in this way in France however is contested36 As theCommission itself notes the consensus of legal opinion presented at the hearingspoints to amore limited application of the principle of secularism given the com-mitment to constitutional and ECHR protections on manifestation of religiousbeliefs and the distinctions made between regulations to be imposed on publicand private spheres In his presentation to the Commission Bertrand Mathieuargues that the principle of secularism cannot be applied so as to regulate inter-personal relations and interactions in general Ultimately the Commission con-cludes that the wearing of the face-veil in the public sphere in general while notviolating the legal requirement of secularism is nonetheless contrary to thespirit of the 1905 law and Francersquos constitutional commitments PresidentSarkozyrsquos comments in which he calls for restraint in the display of religioussymbols following the December 2009 referendum in Switzerland on the con-struction ofminarets are cited by the Commission in support of its conclusions37

The specicentc context in which Nicholas Sarkozyrsquos comments were made arenot addressed however and the Commission does not explain why thewearing of the face-veil in particular rather than the display or wearing of anyreligious symbol in a public space would be considered contrary to the spirit ofsecularism

On the principle of liberty the Commission identicentes the centght against thewearing of the face-veil as aworkof emancipationlsquoun oeuvre de libeŁ rationrsquo necessaryto safeguard the principle of liberty It is clear that the possibility of a Muslimwoman choosing to veil is viewed with suspicion The Report briepoundy acknowl-edges that a multiplicity of motivations may lie behind the wearing of the veiland that a diverse range of reasons were presented at the Commissionrsquos hearings toexplain the practice Ultimately however this plurality is erased in the centnalReportThe wearing of the face-veil the Commission concludes represents lsquouneservitude volontaire liberteŁ s alieneŁ es et situations de contraintesrsquo

38 An exchange betweenCommission member Mme BeŁ renge re Poletti and the Muslim Council ofFrance (CFCM) in the course of the hearings is particularly instructive on thispoint39 Calling on the CFCM to condemn the practice of veiling Mme Polettion the one hand denies the possibility that individual choice might underpin adecision towear the veil and on the other hand is critical of what she perceives asthe refusal of the veiled woman to integrate into French society It is not therestriction of autonomy it seems that is disturbing but rather that the wrongchoices have been made The President of the CFCM Moussaoui in the courseof his submission to the panel called for respect for diiexclerence (le droit a la diiexclerence)and appealed to the freedom of the public space and to the right to expression ofindividual liberty40 In essence he invoked the values lauded by the FrenchRepublicThe decision towear the niqab in France he argued was often a choicelsquohyper-voluntairersquo one taken as an expression of religious belief by a minority of

36 See P Kahn n 29 above37 n 2 above 87 citing LeMonde 9 December 200938 ibid 4039 ibid 37940 ibid 382



(2011) 74(1) 27^56

Muslimwomen rather than a consequence of religious prescription Moussaouirsquoscomments were echoed by the head of the Grand Mosque of Paris Boubakeurwho pointed to the myriad possibilities that lay behind the decision to wear theburqa or niqab For some he said it was an act of teenage rebellion designed tochallenge and provoke41 His arguments however are given little weight in theCommissionrsquos conclusions

Postcolonial feminist theory has highlighted the tendency to homogenisethird world women leading to the creation of a lsquocomposite singular third-worldwomanrsquo42 Drawing the line on the wearing of the veil is as Scott notes a way ofinsisting on the lsquotimeless superiority of French civilizationrsquo43 The claims of fem-inists from the global North to political agency have often been supported by apresumed special moral responsibility to lsquosaversquo the downtrodden women of thecolonies who appear as the natural and logical lsquowhite womanrsquos burdenrsquo44 Thisclaimed moral responsibility appears throughout the Gerin Commissionrsquos reportMme Sihen Habchi the Director of the feminist organisation Ni Putes Ni Sou-mises specicentcally appealing to the importance of Francersquos role in assuming theburden of this challenge45 The continuing reach of colonial preoccupations isevident in the Commissionrsquos repoundections on liberty and equality In his forewordthe Rapporteur Eric Raoult recounts a meeting in Damascus outside Syriarsquosmost famous mosque the Umayyad with lsquoFarahrsquo a young veiled woman origin-ally fromMarseille He concludes his lsquoliving testimonyrsquowith an emotional appealit is lsquopour les yeux de Farahrsquo (for the eyes of Farah) that he and his fellow Commis-sion members have workedlsquoFarah de Damas du Koweit ou du Golfe mais avant toutFarah deMarseillersquo46 In this appeal the Muslimwoman is positioned as abject vic-tim justifying the Statersquos assertion of the strong arm of state sovereignty and of amore aggressive liberalism As Joan Scott notes in her treatiseThe Politics of theVeilthrough decolonisation and its aftermath the veil in France has continued to serveas a potent political emblem For some she notes it is lsquoan expression of agency forothers a sign of victimization and for many a practical instrument of warfarersquo47

That the veil has been at the centre of what Scott characterises as Francersquos struggleto come to terms with its colonial past and its ethnically mixed population in thepresent should not therefore be surprising48

The denial of liberty that thewearing of the face-veil is presumed to representis linked by the Gerin Commission to the principle of gender equality In politicalstatements on the proposed restrictions and in the Commissionrsquos conclusions theface-veil is repeatedly represented as a denial of gender equality and an intolerablesymbol of control over female sexuality Habchi calls on the Commission to chal-lenge rising religious fundamentalism in France arguing that the freedom of the

41 ibid 43542 CMohantylsquoUnderWestern Eyes Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discoursesrsquo (1988) 30 Fem-

inist Review 61 6243 JW ScottThe Politics of theVeil (Princeton NJ PrincetonUniversity Press 2007) 8944 U Narayan Dislocating Cultures IdentitiesTraditions andThird-World Feminism (NewYork Routle-

dge Publishing1997) 1945 n 2 above14946 n 2 above47 n 43 above 8948 ibid 91

SiobhaŁ n Mullally


public space and gender equality within that space is being tainted and con-strained by this force Speaking as a Muslim a feminist and a French citizen shecalls for a new social pact one that recognises the principle of secularism as a sinequa non of democracy49 In Habchirsquos submission we centnd echoes of the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights in the Refah Partisi case50 where the Court positionsIslam and the Sharia in opposition to democracy a totalising universal otherone with which dialogue contestation and negotiation in the public sphere isnot possible Habchi singles out President Obamarsquos 2009 Cairo speech in whichhe sought to reach out to the Muslimworld as displaying a willingness to tradein and compromise on womenrsquos human rights51 Ni Putes Ni Soumises has sup-ported an outright prohibition on the wearing of the face-veil in public spacesviewing this prohibition as essential to safeguard secularism and gender equalityIn factNiPutes ni Soumises has not only supported the prohibition on thewearingof the face-veil but has actively campaigned for state intervention52 The pursuitof gender equality is positioned in opposition to a multicultural politics onewhich would allow a role for religious discourse expression or manifestation inpublic spaces Though Habchi does not cite Susan Moller Okin her positionrepoundects the early polarisation of feminism and multiculturalism and the nowfamiliar refrainlsquomulticulturalism is bad for womenrsquo53 The possibilityof negotiat-ing just multicultural arrangements that do not exclude the observant religiouswoman who veils is denied in this polarising discourse A more complex equal-ity one that is cognisant of the fact of diiexclerence and the signicentcance of such dif-ference is rejected here as the multiplicity of meanings that may lie behind thewearing of the veil are erased

For philosopher Elisabeth Badinter the wearing the burqa or niqab represents arupture with the continuous progress made by women since the 1960s includingin the freedom to wear or not to wear what one wants It is she argues a lsquoper-versersquopractice54 In Badinterrsquos comments however and in much of the Commis-sionrsquos report there is a failure to lsquoturn the gaze backrsquo55 As Badiou notes femalesexuality in contemporary western societies including in France is subject aswe know to ever more proliferating technologies of control56 Commercial con-trol is lsquomore constant more certain more massive than patriarchal control evercould bersquo57 In Badinterrsquos comments despite the reference to womenrsquos freedom tochoose how to dress there is an underlying demand that women be visible thatfemale sexuality be expressed and circulated in away that signals availability vis-

49 ibid 29950 Refah Partisi (Welfare Party) vTurkey 2003-II 37 EHRR 1 (GC) For commentary see D McGol-

drick lsquoAccommodating Muslims in Europe From Adopting Sharia Law to Religiously BasedOpt Outs from GenerallyApplicable Lawsrsquo (2009) 9Human Rights LawReview 603

51 ibid 30652 See httpwwwniputesnisoumisescomburqa(last visited October 2010)53 S M Okin and others Is Multiculturalism Bad forWomen (Princeton NJ Princeton University

Press1999)54 n 2 above 31555 This phrase is borrowed from B CossmanlsquoTurning the Gaze Back on Itself Comparative Law

Feminist Legal Studies and the Postcolonial Projectrsquo (1997) 2 Utah LRev 52556 A Badiou LeMonde 22 February 200457 ibid



(2011) 74(1) 27^56

ibility and acceptance of the dominant cultural norms The possibility thatwomenrsquos agency autonomy and equality may be constrained in many ways andby many kinds of religious practices is not acknowledged by the Commissionhowever The veiled Muslim woman is positioned as an abject victim incapableof autonomyor agency or conversely as a dangerous threatening fundamentalistJuxtaposed against the veiled Muslimwoman as an abject victim is the threaten-ing salacentste rejecting the social mores of the Republic and manifesting a lsquohyperindividualisme religeuxrsquo58 This lsquohyper-individualismrsquo is in turn represented as athreat to the value of fraterniteŁ a refusal of the bonds of solidarity and connectionthat bind the nation-state

