Study Guide FROMUN 17

Committee: UN WOMEN

Preface:-
Distinguished delegates of the Commission on the Status of Women, Welcome to FROMUN 2017! At
this conference, we will be simulating various committees of the United Nations as realistically as
possible and getting to know diplomacy from within. Representing the country assigned to you, you will
have to discuss, deliver speeches, lobby, try to think outside the box and come up with solutions.
Inventive spirit will be vital. You will have to decide what your country can accept and what it cannot
give up. And in the end, you will have to agree on statements that represent the official policy of the
Commission on the Status of Women. Although this will not be easy at all, we hope it will be worthwhile.
Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, said something memorable about Model
United Nations:
“The word ‘model’ has a number of meanings. In the context of the model United Nations, it is
commonly understood as ‘a small copy’. But I prefer another of its meanings: ‘a praiseworthy example
to be copied’.”
That is what we hope for in this conference: Fresh ideas, innovative concepts and sustainable strategies.
Apart from that, we are looking forward to great fun. During the conference you will get to know people
from various backgrounds and cooperate with them. We hope for enriching experiences, new
friendships and international understanding. In one word: We are looking forward to meeting you and
we hope you you learn from this committee.

How to get prepared...

However, before the conference starts, there is still some work to be done. While the organization team
is doing its best to organize rooms, workshops, catering and so on, one important thing has to be done
by YOU! You are the ones that fill the conference with life, that lead interesting discussions and fruitful
debates and make innovative resolutions reality. This requires some preparation on your side. In
advance to the conference we expect all delegates to research your State’s position and become experts
for the given agenda topics, to familiarize yourself with the rules of procedure and to practice your
debating and writing skills. Here are some useful hints on how to get prepared for the MMUN 16
conference
. Do some Research
The first step after you have been assigned your state and committee will be to do some research in
order to prepare for the conference. These are areas you should look into:
• The structure and history of the United Nations
• Your assigned member state
• Research your committee
• Your role in the committee
• Your agenda topics Central Questions that should guide your research:
• What are the key issues of your agenda topics?
• Why are these issues important?
• What are possible solutions?
• What is hindering those solutions?
• What has the UN (or other international agencies) done so far, in order to solve these problems?
• What should be done from the perspective of your State to resolve the issues?
• Which other States share your view, which are opposed to your position?
The Research Reports will be a good starting point in order to get information about your committee as
well as your agenda topics. However, your research should go beyond what is written in the reports. For
further research we greatly recommend:
 the United Nations Homepage
 Non-Governmental Organizations (particularly those accredited by the UN)  country reports and data
published by international or regional organizations such as the World Bank, WHO, OECD, APEC, etc.
 general socio-economic data: e.g. CIA World Factbook has served delegates in previous years in
gaining a first overview of a particular member state
 your countries government website
 search for speeches made by your country on the topic

Write a Position Paper

An important task for you before the conference starts is to write a Position Paper. In the Position Paper
you should shortly summarize the results of your research. Each topic should be addressed briefly in a
succinct policy statement representing the relevant views of your assigned country. You should also
include recommendations for action to be taken by your committee. Writing a position paper is very
important, since it helps you during the conference as a starting point for discussion. In order to be
considered for the Award you will have to submit your Position Paper not later than before the start of
the conference. The document should not exceed two pages. The position paper will be judged upon the
following criteria:
 Overall quality of writing, proper style, grammar, etc.
 General consistency with bloc/geopolitical constraints
 Consistency with the constraints of the United Nations
 Analysis of issues, rather than reiteration of the Research Report
 Innovative recommendations for action for your committee to undertake Please send your position
papers to your committee email address I.e sherdil.gallian@gmail.com

Familiarize yourself with the Rules of procedure

In order to be able to participate effectively in your committee you need to familiarize yourself before
the conference with the rules of procedure. You should carefully read the Rules of Procedure (that you
find in this guide) as well as the explanations about the flow of debate (you find in this guide “during
committee sessions”).
Writing a Resolution
As the main goal of the committee sessions will be to find common solutions to the given agenda topics,
which are captured in resolutions, it is important that you are familiar with the formal standards of a
resolution. Please read the section on how to write a Resolution very attentively and memorize the
formal requirements of a draft resolution. You should also read some original UN resolutions, to get
confident with the typical style, language and structure of a proper resolution.