In its centnal recommendations the Commission appeals to the value of fraterniteŁto justify its proposed restrictions onwearing of the face-veil Elisabeth Badinterand others criticise the absence of reciprocity that it is argued follows from thewearing of a face-veilThe practice of veiling is viewed as a barrier to communi-cation59 but also more broadly as a refusal to assimilateThe Reportrsquos conclusionsrepoundect a deep-rooted suspicion of multiculturalism as threatening communitycohesion and the transmission of shared values The rights claims asserted byMuslimwomen and girls to support the practice of veiling are rejected as instru-mentalising human rights norms to support communitarian (non Republican)goals The appeal to the House of Lords in the 2005 Begum case in the UK60

brought by a young Muslim woman is specicentcally cited as an example of onesuch communitarian challenge61This criticism falls within Francersquos broader con-testation of minority rights claims long a feature of its engagement with UNhuman rights treaty bodies and one that is premised on the claimedlsquoindivisibilityrsquoof the French Republic In accusing the veiled woman of refusing the bonds ofsolidarity refusing literally to lsquolive togetherrsquo (vivre ensemble) there is a curiousdenial of the legitimacyof diiexclerenceTheminority womanrsquos wayof life is proble-matised as damaging to the cohesion required to safeguard republican valuesRepoundecting a broader European trend integration is viewed not as a two-way pro-cess but rather one that requires a constant process of adaptation by minority andimmigrant communities to dominant cultural norms The possibility of equalparticipation in a process of democratic iteration in an ongoing negotiation andrenegotiation of cultural norms is constrained or altogether denied62

Pre-empting the presentation of the Commissionrsquos Report to Parliament aleading centgure in the governing UMP party Jean Cope presented proposals toParliament for a sweeping prohibition on thewearing of the face-veil in all publicspaces63 His proposal received support including fromNiPutes ni Soumises How-ever the legality of such expanded restrictions and its potential for further stig-

58 ibid 45259 n 2 above114 and 12060 R (Begum) vHeadTeacher and Governors of Denbigh High School [2007] 1AC10061 n 2 above 8262 On democratic iterations see S Benhabib lsquoCosmopolitan Norms Human Rights and Demo-

cratic Iterationsrsquo (2008) at httpwwwbrownedu cosmopolitan20norms20human20rights20and20democratic20iterations2doc (last visited 18 October 2010)

63 See full text of the legislative proposal at httpwwwjeanfrancoiscopefrblogindexphp52-dis-cours-de-jean-francois-cope-sur-le-port-du-voile-integral (last visited 18 October 2010)

SiobhaŁ n Mullally


matisation of Muslimwomen and girls has been questioned Following a requestfrom Prime Minister Francois Fillon to consider the legality of a broader prohi-bition on the wearing of the face-veil in public spaces theConseil drsquoEŁ tat publishedits opinion on 25March 2010 concluding that a general restrictionwould be con-trary to French constitutional and ECHR protections of religious freedom andfreedom of expression64 The introduction of further restrictions on veilingwould be permissible they argued but could only be justicented in limited con-texts by precisely decentned requirements of public order or security A sweepingprohibition would be a disproportionate response to public order or safety con-cerns lacking in the precision and specicentcity necessary to justify restrictions onfundamental freedomsThe appeal to threats to public order found in the GerinCommissionrsquos Report is they conclude too expansive without foundation inestablished jurisprudence65

On the principle of secularism echoing the comments of Bertrand Mathieuand others and citing its own report lsquoUn Siecle de La|laquo citeŁ rsquo (a century of secular-ism)66 the Conseil drsquoEŁ tat concludes that la|laquo citeŁ in France is founded on three keyprinciples neutrality of the State religious freedom and respect for pluralismOf particular note is the conclusion that laiciteŁ applies to the state and its agentsbut not more broadly to society or individuals at largeThe Conseil drsquoEŁ tat takes asimilar position on the application of the principle of gender equality assertingthe primacy of individual autonomy as recognised in both French constitutionaljurisprudence and that of the EuropeanCourt of HumanRights67 The principlesof dignity or equality between women and men taken together or in isolationcould not they argue be applied to support a general prohibition on wearingthe face-veil As the Conseil drsquoEŁ tat notes the wearing of the veil is not the onlycontext in which disputes on human dignity and equality arise Divergent viewsexist on the circulation of images of the female body and its implications for theprotection of human dignity These tensions are highlighted in the Leyla Sahincase whereTulkens J in her dissenting judgment points to the need for a harmo-nised interpretation of the principles of autonomy secularism and equality Ulti-mately the Conseil drsquoEŁ tat conclude that equality must be premised on thesafeguarding of individual autonomy such is the conception of human dignitywhich underpins both French constitutional and ECHR jurisprudence on therights to privacy personal identity and religious freedomThe principle of equal-ity though repoundecting an essential value cannot be applied so as to constrain theexercise of individual autonomy through a general restriction on the face-veilSuch a conception of equality would be too lsquothickrsquo being too exclusionary ofthe diiexclerences within the categories of women and gender

The opinion of the Conseil drsquoEŁ tat does not touch directly on immigration law orthe Gerin Commissionrsquos proposals concerning integration conditions and theirpotential application to the practice of veiling Its own 2008 decision in the Mme

64 n 19 above65 ibid 25^2666 Conseil drsquoEŁ tat Rapport public 2004 jurisprudence et avis de 2003 Un sie cle de la|laquo citeŁ (Etudes et documents

Conseil drsquoEŁ tat no 55 Paris La Documentation franc aise67 n 19 above19^20



(2011) 74(1) 27^56

M case on naturalisation is noted as part of the existing body of restrictions onveiling that apply in France In its discussion on the permissible scope of publicorder restrictions the Conseil drsquoEŁ tat distinguishes the disruption to publicorder caused by the practice of polygamy (being contrary to the requirements ofnormal family life in France)68 from thewearing of the face-veilWhile the formerin its view justicented restrictions because of the threat to public order the latter didnot Beyond this however the Gerin Commissionrsquos proposals on immigration andintegration testing are not discussed The possibility remains therefore that theexpansion of restrictions on veiling to apply in the context of testing for integra-tion could be upheld in any future challenges The exceptional position of themigrant woman at the limits of rights is thereby reinforced and the seeminglegitimacy of more stringent integration conditions remains unchallenged

Despite the advisory opinion of theConseil drsquoEŁ tat and in a remarkable display ofpolitical obstinacy the National Assembly nonetheless approved legislation prohi-biting the wearing of the face-veil in public spacesThe advisory opinion in sug-gesting that the prohibition be limited in scope was rejected as failing to addressthe true problem posed by the wearing of the face-veil69 In the explanatory mem-orandum lsquoExposeŁ des Motifsrsquo accompanying the Projet de Loi presented by PrimeMinister Francois Fillon repeated reference is made to the social contract of repub-licanism and to the need to safeguard social cohesion and the dignity of the per-son70 The wearing of the face-veil the refusal of the demand to be visible ispresented not only as a security threat but as a denial of the solidarity and of thespecicentc forms of connection and belonging required by the French Republic It isalso viewed as a public manifestation of inequality between women and men anddamaging not only to the dignity of the veiled woman but to those who sharepublic spaces with herThis latter justicentcation in particular suggests the possibilityof sweeping powers on the part of the State to restrict forms of expression whetherreligiouslymotivated or otherwise that the broader public deemoiexclensive It is pre-cisely the desire to guard against suchmajoritarian impulses that underpinsmodernhuman rights law Given the vulnerability of migrant communities the sweepingnature of this justicentcation is particularly worrying On the apparent tensionsbetween the requirements of dignity and liberty or autonomy the exposeŁ accompa-nying the legislation suggests that the prohibition is in keepingwith restrictions onliberty found in the Conseil drsquoEŁ tatrsquos own jurisprudence on the requirements of dig-nity and theConseilConstitutionnelrsquos earlier refusal to recognise polygamyas contrarytolsquola vie familiale normalersquoThis conclusion however is not at all clear

Recognising the potential for conpoundict with the requirements of both French con-stitutional lawand the ECHR the legislationwas referred to theConseilConstitution-nel for a decision as to its constitutionality The Courtrsquos decision upholding theconstitutionality of the proposed law with the exception of its application to reli-gious spaces open to the public was handed down on 7 October 201071 It diiexclers

68 See Conseil constitutionnel no 93-325 DC du 13 aouldquo t 1993 sur la loi relative a la maitrise de lrsquoimmigration etaux conditions drsquoentreŁ e drsquoaccueil et de sejour des eŁ trangers en France cited at n 19 above 27

69 n 20 above ExposeŁ desMotifs 3^570 ibid71 DeŁ cision no 2010-613 DC du 07 octobre 2010 Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans lrsquoespace public

SiobhaŁ n Mullally


fromthe advisoryopinionof theConseil drsquoEŁ tat in centnding that the appropriate balanceor lsquoconciliationrsquo is found between the safeguarding of public order and the protectionof constitutional rights72 The practice of covering onersquos face in public is accepted as apotential security threat andwhether voluntary or not as being incompatible withthe constitutional principles of liberty and equalityThe Court diiexclers in its interpre-tation of how individual autonomy informs the constitutional principles of libertyand equality For theConseil drsquoEŁ tat the primacy of individual autonomymust guidethe interpretation of constitutional and ECHR commitments to equality and dig-nityThe decision of theConseilConstitutionneldoes notmake reference to the ECHRor potential Convention claims It remains to be seen how these apparently conpoundict-ing values will inform any future proceedings before the Strasbourg court as therewill surely be

REDISCOVERINGTHEVEIL AN EVOLVING lsquoPOLITICS OFBELONGINGrsquo

Throughout the Gerin Commissionrsquos Report there is a questioning of the norma-tivity of Muslim families Like Antigone the veiled Muslim woman represents anon-normative family and a set of kinship relations that do not conform to domi-nant cultural norms73 TheCommission justicentes its proposed scrutinyof the privatesphere givenwhat it identicentes as thelsquobarbarismrsquo of the practice of veiling and turn-ing feminist critiques of the publicprivate divide on their head notes that such dis-tinctions cannot be justicentedThe policing of the intimate lives of immigrant otherswill be familiar to immigration lawyers and as Sherene Razack notes in the post911worldlsquoImperilledMuslimwomenrsquo and lsquoDangerous Muslimmenrsquo have becomefamiliar tropes in immigration and citizenship debates74 The politics of belongingis intimately linked with the lsquodirty work of boundary maintenancersquo75 TheMmeMdecision of the FrenchConseil drsquoEŁ tat brings this work into stark relief76

In June 2008 the Conseil drsquoEŁ tat upheld a decision to deny citizenship to MmeM on the ground that her lsquoradicalrsquopractice of Islamwas incompatible with essen-tial French values specicentcally gender equality The Court agreed that Mme Mhad failed to satisfy the test of assimilation required for the grant of citizenshipTheCommissaire duGouvernement in herConclusions submitted to theConseil drsquoEŁ tatstated that the refusal to grant citizenship to MmeMwas not based solely on herpractice of wearing the niqab but rather on her whole way of life lsquola vie quotidi-ennersquo77 Supporting this conclusion reference was made to her mornings spent

72 ibid paras 5^673 See J Butler Antigonersquos Claim (NewYork ColumbiaUniversity Press 2000)74 S RazacklsquoDangerous MuslimMen Imperiled MuslimWomen and Civilized Europeans Legal

and Social Response to Forced Marriagesrsquo (2008) 12(2) Feminist Legal Studies 129^17475 J CrowleylsquoPolitics of Belonging SomeTheoretical Considerationsrsquo in A Geddes and A Favell

(eds)The Politics of Belonging Migrants and Minorities in Contemporary Europe (Aldershot AshgatePress1999) 30

76 DeŁ cision duConseil drsquoEŁ tat du 27 Juin 2008 at n 2 above 642 at httpwwwconseil-EŁ tatfrcdefrbase-de-jurisprudence(last visited 18 October 2010)

77 Conclusions deMmePradaBordenaveCommissaire duGouvernement 4 at httpwwwconseilEŁ tatfrcejurispdconclusionsconclusions_286798pdf (last visited 15 February 2010)



(2011) 74(1) 27^56

bringing her children to school and undertaking housework and afternoons vis-iting her father or father-in-law She sometimes shopped on her own but moreoften it was noted went to the supermarket with her husband Repoundecting thesuspicion of potentiallydivided allegiances and the perceived failure of transitionthe Commissaire noted that Mme M had maintained lsquodes liens tre s fortsrsquo (very strongconnections) with her culture of origin InMmeMrsquos favour theCommissaire notedthat she spoke French her children attended public school and that she wasattended by a male gynaecologist during her pregnancy78 Contemporary geo-politics and the tensions surrounding the place of the immigrant lsquootherrsquo in Franceare evident in the proceedings In her submission theCommissaire identicentes MmeM and her husband as salacentstes as members of a group that had links with anextremist imamwithin the local communityThe links appear to have been ten-uous at most and no suggestion was made of any involvement on the part ofMmeMor her husband in extremist politics Nonetheless this afraslliation is notedsuggesting its signicentcance to the overall centnding of a failure of assimilation andthe ever present suspicion of divided allegiances

The ruling on Mme M received almost unequivocal support across the politi-cal spectrum in France Fadela Amara the French Minister for Urban Aiexclairs andformer director of lsquoNi Putes Ni Soumisesrsquo referred to Mme Mrsquos niqab as lsquoa prisonrsquoand a lsquostraitjacketrsquo79 Rejecting appeals to liberal values of religious freedom sheargued that the niqabwas not a religious symbol but rather the symbol of a tota-litarian political project that promotes inequality between the sexes and lacksdemocracy The characterisation of Mme Mrsquos way of life by the Conseil drsquoEŁ tatand by commentators such as Fadela Amara stands in marked contrast to MmeMrsquos own comments reported in an interview in the NewYorkTimes Repoundectingon her practice of veiling she notes lsquoIt is my choice [ ] Yes I am a practicingMuslim I am orthodox But is that not my rightrsquo80 MmeM did not contest theStatersquos commitment to secularism which she argued should be applied so as tosafeguard her right to religious freedom

The scrutiny and policing of MmeMrsquos way of life repoundects the disciplinary andpotentially punitive nature of immigration and citizenship laws and their sus-ceptibility to changing context of the politics of belonging in France and else-where in Europe Previous jurisprudence of the Conseil drsquoEŁ tat had establishedthat the wearing of the religious symbols such as the veil in itself even in adher-ence to religious practice or belief could not justify the centnding of a failure toassimilate81 The lsquodiscoveryrsquo of the veil in the context of immigration debatesand its emergence as a compelling symbol of divided allegiances however had

78 ibid This latter reference in particular is strange suggesting that if Mme M had preferred to beattended by a female gynaecologist a further failing of assimilation would have been found Ithighlights the heightened surveillance of the immigrant woman by the State

79 F Amara (2008) interviewed in Le Parisien16 July 200880 Mme Faiza A cited in lsquoAVeil Closes Francersquos Door to CitizenshiprsquoNewYorkTimes 19 July 200881 26 ssr 3 feŁ vrier 1999 Mme EYau rapport de Mme de Margerie cited in Conclusions n 77 above 3The

Conseil drsquoEŁ tat had remained somewhat above the political fray in debates on the wearing of theveil repeatedly seeking to limit the impact of new legislative restrictions on religious dress Seefor exampleAvis du Conseil drsquoEŁ tat 27 November 1989 No 346893 described as alsquoSolomonic judg-mentrsquo S Benhabib and others Another Cosmopolitanism (NewYork and Oxford BerkeleyTannerlectures OxfordUniversity Press 2006) 55^56

SiobhaŁ n Mullally


signicentcantly changed the legislative and policy context82 This change hasbrought with it a gradual denial of the autonomy or agency of the Muslimwoman and increasing constraints on the terms of belonging imposed on immi-grant Muslim women in particular The centndings of the Conseil drsquoEŁ tat in Mme Mdo not sit easily with its more recent opinion on the limited scope of principles oflaiciteŁ equality and dignityThe primacy accorded to individual autonomy in its25 March 2010 opinion on the legality of proposed restrictions on the wearing ofthe face-veil is not repoundected in its assessment of the test applied to MmeMrsquos nat-uralisation application In theMmeM case theConseil drsquoEŁ tat ultimately relied on amuch thicker conception of the good life and a limited essentialist view of gen-der equality onewhich found inMmeMrsquos wayof life an impermissible excess ofculture

The Gerin Commissionrsquos proposals for expanded integration conditions can-not be removed from the politics and bio-politics of a post 911worldWritingin 2004 French philosopher Alain Badiou noted that behind the lsquoscarfed lawrsquothere is fear83 In the post 911 era transnational border crossings are producingheightened demands to police the borders lsquoof both the imagined communityand its very real geographic boundariesrsquo84 Governments and politicians have pro-venwilling to play on these anxieties and fears As a result the territorial bordersof the state have reappeared as sites of lsquoprofound national angst and insecurityrsquo85

The politics of risk and security that have come to the fore in post 911Europe arereinforced by anxieties arising from global movements of peoples immigrationand an expanding European Union Political leaders have proven themselveswilling toyield to such anxieties andMuslimwomen have fallenvictim tomoralpanics that have ensued

TheMmeM decision was the culmination of a series of legislative and judicialdevelopments in France86 In 2004 the French legislature introduced aprohibitionon thewearing of ostentatious religious symbols in public schools87 The prohibi-tion followed on from the recommendations of the Stasi Commission convenedby President Chirac in 2003 to examine how the principle of laiciteŁ or secularismcould be further strengthened in practice88 The sole dissenting voice on the StasiCommission Jean Bauberot noted that the impression of a lsquodanger Islamistersquo hadtaken root and poundourished in the Commission proceedings leading to the conclu-sion that the principle of secularism was under threat by an encroaching andmenacing Islam89 Against this background of growing moral panic the imper-

82 See PWeilHow to be French Nationality in theMaking Since 1789 (Durham NC Duke UniversityPress 2009)

83 See A Badiou LeMonde 22 February 200484 B Cossman Sexual Citizens the Legal and Cultural Regulation of Sex and Belonging (Stanford CA

StanfordUniversity Press 2007) 20485 ibid86 See PWeillsquoWhy French La|laquo citeŁ is Liberalrsquo (2009) 30(6) Cardozo LawReview 269987 Law No 2004-228 of 15 March 200488 Commission de Repoundexion sur Lrsquoapplication du Principe de LaiciteŁ dans la Republique Rapport Au President

de La Republique at httplesrapportsladocumentationfrancaisefrBRP0340007250000pdf (lastvisited 16 October 2010)

89 J Bauberot lsquoLa|laquo citeŁ and the Challenge of lsquolsquoRepublicanismersquorsquorsquo (2009) 17 Modern amp ContemporaryFrance 189



(2011) 74(1) 27^56

iled Muslim woman became a familiar trope The Stasi Commission recom-mended a series of reforms including expanded socio-economic programs totackle the problems of poverty amongst immigrant communities It was the pro-posal for a prohibition on ostentatious religious symbols however that was tobecome the immediate and subsequent focus of Government action90

In the French context the lsquothicknessrsquo of secularismrsquos requirements is not neces-sarily surprising given the historical context of tensions between Church andStateWhile the 1905 law on Church and State was widely viewed as bringing toan end the anti-clerical impulse of late nineteenth century secular movementsthis impulse has continued to inpounduence state responses to religion and religiousexpressions in the public sphere Taking the historical context into account it isimportant to remember that secularism has not always been viewed as a mechan-ism through which religious freedom could be secured but rather as a way ofchallenging and curtailing the potential inpounduence of religion in Francersquos lsquopublicsquaresrsquo A concernwith non-domination and protection from coercion has beenverymuch to the fore in the Statersquos engagement with religious manifestations andhas often led to tensions with a more rights-based procedural interpretation ofsecularism and religious freedom91As such at its origins there is an anti-religioninpounduence underpinning at least some readings of la|laquo citeŁ in France though this isdisputed92 It is now the thicker more comprehensive conception of secularismthat is constraining the negotiation of religionrsquos role in the public square93 Thistime the religion targeted is Islam and the historical migration and colonial con-texts have changed signicentcantly