Practice your debating and speaking skills

Being a delegate at a MUN conference requires speaking and debating skills. All research doesn’t help if
you cannot convince other delegates of your standpoint and ideas. In advance to the conference you
should prepare opening speeches for each topic and practice them at home, in order to get to good start
into the conference.

Sample Position Paper

Delegation of the Republic of Iceland
Represented by XXX
Position Paper for the Economic and Social Council
The Republic of Iceland, once a rather poor country, has over the last decades achieved rapid economic
growth and counts today to one of the most developed countries of the world. Having successfully gone
through this remarkable transition, Iceland is conscious about functioning as a role model for developing
countries and is determined to share its experience and expertise to help less developed countries on
their way to a higher standard of living. Iceland is proud to call itself a world leader in the field of gender
equality, sustainable development and renewable energy sources and therefore looks forward to
discussing the issues of International Cooperation for Migration Management, Global Management of
Water and other Resources and the Review of the Role of Civil Society in the United Nations System
before the ECOSOC.
I. International Cooperation for Migration Management
The Republic of Iceland remains firmly committed in support of the United Nations efforts to enhance
international cooperation for migration management. Iceland strongly endorses the work of the Global
Migration Group which was launched by former Secretary-General Kofi Annan in order to join different
agencies active in the field of migration and to develop more cohesive migration policies. The High-Level
Dialogue on International Migration and Development in 2006 and the Global Forum on Migration and
Development in July 2007 put the issue of migration on the global agenda. The Republic of Iceland is
determined to play an active role in migration management by cooperating with state actors from the
national, regional and local level as well as with non-state actors. Migration benefits the economy of
both receiving and sending countries if a thorough regulation framework exists. Iceland acknowledges
the positive effects of migration and its contribution to economic growth and development while
simultaneously emphasizing the need of ensuring security and of reducing all negative effects of
migration. The Republic of Iceland is strongly concerned about protecting migrants’ rights according to
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights and the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights and encourages all states to
acknowledge the special need for gender sensitive policies in the field of migration since today, women
make up about half of all migrants worldwide and count to the most vulnerable migrant groups.
Furthermore, refugees are a group especially exposed to danger and need to be protected by the
international community. Iceland secures refugees’ rights according to the Geneva Convention 1951 and
the Protocol 1967 and closely cooperates with the UNHCR by taking part in the resettlement
programme and has since 1956 given new home to many refugees. Occurring negative effects of
migration need to be addressed in the future. Alarmed by a recurring linkage between human
trafficking, smuggling and migration Iceland is determined to fight against organized crime in
compliance with the Convention against transnational organized crime and the Protocol to Prevent,
Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons and remains firmly committed in its fight against irregular
migration.
Migration management is possible only if sending and receiving countries work hand in hand and only if
the root causes of migration are addressed can irregular migration be eradicated. The issue of migration
has often been neglected and Iceland urges all states to take concerted actions now in order to enhance
the situation of migrants worldwide.

During the committee sessions:-

During the three days of the conference most of the time will be spend in ‘Committee Sessions’. They
form the most essential part of a Model United Nations, and we want to give you a first impression,
what it will be like. As you may have noticed there are two topics on the agenda. Hence the first task
before the start of the discussions will be to set the agenda, i.e. to determine the order in which the
topics are debated. Once the agenda has been set, the flow of debate will alternate between formal
debate, moderated and unmoderated caucus. The goal of the discussion will be to come up with a
resolution that presents an agreement to the given topic. Therefore you will start to work on draft
resolutions with your fellow delegates. When the discussion on the topic has exhausted, you will
formally vote on all draft resolutions that are currently on the floor. After the adoption of a resolution to
the first topic, you will start with the second agenda topic, and the flow of debate will start from the
beginning.