The introduction of the 2004 law marked a further shift in the meaning ofFrench la|laquo citeŁ repoundecting an ongoing preoccupationwith national unity and cohe-sion in the face of immigration and the legacy of a colonial pastThe then PrimeMinister Jean Raiexclarin described the lawrsquos objective as seeking to assure lsquothe per-manence of our valuesrsquo94 The 2004 Act was followed one year later by the impo-sition of a state of emergency in Parisian suburbs to respond to rioting amongstpredominantly immigrant communities riots that were sparked by concerns ofpolice brutality and racial procentlingThe same year 2005 also saw the enactmentof a law which required high-school teachers and textbooks tolsquoacknowledge andrecognise in particular the positive role of the French presence abroad especiallyin North Africarsquo95 The law was quickly repealed in 2006 following widespreadprotests both nationally and internationally96 Its enactment however in itself

90 See PWeil n 86 above91 For a fuller discussion of these points see P Kahn n 29 above E M Daly n 29 above J Myard

(ed) La La|laquo citeŁ au Coeur de la Republiquersquo (proceedings of colloquium at French National Assembly23 May 2003) (Paris LrsquoHarmattan 2003) E Poulat LiberteŁ La|laquo citeŁ (Paris Editions du Cerf1987)H Pena-RuizDieu etMarianne Philosophie de la La|laquo citeŁ (Paris PUF1999)

92 See PWeil n 86 above93 See J Bauberot lsquoLrsquointegrismeRepublicainContre laLa|laquo citeŁ rsquo (LaTourdrsquoAigues EŁ ditions de lrsquoAube 2006)94 Prime Minister Raiexclarin addressing the AssembleŁ e Nationale 148th session 3 February 200495 LOI no 2005-158 du 23 feŁ vrier 2005 portant reconnaissance de laNation et contribution nationale en faveur des

Franc ais rapatrieŁ s at httpwwwadminetjo20050224DEFX0300218Lhtml (last visited 16 Octo-ber 2010)

96 A petition protesting the law gathered more than 1000 signatories from historiansThe petitionwas coordinated by Ligue des droits de lrsquoHomme Mouvement contre le Racisme et pour lrsquoAmitieŁ entre les

SiobhaŁ n Mullally


repoundects a desire on the part of the State to reinforce a highly controlled narrative ofnational identity and a failure to repoundect openly on the legacy of colonialism forcolonised peoples and immigrant communities in modern France

The desire to control a specicentc narrative of national identity repoundects a broadershift in Europe towards what Christian Joppke and others have characterised ascivic reintegration and repressive liberalism97 Repressive liberalism not onlymandates adherence to liberal democratic norms as a modus vivendi between com-peting conceptions of the good but requires immigrants to inwardly identifywith liberal democratic norms while deploying the powers of the state lsquoto estab-lish and control these identitiesrsquo98

INDIVISIBILITY INTEGRATIONANDTHECOSMOPOLITANPROMISEOF HUMANRIGHTS LAW

Francersquos restrictions on the wearing of the veil have already attracted criticismfromUN and regional human rights bodies Unlike the potential constraints ofECHR law the criticism of UN human rights bodies has not featured in domes-tic debates The proposed expansion of integration conditions in France toencompass increasing scrutiny of Muslimwomenrsquos religious practice is in tensionwith the cosmopolitan promise of human rights norms and the presumed uni-versalism that underpins ECHR and international human rights protectionsWhether and towhat extent international and regional human rights bodieswillchallenge the expansion of integration conditions or apply the same tests to themigration context remains to be seen

The republican model of integration has become a decentning feature of Francersquosdialogue with UN human rights treaty bodiesThis performative model of inte-gration which seeks to bolster the universalist centction of French republicanismhas led to reservations to minority and cultural rights provisions including arti-cles 27 of the International Covenant onCivil and Political Rights99 and article 30of the Convention on theRights of the Child100 France claims these provisions tobe inapplicable because of its constitutional commitments to the indivisibility ofthe French Republic secularism and equality before the lawThe Human RightsCommittee has repeatedly called on France to withdraw its reservation notingthat it is lsquounable to share the viewrsquo that the abstract principle of equality beforethe law and the prohibition of discrimination represent sufraslcient guarantees forthelsquoequal and eiexclective enjoymentrsquo of minority rights101 Similarly the Commit-

Peuples (MRAP) Syndicat de la magistrature Association franc aise des anthropologues FeŁ deŁ ration de lrsquoeŁ du-cation de la recherche et de la culture CGT (FERC-CGT) Institut Charles-AndreŁ Julien Association Lesamis deMaxMarchand deMouloud Feraoun et de leurs compagnons Collectif Ha|laquo ti de France

97 See C Joppke n 3 above and B ParekhANewPolitics of Identity Political Principles for an Interdepen-dentWorld (Basingstoke and NewYork Palgrave Macmillan 2008)

98 C Joppke n 3 above11599 The full text of the reservation is available at httptreatiesunorgPagesViewDetailsaspxsrc=

TREATYampmtdsg_no=IV-4ampchapter=4amplang=en (last visited 18 October 2010)100 ibid101 Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee France UN Doc CCPRCFRACO4 31

July 2008 para 11



(2011) 74(1) 27^56

tee on the Rights of the Child has requested the Government to review its posi-tionwith respect to the rights of minority children and to consider withdrawingits reservation to article 30102

More recently Francersquos legislative ban on religious symbols has attracted scru-tiny and questioning byUNhuman rights treaty bodies which have highlightedin particular the discriminatory impact of such laws on minority religious andimmigrant communities In its 2004 Concluding Observations on FrancersquosSecond Periodic Report the Committee on the Rights of the Child expressedconcern that the Government was lsquoneglecting the principle of the best interestsof the child and the right of the child to access to educationrsquo103 The Committeerecommended that the Government should use the enjoyment of childrenrsquos rightsto assess the eiexclects of the legislation and should consider alternative means toprotect the secular character of public schools so as to ensure that childrenwere not excluded or marginalised from the school system104 In its ConcludingObservations adopted in 2009 the Committee again expressed concern at theimpact of the 2004 legislation Though welcoming the steps taken to attenuatethe eiexclects of the legislation including the appointment of a national mediatorin the public education system the Committee endorsed the view expressedby the Human Rights Committee one year earlier that the principle of laicitewould not require a prohibition on the wearing of common religious symbols105

In its Concluding Observations the Human Rights Committee explicitlystated that France should re-examine the 2004 Act in light both of the ICCPRrsquosguarantees of equality and religious freedom The Committee noted that asa consequence of the prohibition observant Jewish Muslim and Sikh studentsmay be excluded from attending school in company with other Frenchchildren The Committee further argued that respect for the public cultureof laicite would not require forbidding lsquocommon religious symbolsrsquo106 TheCommittee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has also stressed Francersquosobligation to ensure that the 2004 legislative ban did not have a discrimina-tory impact on access to education107 The CEDAW Committee has recom-mended close monitoring of the 2004 Act and requested that the Govern-ment provide data on the educational achievements of minority and immigrant

102 Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child France UN Doc CRCCFRACO4 11 June 2009 para 101

103 CRCCommitteeConcludingObservations FranceUNDocCRCC15Add240 30 June 2004 paras25^26

104 ibid105 ibid References to common religious symbols leave open the possibility that the treaty bodies

might centnd diiexclerently if the symbols or dress in question were less common and presumablymore threatening to dominant cultural norms and ways of life This possibility was explicitlysuggested by HumanRights Committee member RuthWedgewood inHudoyberganovavUzbe-kistan in which the Committee found the respondent state to have violated article 18(2) of theICCPR by excluding the applicant from attending a state university while wearing the hijab Inan individual opinionWedgewood commented that states may be permitted to restrict forms ofdress that lsquodirectly interferewith eiexclective pedagogyrsquo and noted that thelsquocoveringof a studentrsquos facewould present lsquoa diiexclerent set of factsrsquo

106 n 101 above para 23107 Concludingobservations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination France

18042005 UNDoc CERDCFRACO16

SiobhaŁ n Mullally


girls108 The failure of the Government to provide such data has been part of theongoing lsquoconstructive dialoguersquo with France the collection of such data beingviewed by the French Government as recognition of the categories of lsquoracersquo andethnicity109

Given the treaty bodiesrsquo concern with the impact of restrictions on religiousdress on access to education it seems likely that proposals for further restrictionson veiling in public spaces would be viewed as in breach of Francersquos internationalhuman rights obligations In its General Comment on Equality of rights betweenmen and women (No 28) the Human Rights Committee stated that regulationof clothing to be worn by women in public may involve violations of a numberof rights guaranteed by the ICCPR including articles 261819 and 27 (whenlsquotheclothing requirements conpoundict with the culture to which the woman can lay aclaimrsquo)110 This Comment clearly situates women within the concrete realities ofdiiexclerences that may arise from religious or cultural afraslliations It also highlightsan important gender dimension that is often ignored in disputes on the justice orotherwise of multicultural arrangements that is womenrsquos rights to enjoy theirculture or religion in community with others or as Knop puts it awomanrsquos rightto decentne her lsquominority self rsquo111

UNSpecial Rapporteur on Freedomof Religion or Belief Asma Jehangir hasexpressed concern at the stigmatisation of veiled Muslim women in France andthe increasing hostility and discrimination encountered by Muslim women andgirls112 Francersquos debate on thewearing of the veil has also attracted the attention ofthe HumanRights Council In the course of the 2008Universal PeriodicReviewboth the Canadian andBangladeshi representatives called on France to better safe-guard religious freedom and to repeal the 2004 Act113 The French Governmentresponded noting that the legislative prohibition had nowmetwith alsquobroad con-

108 CEDAWCommittee Concluding Observations France Sixth Periodic Report UN Doc CEDAWCFRACO6 paragraphs 21^22 The Committee also expressed concern in relation to Turkeyrsquosban on the Islamic headscarf in schools and universities and has recommended that the Statemonitor the impact of the ban and compile information on the number of women and girlswho have been excluded because of its implementation CEDAWCommittee Concluding Obser-vationsTurkeyCombined Fourth and Fifth Periodic Reports UNDoc A6038 part I (2005)