Setting the Agenda

There are two agenda items on the agenda of each committee when the conference starts, and the
committee will have to decide which topic you would like to discuss first. It is recommended to consider
beforehand, which topic is of greater importance to your country, and find associates within the
committee to set this topic first on the agenda. A provisional speakers list will be opened in the
beginning of the first session in order to discuss the agenda. You may motion to set either agenda topic
A or B first on the agenda, if you think there will be a majority of delegates to support this motion. Once
a motion to set the agenda passes, the committee will start to debate on the respective topic.
Formal Debate
After the agenda is set, the speakers list will be opened for every Delegate, wishing to express their
opinions and solutions before the entire body. It has proven to be useful to have an opening speech
prepared for each topic in advance of the conference, which states the general position of your country
on the issue. During speeches you may not refrain to yourself in first person, as you are representing a
country and not your personal opinion. If you have time left, you may yield the remaining time back to
floor (which means, that this time remains unused), to any other Delegate of the committee or to
questions from the body. Delegates may always pass a note to the Director if they wish to be added to
or removed from the speakers list. However, Delegates may only be listed once on the speakers list.
When they have spoken, they may pass a note to be added again to the speakers list. During speeches
all Delegates must maintain seated and pay respect to the speaker, which also includes refraining from
using laptops in order to work on draft resolutions. In between speeches Delegates can raise their
placard for a point or motion. More than one motion may be raised, and they will be voted on in order
of precedence. However, at any time of the session it is up to the discretion of the Directors to accept or
decline motions. At the beginning of the debates, the speakers’ time will be set by the Director.
However, Delegates may raise a motion to change the speakers’ time during formal session. Once the
speakers list runs out, the debate will be closed and the committee moves directly into voting
procedure.

Unmoderated Caucus
"Caucusing" is the parliamentary term for diplomatic negotiation. It allows Delegates to step out of
formal debate and directly discuss their standpoints and solutions. During this time, most of the work on
the drafting of resolutions and amendments gets done. During the unmoderated caucus, delegates may
move around the room freely. However, while the rules of procedure are suspended during the
unmoderated caucus, keep in mind, that all Delegates shall stay in character during unmoderated
caucus. Delegates have to stick to English as the official working language and are still expected to afford
one another diplomatic respect. In order to have an unmoderated caucus, delegates may raise a motion
for an unmoderated caucus specifying the duration. (e.g.: "The Delegate of Belgium motions for an
unmoderated caucus for the duration of 20 minutes")

Moderated Caucus
The moderated caucus serves as a semi-formal focused debate on a specific topic. In contrast to the
formal debate, there is no speakers list, and the Director may call directly on Delegates wishing to speak
(raising their placard). Usually the speakers time is shorter than in formal debate, therefore a much
quicker discussion is possible. Furthermore the moderated caucus is narrowed down to one specific
topic, for example it is possible to discuss a certain clause of a draft resolution. Delegates wishing to
have a moderated caucus may raise a Motion for a Moderated Caucus, specifying the overall duration,
the individual speakers time, and the topic. (e.g. "The representative of Paraguay motions for a
moderated caucus, for the duration of 15 minutes, speakers time 30 seconds, in order to discuss
operative clause number 3 of draft resolution 1.3")
Suspension of the Meeting
During the suspension, Delegates may step out of their character and have private conversations.
However, we still expect you to treat each other with respect, and ask you to speak English, for others
might feel excluded. The Director will entertain motions for a suspension of the meeting at the end of
each session until the next session starts. During sessions, if the committee needs a break from the
committee session, Delegates can raise a motion for a suspension of the meeting, specifying the
duration of the suspension.