109 For a recent discussion of Francersquos position on the collection of data relating to ethnicity see LeComiteŁ pour la mesure et lrsquoeŁ valuation de la diversiteŁ et des discriminations (Comedd) Final Report (5 Feb-ruary 2010) at httpwwwstrategiegouvfrarticlephp3id_article=977 (last visited 16 October2010)

110 UNHumanRights Committee General Comment No 28 Equality of rights between men andwomen (article 3) CCPRC21Rev1Add10 (2000) para 13 at httpwwwunhchrchtbsdocnsf013b02776122d4838802568b900360e80 (last visited 16 October 2010)

111 K Knop Diversity and Self-determination in International Law (Cambridge and NewYork Cam-bridge University Press 2002) 358 It is this aspect of cultural rights that also informed the Com-mitteersquos centndings in Lovelace v Canada Communication No 2477 formerly Communication NoR624 GAOR 36th session Supplement No 40 UN Doc A3640(1981) 166 a case that goesbeyond the sometimes too easy invocation of exit as the solution to feminismmulticulturalismdisputes In Lovelace the Committee highlighted Lovelacersquos right to enjoy her culture in commu-nity with others without being subject to discriminatory laws of exclusion that required her tochoose between exit or cultural membership

112 Report submitted byAsma Jahangir Special Rapporteur on freedomof religion or beliefMissionto France (18 to 29 September 2005) UNDoc ECN420065Add4 para 67

113 See Report of theWorking Group on theUniversal Periodic Review France UNDocAHRC847 3 June 2008 para 21 and para 38



(2011) 74(1) 27^56

sensusrsquo in France and that the option of home schooling or enrolment in privatereligious institutions remained for pupils excluded form public schools114 TheGovernmentrsquos response is remarkable in its cursory dismissal of the substantiveinequalities that might arise following exclusion from public schooling Its posi-tion in this dialogue stands in marked contrast to the more lsquoprogressive multicul-turalismrsquo115 evident in the positions taken by the human rights treaty bodieswhere inequalities arising from the intersections of gender lsquoracersquo and migrationstatus have driven the scrutinyof Francersquos lawon religious symbols and its protec-tion of minority and migrant rights more broadly Criticism from internationalhuman rights bodies has attracted little public commentary in France Howeverin recent proposals to expand the prohibition on veiling the possibility of rebukefrom the European Court of Human Rights was repeatedly raisedTo date how-ever the Court has been markedly deferential to the Statersquos appeals to secularismand its assessment of the necessity and proportionality of restrictions on religiousfreedom This deference would suggest that the proposed expansion of integra-tion conditions in immigration and citizenship laws may not attract rebukefrom the Court particularly given its traditional caution in matters of immigra-tion law

The 2004 prohibition on ostentatious religious symbols in public schools hasbeen subject to a series of challenges invoking article 9 of the European Conven-tion on Human Rights116 In Dogru v France117 the Court upheld a school regula-tion which required the removal of headscarves during physical education classesand resulted in the expulsion of two Muslim students The Court reiterated itscentnding in the earlier Leyla Sahin vTurkey case that in plural democracies restric-tions upon religious manifestations may be necessary lsquoin order to reconcile theinterests of the various groups and ensure that everyonersquos beliefs are respectedrsquo118

Commenting on the role of the State in the context of religious diiexclerence theCourt noted that the Statersquos duty was that of lsquoa neutral and impartial organizerrsquowhich disentitles it from assessing the legitimacy of religious beliefs and requisesit lsquoto ensure mutual tolerance between opposing groupsrsquo119 Taking this conclu-sion the role of the State is that of ensuring a modus vivendi between people ofdiiexclerent religious afraslliationsThe Court however went further than this noting

114 Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review FRANCE ^ AddendumResponse of France to the recommendations made during the Universal Periodic Review on 14May 2008 UNDoc AHRC847Add1 25 August 2008 para 75

115 This term is borrowed fromM MalikMuslim Legal Norms and the Integration of European MuslimsRSCAS 200929 EUI Working Paper at httpcadmuseuieudspacebitstream1814116531RSCAS202009_29pdf (last visited 18 October 2010)

116 On 30 June 2009 a Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights declared inadmissible sixapplications lodged against France concerning the expulsion of pupils from school for wearingconspicuous symbols of religious afraslliation seeAktas v FranceApplication No 4356308Gamaled-dyn v France Application No 1852708 Baurak v France Application No 1430808 Ghazal v FranceApplication No 2913408 J Singh v FranceApplication No 2546308 andR Singh v FranceAppli-cation No 2756108 El Morsli v FranceApplication No 1558506 Decision of 4 March 2008 con-cerned a refusal to remove a veil so that identity could be vericented at a French consulate inMarrakeshThe applicantrsquos article 9 complaint was held to be manifestly ill-founded

117 Dogru v FranceApp 2705805 [2008] ECHR1579 (4 December 2008)118 ibid at [62] citing paragraph 106 of Sahin judgment n 30 above119 ibid at [62] citing paragraph 107 of the Sahin judgment

SiobhaŁ n Mullally


that in the French context secularismwas a constitutional principlelsquoto which theentire population adheres and the protection of which appears to be of primeimportancersquo120 The status of secularism as a founding constitutional principle inFrance meant that lsquoan attitude which failed to respect that principlersquo would notbe covered byArticle 9rsquos protections121Contestationwithin France on themeaningand import of the constitutional principle of secularismwas ignored by the Court

The centndings of the Court in Dogru stand in marked contrast to the scrutinyapplied by the UN human rights treaty bodies to the impact of such restrictionson access to education and substantive equality for minority communities inFrance122 The concern to safeguard the sphere of public education and the linkto shared values can also be found in the leading UK case on the wearing of theveil R (Begum) v Head Teacher and Governors of Denbigh High School123 whichcentred on a schoolrsquos refusal to allow a student to wear the jilbab The House ofLords found that no violation of article 9 had occurred pointing in particularto the schoolrsquos consultation with Muslim communities and the adaptationsalready made to uniform policy124 Baroness Hale while expressing concern atthe impact of exclusion on access to education noted the exceptional position ofpublic schools and of state education schools she concluded are lsquodiiexclerentrsquo Not-ing that young girls from ethnic cultural or religious minorities growing up intheUK faced particularly difraslcult choices ultimately she concluded the questionwas how to enable the exercise of personal autonomy through the inculcation ofliberal values125 Again we see here the reiteration of a transition narrativeBelonging to British society requires the casting-oiexcl of the illiberal cultural orreligious afraslliations of minority communities

The limited scrutiny and questioning of states is also evident in the Leyla SahinvTurkey case in which a majority of 16 to 1Grand Chamber judges found that aprohibition on thewearing of the headscarf in higher education institutionswas anecessary and proportionate response to a pressing social need126 The single dis-senting judge Franc oiseTulkens rejected the majorityrsquos reliance on the margin ofappreciation doctrine and criticised the failure of the Court to inquire into thereasons why women themselves wear headscarves rather than privileging themeanings imposed upon their practices by political Islamists or the Turkishgovernment127 In her view the majorityrsquos reasoning abdicated responsibility forthe protection of human rights and failed to harmonise the principles of equalitysecularism and freedom128 Tulkensrsquo dissenting judgment in its sensitivity to the

120 ibid at [72]121 ibid122 The Court refused to assess the severity of the penalty applied to the pupils noting that it did not

wishlsquoto substitute its ownvision for that of the disciplinary authoritiesrsquowhichwere best placed tolsquoevaluate local needs and conditionsrsquo ibid at [76]TheCourt also held that no separate question aroseunder the right to education (Protocol 1 Article 2) as the circumstances were the same as thosearising underArticle 9 (freedom of religion)

123 R (Begum) vHeadTeacher and Governors of Denbigh High School [2007] 1AC100124 ibid at [34]125 ibid at [97]126 n 30 above at [122] See further F Tulkens lsquoThe European Convention on Human Rights and

church-state relations pluralism vs pluralismrsquo (200809) 30(6) Cardozo LawReview 2575127 n 30 above Dissenting opinion of JudgeTulkens at [5]128 ibidDissenting Opinion of JusticeTulkens at [3]



(2011) 74(1) 27^56

multiple meanings of religious observance moves beyond the monolithic cate-gorisation of veiling as threatening to liberal democratic norms It also points tothe priority of individual autonomy as a prerequisite for equality and secularism ^viewed as a frameworkwithinwhich competing conceptions of the good life canpoundourish Tulkens conception of secularism however stands in contrast to recentdevelopments on the meaning and scope of secularism in Europe which havesought to limit manifestations of religious belief in the public sphere placing asHabermas notes a heavy burden on religious citizens

The Sahin case followed on from the widely criticised judgment of the GrandChamber in the Refah Partisi (Welfare Party) case129 in which the Court rejectedthe Sharia in absolutist terms leading to precisely the outcome that was chal-lenged by the applicants discrimination between lsquoMuslim democratsrsquo andlsquoChristian democratsrsquo As Boyle commented the real threat confronting theCourt in this case was lsquoan ideology of secularism that was the mirror image ofreligious fundamentalismrsquo130 That mirror image is the blanket refusal toacknowledge competing conceptions of the good life compatible with liberaldemocratic values whether rooted in the Sharia or not In theRefah Partisi judg-ment Sharia becomes a label for a competing universalism a totalising illiberalother withwhich the Court is reluctant to engageThere is a limit however tothe restrictions on religious manifestations that the Court will accept as wasevident in the recent case of Ahmet Arslan and others vTurkey131 There the Courtfound thatTurkey had not demonstrated the necessity of restricting the wearingor display of religious symbols in public spaces and had violated the applicantsrsquorights to manifest their religious beliefs by imposing criminal sanctions In thiscase there was no evidence of proselytising and the display of religious symbols(turbans batons) had taken place in a public space without disruption to publicorder or securityThe Court was careful to distinguish its conclusions from pre-vious case-law which touched on religious symbols in public establishmentswhere the preservation of the statersquos neutrality required restrictions in its viewand protection from proselytising was deemed necessary The challenge to theState in this case one predicted by the Conseil drsquoEŁ tat and others before the GerinCommission may signal the fate of any future general legislative restrictions onveiling in France or elsewhereWhile the Court may appear overly deferential tothe claims of states vis a vis safeguarding the neutrality of the state restrictionsthat apply to spheres of public life that do not directly engage or implicate thestate may be a step too far

INTEGRATIONCONDITIONS SECULARISMANDTHEVEILINEUROPE

For aspiring Muslim immigrants in Europe the burden of religious belief andpractice in increasingly a heavy oneThe prevailing European view of secularism

129 n 50 above130 K BoylelsquoHuman Rights Religion and Democracy the Refah Partisi casersquo (2004) 1Essex Human

Rights Review 1 cited in D McGoldrick n 50 above 612131 Application no 4113598 date of judgment 23 Feb 2010 See also Lautsi v Italy Application no

30814061March 2010

SiobhaŁ n Mullally


as requiring a strict demarcation between the public and the private does not sim-ply herald a poundourishing of religious diiexclerence in the private sphere it may alsobring with it many harsh exclusions In his viewpoint published 8 March 2010Thomas Hammarberg compared proposed prohibitions on the burqua or niqab tocriminalisation of the Danish cartoons132 Each he argued entails an impermis-sible restriction on freedom of expression and both are attacks on the pluralismand respect for diiexclerence at the heart of the European projectTwo ECHRpro-tections in particular were implicated by proposed restrictions the right to man-ifest onersquos religion or belief and the right to privacy and personal identityTakingon the discussion of essential values Hammarberg notes that lsquopluralism andmulti-culturalism are essential European values and should remain sorsquo133 It is preciselythe pluralismof the public sphere that is at stake in recent debates onveiling how-ever

As Hammarberg notes much of the controversy surrounding religion in thepublic sphere in Europe has centred onMuslims and onMuslimwomen in par-ticular Debates on veiling in France and elsewhere have raised questions as to theplace of religious discourse in the public sphere and have sought to harden thelines between the public and the privateThe private however is becoming nar-rower as the proposals for expanded restrictions on veiling in public spacesdemonstrate For migrant women the protections of the private are not availableas the policing and scrutiny of private ways of life is presumed unexceptionalThe proposed expansion of integration testing in the Gerin Commissionrsquosreport will heighten further the scrutiny of Muslim womenrsquos religious beliefspractices and ways of life The extent to which human rights norms will beapplied in the context of immigration and citizenship laws is not yet clear how-ever The sovereign privilege traditionally enjoyed on matters of citizenship andimmigration is diminishing134 With the expansion of rights to non-citizenssuch privilege appears increasingly as lsquoa relic from a bygone era of statist supre-macyrsquo135 The expansion of rights to non-citizens has been met however withincreasing eiexclorts by states to limit access to citizenship or even residence Thecoercive powers of the State have been particularly evident in the expanding setof immigration tools that have developed over the last 5^10 years both at nationaland European levels Integration conditions have been attached to both the EUFamily Reunicentcation and the LongTerm Residence Directives136 How thin orthick such conditions might be has been left to Member States to determineallowing considerable discretion to governments in decentning the pathways tobelonging not only in the state itself but ultimately the European Union as a

132 T Hammarberg lsquoRulings anywhere that women must wear the burqa should be condemned ^but banning such dresses here would be wrongrsquosays Commissioner Hammarberg 8 March 2010Viewpoint at httpwwwcoeinttcommissionerViewpointsprevious2010_enasp (last visited16 October 2010)

133 ibid134 See for example CERD General Recommendation XXX pt 4 See also D SWeissbrodtThe

Human Rights of Non-citizens (Oxford and NewYork OxfordUniversity Press 2008)135 S BenhabibThe Rights of Others Aliens Residents and Citizens (Cambridge John Robert Seeley

lectures Cambridge University Press 2004) 142136 n 16 above



(2011) 74(1) 27^56

whole137 The Stockholmprogramme has given a renewed impetus to integrationas an element of immigration policy138 Further support is provided by the con-clusion of the LisbonTreaty which allows for incentives and support to be giventoMember Statesrsquo integration initiatives by the European Council and the Parlia-ment139 Crucially Member States retain signicentcant discretion over the integra-tion conditions to be introduced

The veiling controversies in France have taken place against a background ofsignicentcant change in immigration law and policy As Beaujeau notes the estab-lishment of a new Ministerial post combining responsibility for Immigra-tion with Integration and National Identity repoundected a signicentcant change inthinking about immigration in France140 The move towards limitingpathways to immigration in France stands in contrast to the diverse trajectoriesof migrant lives displayed in the CiteŁ de lrsquoImmigration (the Museum of Immigra-tion) the establishment of which coincided not just with the appointment of aMinister for Immigration but also with the controversial debates on DNA test-ing for family reunicentcation applicants141 The renewed focus on integration con-ditions in France has taken a juridical form in legislative initiatives introducingcontracts lsquoContrat drsquoacceuil et drsquointeŁ grationrsquo (CAI) for third country nationals withstringently policed contractual requirements concerning integration142 Thesecontracts represent an expansion of integration policy beyond the process of nat-uralisation where requirements of assimilation albeit relatively thin werealready established In 2007 the concept of the CAI was extended to include aContrat drsquoacceuil et drsquointeŁ gration pour la famille (CAIF) with integration conditions(rather than measures)143 relating to the rights and responsibilities of parents andimmigrant familiesThe attachment of such conditions expands further the scru-tiny of immigrant families potentially opening up again questions as to the nor-mativity of immigrant family lives and their conformity to the dominant family

137 See Common Basic Principles (CBP) for Immigrant Integration Policy in the European Union adopted byat the Justice and Home Aiexclairs Council Meeting 2618m 1461404 19 November 2004 Commu-nication from the Commission to the Council the European Parliament the European Eco-nomic and Social committee and the Committee of the Regions ^ A Common Agenda forIntegration ^ Framework for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals in the European Union (COM20050389 centnal) Council Conclusions on the Strengthening of Integration Policies in the EU by promotingunity in diversity adopted at the 2807th Justice and Home Aiexclairs Council Meeting Luxembourg12^13 June 2007

138 Council of the EuropeanUnion 2009lsquoThe Stockholm Programme ^An open and secure Europeserving and protecting the citizensrsquo Doc 1702409 Brussels December See also E Collett 2008The EU immigration Pact from Hague to Stockholm via Paris (Brussels EPC Policy Brief 2008) athttpwwwepceuTEWNpdf304970248_EU20Immigration20Pactpdf (last visited 18October 2010)

139 Treaty of Lisbon Amending theTreaty on European Union and theTreaty Establishing the European Commu-nityArticle 63b OJ C 30617 December 2007

140 See M Beaujeau n 16 above141 ibid 30^31142 n 16 above discussed in S Carrera n 16 above See also PWeil n 82 above143 Article 72 of the Council Directive on theRight to FamilyReunicentcation 200386 permitsMem-

ber States to require third country nationals to comply with integration measures As Carreranotes the term measures is distinct from conditions suggesting that Member States would notbe justicented in imposing mandatory integration requirements to limit access to EU rights andguarantees provided by the Directive See S Carrera ibid 344^345

SiobhaŁ n Mullally


forms144 The introduction of these new juridical forms is part of a Governmentmove to limitwhat has come to be described as lsquoimmigration subiersquo (literally suiexcleredimmigration) in favour of lsquoimmigration choisirsquo Family reunicentcation until nowbeing less predictable less susceptible to controlling limits has been categorisedas coming within the umbrella of lsquoimmigration subiersquoThe consequences of a failureto comply with the terms of the CAI or CAIF betray the illusion of voluntarismor reciprocity suggested by the language of contract an application for a residencepermit or renewal or family reunicentcation may be denied145 For immigrantsalready within French territory the possibility of becoming undocumented andliable to deportation arises

In theMmeM case the requirement of assimilation for naturalisation tookon aspecicentcally gender dimension This gender dimension takes many forms In a2008 advisory opinion HALDE (Haute AutoriteŁ de Lutte Contre les Discriminationset LrsquoeŁ galiteŁ ^ High Authority to Combat Discrimination and Inequality) con-cluded that exclusion of a woman wearing the niqab from compulsory languageinstruction taken in compliance with a CAI did not violate ECHRprotectionsof religious freedom non-discrimination or the right to education The restric-tion on veiling was justicented by the exigencies of good language instruction theneed for student identicentcation and to safeguard the student body from the impactand broader pressures arising from the presence of a veiled woman146 The GerinCommission report displays a willingness to expand the gender dimension ofintegration testing further to the process of applying for long and even short-term residence These proposals have not been challenged by the Conseil drsquoEŁ tatand have attracted little commentary raising questions as to the justice of apply-ing such conditions to non-citizens when such restrictions would be consideredin other circumstances to be a violation of rights to religious freedom to privacyor personal identity The absence of reciprocity here essential to liberal ideals ofjustice is deeply problematic There is clearly potential for tension and conpoundictbetween such integration conditions and the more cosmopolitan norms ofhuman rights law This potential is already evident in the ongoing constructivedialogue between France andUNhuman rights treaty bodies onminority rightsreligious freedom and the practice of veiling where the additional burdens cre-ated for religious communities have been a matter of concern

Beyond the limited circle of immigration theorists integration testing has notuntil recently attracted much commentary or critique premised as it was on rela-tively minimal requirements of civic integration and language competenceWrit-ing in 2004 Joppke commented that populist requirements of assimilationsurvived because in polyglotWestern Europe the lsquoties that bind are increasinglyprocedural and universalisticrsquo147 The mantralsquowhen in Rome do as the Romans

144 On the dominance of the lsquosexual family formrsquo see M A Fineman lsquoThe Sexual Familyrsquo in J EJackson M A Fineman and A P Romero (eds) Feminist andQueer LegalTheory Intimate Encoun-ters Uncomfortable Conversations (Farnham Ashgate 2009)

145 For a discussion of the integration contract see D KostakopouloulsquoThe Anatomy of Civic Inte-grationrsquo (2010) 73 MLR 933

146 n 2 aboveAnnexe No 1 DeŁ librations de la HauteAutoriteŁ de Lutte Contre Les Discriminations et LrsquoeŁ galiteŁ634

147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56

dorsquo in this context was not unduly burdensome he suggested More recentlyhowever he has revised this assessment noting the new assertiveness of liberalstates and the emergence of aggressive forms of liberalism evident in the expan-sion of mandatory civic integration requirements148 For theorists of migrationlaw and human rights a key question to be addressed is how or whether thisexpansion of integration testing is compatible with the cosmopolitan norms ofhuman rights law149 Much of the history of citizenship law has been dominatedby restrictions and exclusions based on such ascriptive characteristics as lsquoracersquonational origin and gender150 As Benhabib notes these restrictions were oftendriven lsquoby the imperatives of elites to oiexcler myths of civic identity and foster asense of peoplehoodrsquo151 Katherine Franke writing on the Reconstruction Era inthe US notes that even for progressives of this era the transition from slave tocitizen for Black people was viewed as something that had to be cultivated152

Citizenship status for Republicans retained both a legal andmoral content Afri-can Americans could not enter or transition to the status of citizen on their ownterms but only in accordance with the non-negotiable terms of the dominantculture Such critiques continue to have relevance today in contemporary EuropeTorn between the claims of an expanding European Union culturally diversepopulations and the extension of rights to non-citizens states have responded byretreating from multiculturalism resorting to old practices of nation-buildingand to closure Jurgen Habermasrsquos prescription for a lsquofaltering Europersquo and forthe strengthening of European citizenship was to move from lsquoethnosrsquo tolsquodemosrsquo153 Testing for integration brings with it the possibility of a return tolsquoeth-nosrsquo and to ethnically constrained notions of belonging and membershipWhether or not that danger is realised depends of course on what such testingcomprises in and what the consequences of failure are for aspiring citizens Softapproaches have been adopted with voluntary integration or citizenship pro-grammes being put in place154 States have also adopted mandatory requirementsof integration the consequences of failure being the refusal of citizenship denialof residence or family reunicentcation155

The normative justicentcation for raising additional barriers to access tomember-ship or residence is questionable At a minimum compliance of such testing with

148 n 98 above149 See J H CarenslsquoThe integration of immigrantsrsquo (2005) 2 Journal of Moral Philosophy 29 challen-

ging the normative basis for integration conditions150 See generally S Mullally lsquoCitizenship and family life in Ireland asking the question lsquolsquoWho

belongsrsquorsquorsquo (2005) 25 Legal Studies 578 and A AppiahThe Ethics of Identity (Princeton NJ Prince-tonUniversity Press 2005)

151 S BenhabibTransformations of citizenship dilemmas of the nation state in the era of globalization two lec-tures (Assen Spinoza lectures KoninklijkeVan Gorcum 2001) 68

152 K M FrankelsquoBecoming a Citizen Reconstruction Era Regulation of African American Mar-riagesrsquo (1999) 11YaleJournal of Lawand the Humanities 251

153 J Habermas Europe the Faltering Project (Cambridge and Malden MAPolity 2009)154 See Communication from the Commission to the Council the European Parliament the Eur-

opean Economic and Social committee and the Committee of the RegionsACommonAgenda forIntegration ^ Framework for the Integration ofThird-CountryNationals in the EuropeanUnionCOM20050389 centnal

155 See D KostakopouloulsquoMatters of Control IntegrationTests Naturalisation Reform and Proba-tionary Citizenship in theUnitedKingdomrsquo (2010) 36(5) Journal of Ethnic andMigrationStudies 829

SiobhaŁ n Mullally


human rights norms would require the absence of any exclusions based ongrounds such as lsquoracersquo ethnicity religion gender Requirements to demonstrateallegiance to the State or integration have often been viewed as unproblematicbecause the statements of British Dutch or German values that have emergedfrom reviews of citizenship practices have been presumed to be lsquoexchangeablersquopremised on commitments to procedural universalist norms156 It is unclearhowever how exchangeable these values are in practice when such norms areapplied through the punitive tools of immigration law to migrant women andothers at the intersections of overlapping axes of discrimination grounded ingender religion ethnicity or class As the content of such testing becomeslsquothickerrsquo we see yet again that the claim to universality that underpins the asser-tion of such values may not be well founded Rather it masks a particularism ofreligious cultural and nationalistic afraslliations

Kymlicka argues that what distinguishes lsquocivicrsquo nations from lsquoethnicrsquo nations islsquonot the absence of any cultural component to national identity but rather the factthat anyone can integrate into the common culture regardless of race or colourrsquo157

To the extent that integration testing seeks to preserve a national culture thepotential to reinforce a closed static view of culture remains and the possibilityfor newcomers to participate on an equal basis in the public political culture islimited Seeking to ensure the lsquopermanence of French valuesrsquo for examplethrough restrictions on veiling is a refusal to allow immigrants and non-immi-grants alike to engage in an ongoing process of democratic iterations ^ limitingthe possibility to engage in the lsquodynamic and interpretative process of extending inherited cultures in the altered circumstances to which immigration givesrisersquo158 It is this limitation that underpins the concerns of UN human rightsbodies when reviewing the restrictions onveiling imposed in FranceThe protec-tion of religious freedoms of freedom of expression privacy and personal iden-tity are intended to ensure the possibility of such equal participation and toprovide a framework within which an ongoing process of democratic iterationcan take place The shift towards mandatory integration conditions limits thetwo way dimension of accommodations both formal and informal that mightotherwise accompany immigration and transition to membership for new com-munities What then of integration conditions that require demonstrations ofcommitments to gender equality as proposed by the Gerin CommissionWherethe norm of gender equality is positioned in opposition to religious practice inthis way the overriding primacy of individual autonomy is called into questionas the Conseil drsquoEŁ tat itself notes in commenting on the proposed general restric-tions on wearing of the burqua or niqab As in the Mme M case we see that theserequirements potentially exclude religious Muslim women further reinforcingthe insecurities and inequalities that come when denied membership residenceor even access to a new communityTo require immigrants to comply with such

156 n 4 above 253157 WKymlickaMulticultural Citizenship a LiberalTheory ofMinority Rights (Oxford Oxford Political

Theory Clarendon Press 1995) 23^24158 S ScheyenerlsquoImmigration and the Signicentcance of Culturersquo (2007) 35 PhilosophyampPublic Aiexclairs 93

117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56

conditions is therefore to require compliance with a norm already found to beunjustWhere integration conditions are imposed pre-departure as conditions togranting leave to enter the host state rights to family lifemay also be engaged andthe conceptual coherence and justicentabilityof such procedures becomes evenmoreproblematic159

As IrisYoung has noted citizenshiprsquos claim to universality does not typicallyapply to everyone but rather tolsquoeveryone the samersquo160 This is what has been calledthe equality of the Enlightenment where recognition and survival depends onmeeting the dominant standard and lsquokeeping your head low keeps you aliversquo161

The claim to universal citizenship may hide coercive and repressive normsthat are lsquohostile to plural modes of identity and experiencersquo162 In the expansionof integration testing and pathway to citizenship reforms we see most clearlyhow citizenship status functions as a strategy of governance Individuals aspiringcitizens and immigrants are incited to live lsquoas if making a project of themselvesrsquo163

Ultimately any failure to succeed is a failure of individual initiative a failure totake responsibility to complete this project This modality of governance seeksto stimulate and activate the lsquocontrolled choicesrsquo of individuals How one choosesto dress may or may not fall within these controlling limits

CONCLUSION

The stigmatisation of Muslim women and girls through the hyper visibility ofthe veil in political discourse is restricting the possibility of more just multicul-tural arrangements arrangements that might lessen the burdens of democraticparticipation on religious citizensWhether international human rights law her-alds the multicultural odyssey that some have predicted is not yet clear164 It maystand as a bulwark against intolerance or expansive state claims and it provides aset of core principles for the protection of minority rights and religious freedomsInternational human rights bodies have proven themselves more willing to en-gage with religious diiexclerences not to presume a tension between the liberal de-mocraticwest and IslamThis engagement has been particularly evident in debateson womenrsquos human rights through the work of the CEDAW Committee andothers where appeals to tradition religion or custom to justify discriminatorynorms or practices have been rejected but the possibility of internal contestation

159 See Kostakopoulou n 145 above160 See IMYounglsquoPolity andGroupDiiexclerence ACritique of the Ideal of Universal Citizenshiprsquo in

R BeinerTheorizing Citizenship (Albany SUNYseries in political theory Contemporary issuesState University of NewYork Press1995)

161 C A MacKinnon AreWomen Human and other International Dialogues (Cambridge Mass Bel-knap Press of HarvardUniversity Press 2006) 106

162 L BosniakTheCitizen and theAlien Dilemmas of ContemporaryMembership (Princeton NJ Prince-tonUniversity Press 2006) 132

163 N S Rose Inventing our Selves Psychology Power and Personhood (Cambridge andNewYork Cam-bridge studies in the history of psychology Cambridge University Press 1996) 157

164 SeeW KymlickaMulticultural Odysseys Navigating theNew International Politics of Diversity (OxfordandNewYork OxfordUniversity Press 2007) A XanthakilsquoMulticulturalism and InternationalLaw DiscussingUniversal Standardsrsquo (2010) 32Human Rights Quarterly 21

SiobhaŁ n Mullally


dissent and reform is also recognised165 The UN treaty bodiesrsquo engagement withFrance on veiling restrictions reveals a concernwith substantive equality and lib-eral freedoms As yet the expansion of integration conditions for migrants inEurope and the gender dimension of such conditions has not been tested beforeinternational or European human rights bodies

For theMuslimwoman the costs of inclusion in a polity may require the cast-ing oiexcl of competing cultural allegiances the wearing of the veil suggesting arefusal of loyalty to the state and its shared Republican valuesThe imperative tounveil coming to the fore in recent political discourse on migration integrationand national identity represents the broader anxieties in lawrsquos engagement withthe Muslim subject it is an engagement that is fraught with fear and anxietyLawrsquos rediscovery of the veil in recent years highlights the constraints withinwhich rights claims continue to operate The assertion of rights by Muslimwomen and girls and legitimate engagement in democratic processes of iterationand reiteration are being undermined Yet as the analysis of UN human rightstreaty bodiesrsquo engagement with France suggests rights discourse may challengethe costs imposed by requirements of inclusion It may challenge the productionof the lsquoabject outlawrsquo the veiled Muslim woman Challenging this productionhowever will requiremuch greater scrutiny and questioning of immigration lawsand practices to expose the seeming inevitability and legitimacy of coercive statepractices in this centeld

165 See for example General Recommendation No 21 (13th session 1994) Equality in marriage andfamily relations S Mullally Gender Culture and Human Rights Reclaiming Universalism (Oxfordand Portland OR Human rights law in perspective Hart 2006) ch 6



(2011) 74(1) 27^56

Copyright of Modern Law Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holders express written permission

However users may print download or email articles for individual use

likely to appeal to the values of social cohesion and civic integration5 The pre-occupationwith integration ofmigrant communities is repoundected in the resurgenceof interest inlsquopathways to citizenshiprsquo and integration testing both at EU level andinMember States6 In recent years this preoccupation has been marked by awill-ingness to deploy juridical and punitive tools of immigration control to monitormandatory integration requirements7 Newly expanded forms of integration test-ing seek to assess the newcomerrsquos commitment to liberal democratic idealsincluding gender equality8 This lsquogender turnrsquo in immigration and citizenshippracticemarks a challenging departure and raises questions as towhat are the costsof such inclusion Securing equality in citizenship lawswas a central focus of fem-inist activism at an international level for the most part of the 20th century andcontinues to be a concern today9 While directly discriminatory laws have dis-appeared in Europe the categories of gender sexuality and lsquoracersquo continue to bepivotal to immigration and citizenship practices today10 The historical vestiges ofdiscrimination in immigration laws persist in the lsquoanxious scrutinyrsquo to which thecultural afraslliations and practices of aspiring citizens are subjected Muslimwomen have been placed at the center of such scrutiny increasingly decentned bythe arbiters of belonging and membership as lsquoles anormeauxrsquo11

The recently published Report of the French Parliamentary Commission onthe wearing of the lsquovoile inteŁ gralrsquo (face-veil) the Gerin Report proposes a series ofmeasures un accord republicain designed to restrict the wearing of the burqa andniqab on French territory12 These measures include expanded integration condi-tions to be applied to aspiring immigrants and citizens Building on recent

5 See E Guild C A Groenendijk and S Carrera Illiberal Liberal States Immigration Citizenship andIntegration in the EU (Farnham Ashgate 2009) D Kostakopoulou lsquoMatters of Control Integra-tionTests Naturalisation Reform and Probationary Citizenship in the United Kingdomrsquo (2010)36 Journal of Ethnic andMigration Studies 829

6 See for example HomeOfraslce UKBorderAgencyThe Path toCitizenshipNext Steps inReformingthe Immigration System (February 2008) On the compatibility of citizenship testing with liberal-ism see EUDOForumonCitizenship (2010) lsquoHowLiberal are CitizenshipTestsrsquo at httpeudo-citizenshipeucitizenship-forum255-how-liberal-are-citizenship-tests (last visited 18 October2010) On the expansion of integration testing in Europe see lsquoCitizenshipTests in a Post-NationalErarsquo International Journal of Multicultural Societies Special Issue (2008) Vol 10(1) discussing recentdevelopments in theNetherlandsDenmark France and theUK See alsolsquoMigration andCitizen-ship Attribution Politics and Policies inWestern Europersquo Special Issue (2010) Vol 36(5) Journal ofEthnic andMigration Studies edited by MVink and R de Groot

7 C Dauvergne lsquoGlobalizing Fragmentation New Pressures onWomen Caught in the Immigra-tion Law ^ Citizenship Law Dichotomyrsquo in S Benhabib and J Resnik Migrations and MobilitiesCitizenship Borders and Gender (NewYork NewYorkUniversity Press 2009) 333^355 334

8 In France see lsquoRapport DrsquoInformation Sur La Pratique Du Port DuVoile Integral Sur LeTerri-toire Nationalrsquo ((Paris 26 January 2010) (Report of the Gerin Commission)

9 See ILA FinalReport onWomenrsquos Equality andNationality in International Law (London InternationalLawAssociation 2000) Article 9 of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms ofDiscrimination AgainstWomen on nationality remains one of the most heavily reserved of thetreatyrsquos provisions For the full text of reservations see httpwwwunorgwomenwatchdawcedawreservationshtm (last visited 15 October 2010)

10 See S A BergerlsquoProduction andReproduction of Gender and Sexuality in Legal Discourses ofAsylum in theUnited Statesrsquo (2009) 34 Signs Journal ofWomen inCulture and Society 659 discussingthe continuing centrality of the categories of gender and sexuality in asylum law

11 M Foucault and others Les Anormaux Cours au Colle ge de France (1974^1975) (Paris GallimardSeuil1999)

12 n 2 above187



(2011) 74(1) 27^56







SiobhaŁ n Mullally












(2011) 74(1) 27^56









SiobhaŁ n Mullally









(2011) 74(1) 27^56



34


35 The application



SiobhaŁ n Mullally









(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally









(2011) 74(1) 27^56






SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56







SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56









SiobhaŁ n Mullally











July 2008 para 11



(2011) 74(1) 27^56










SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56







30814061March 2010

SiobhaŁ n Mullally










(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56










SiobhaŁ n Mullally












(2011) 74(1) 27^56









SiobhaŁ n Mullally









(2011) 74(1) 27^56



34


35 The application



SiobhaŁ n Mullally









(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally









(2011) 74(1) 27^56






SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56







SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56









SiobhaŁ n Mullally











July 2008 para 11



(2011) 74(1) 27^56










SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56







30814061March 2010

SiobhaŁ n Mullally










(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56














(2011) 74(1) 27^56









SiobhaŁ n Mullally









(2011) 74(1) 27^56



34


35 The application



SiobhaŁ n Mullally









(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally









(2011) 74(1) 27^56






SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56







SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56









SiobhaŁ n Mullally











July 2008 para 11



(2011) 74(1) 27^56










SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56







30814061March 2010

SiobhaŁ n Mullally










(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally









(2011) 74(1) 27^56



34


35 The application



SiobhaŁ n Mullally









(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally









(2011) 74(1) 27^56






SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56







SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56









SiobhaŁ n Mullally











July 2008 para 11



(2011) 74(1) 27^56










SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56







30814061March 2010

SiobhaŁ n Mullally










(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56











(2011) 74(1) 27^56



34


35 The application



SiobhaŁ n Mullally









(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally









(2011) 74(1) 27^56






SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56







SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56









SiobhaŁ n Mullally











July 2008 para 11



(2011) 74(1) 27^56










SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56







30814061March 2010

SiobhaŁ n Mullally










(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56






34


35 The application



SiobhaŁ n Mullally









(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally









(2011) 74(1) 27^56






SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56







SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56









SiobhaŁ n Mullally











July 2008 para 11



(2011) 74(1) 27^56










SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56







30814061March 2010

SiobhaŁ n Mullally










(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56











(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally









(2011) 74(1) 27^56






SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56







SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56









SiobhaŁ n Mullally











July 2008 para 11



(2011) 74(1) 27^56










SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56







30814061March 2010

SiobhaŁ n Mullally










(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56











SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally









(2011) 74(1) 27^56






SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56







SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56









SiobhaŁ n Mullally











July 2008 para 11



(2011) 74(1) 27^56










SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56







30814061March 2010

SiobhaŁ n Mullally










(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56













(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally









(2011) 74(1) 27^56






SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56







SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56









SiobhaŁ n Mullally











July 2008 para 11



(2011) 74(1) 27^56










SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56







30814061March 2010

SiobhaŁ n Mullally










(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56











SiobhaŁ n Mullally









(2011) 74(1) 27^56






SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56







SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56









SiobhaŁ n Mullally











July 2008 para 11



(2011) 74(1) 27^56










SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56







30814061March 2010

SiobhaŁ n Mullally










(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56











(2011) 74(1) 27^56






SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56







SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56









SiobhaŁ n Mullally











July 2008 para 11



(2011) 74(1) 27^56










SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56







30814061March 2010

SiobhaŁ n Mullally










(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56









SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56







SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56









SiobhaŁ n Mullally











July 2008 para 11



(2011) 74(1) 27^56










SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56







30814061March 2010

SiobhaŁ n Mullally










(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56















(2011) 74(1) 27^56







SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56









SiobhaŁ n Mullally











July 2008 para 11



(2011) 74(1) 27^56










SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56







30814061March 2010

SiobhaŁ n Mullally










(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56










SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56









SiobhaŁ n Mullally











July 2008 para 11



(2011) 74(1) 27^56










SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56







30814061March 2010

SiobhaŁ n Mullally










(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56















(2011) 74(1) 27^56









SiobhaŁ n Mullally











July 2008 para 11



(2011) 74(1) 27^56










SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56







30814061March 2010

SiobhaŁ n Mullally










(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally











July 2008 para 11



(2011) 74(1) 27^56










SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56







30814061March 2010

SiobhaŁ n Mullally










(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56













July 2008 para 11



(2011) 74(1) 27^56










SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56







30814061March 2010

SiobhaŁ n Mullally










(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56













SiobhaŁ n Mullally













(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56







30814061March 2010

SiobhaŁ n Mullally










(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56















(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56







30814061March 2010

SiobhaŁ n Mullally










(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56











SiobhaŁ n Mullally











(2011) 74(1) 27^56







30814061March 2010

SiobhaŁ n Mullally










(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56













(2011) 74(1) 27^56







30814061March 2010

SiobhaŁ n Mullally










(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56










30814061March 2010

SiobhaŁ n Mullally










(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56












(2011) 74(1) 27^56








SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56











SiobhaŁ n Mullally








147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56










147 n 4 above 255



(2011) 74(1) 27^56












SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56















SiobhaŁ n Mullally







117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56









117



(2011) 74(1) 27^56





CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56








CONCLUSION








SiobhaŁ n Mullally







(2011) 74(1) 27^56









(2011) 74(1) 27^56