Points
Besides motions, delegates can also raise points during the committee session. The point of
parliamentary inquiry, will allow you to ask questions to the Director about the Rules of Procedure. We
encourage all Delegates to make use of this point if they feel unsure about the committee procedure.
The point of personal privilege may be used if delegate feels uncomfortable in any way, e.g. if he/she
cannot hear the speaker properly. A point of order may be raised if a Delegate feels that there has been
a mistake in the proper use of the rules of procedure

End of Debate
The debate of an agenda topic ends, when the speakers list has run out, or if a motion passes for closure
of debate. Once the debate has ended, the committee will move directly into voting procedure and vote
on all draft resolutions that are currently on the floor.

Life of a Resolution and Amendments

The final result of a committee session should be the adoption of a resolution. A Resolution is a
document stating the concerns and intentions of the committee with regard to a certain matter. After
you have found allies in your committee, you can start drafting working papers. If you want to turn your
working paper into a draft resolution you need to a total number of 1/5 of the committee members as
sponsors (delegates that have worked on the resolution) or signatories (delegates supporting the draft
resolution) in order to submit it to the Directors. They will either accept your working paper or they will
ask you to make changes, in order to fulfill the formal requirements or to merge it with another group
that is working on the same idea. Once it has been accepted it will be copied for the entire committee
and the Director will ask for a motion to formally introduce the draft resolution. After its introduction,
you may refer to the content of the draft resolutions within formal speeches and other delegates will
have the chance to debate its content and amend the document. There will be a vote on all draft
resolutions at the end of the debate. However keep in mind, that your committee can only adopt one
resolution per topic.

Formal Requirements for a Resolution

There are a couple of formal requirements, which any resolution has to meet. The document consists of
two sections
a) The perambulatory section explains historic developments and facts that should be taken into
account whilst reading the resolution.
b) In the operative section the committee expresses its approach towards the matter and the particular
steps to realize this approach. Usually certain words are used at the beginning of a perambulatory and
an operative clause; these words are:

Perambulatory clauses
Acknowledging, Affirming, Alarmed by, Approving, Aware of, Bearing in mind, Believing, Confident,
Congratulating, Contemplating, Convinced, Declaring, Deeply concerned, Deeply conscious, Deeply
convinced, Deeply disturbed, Deeply regretting, Deploring, Desiring, Emphasizing, Expecting, Expressing
its appreciation, Expressing its satisfaction, Fulfilling, Fully alarmed, Fully aware, Fully believing, Further
deploring, Further recalling, Guided by, Having adopted, Having considered, Having considered further,
Having devoted attention, Having examined, Having heard, Having received, Having studied, Keeping in
mind, Noting further, Noting with appreciation, Noting with approval, Noting with deep concern, Noting
with regret, Noting with satisfaction, Observing, Pointing out, Reaffirming, Realizing, Recalling,
Recognizing, Referring, Taking into account, Taking into consideration, Taking note, Viewing with
appreciation, Welcoming

Operative clauses
Accepts, Affirms, Approves, Asks, Authorizes, Calls for, Calls upon, Condemns, Confirms, Congratulates,
Considers, Declares accordingly, Deplores, Designates, Draws attention, Emphasizes, Encourages,
Endorses, Expresses its appreciation, Expresses its concern, Expresses its hope, Further invites, Further
proclaims, Further recommends, Further reminds, Further requests, Further resolves, Hopes, Invites,
Proclaims, Proposes, Recommends, Regrets, Requests, Resolves, Seeks, Strongly affirms, Strongly
condemns, Strongly urges, Suggests, Supports, Transmits, Trusts, Urges

Formal Requirements for an Amendment

The wording of a draft resolution can be changed during debate. Operative clauses can be altered,
extended, shortened, added or removed. If you want to do so, submit your amendment in written form
to the Director, and state clearly what and where exactly you propose changes. It lies within the
discretion of the Director to approve the amendment. The chairperson will then distribute it to the
committee. When this has happened you may make a motion to introduce the amendment and there
will be a discussion in form of a moderated caucus on the amendment. At the end of the discussion the
committee will vote on the amendment. Once an amendment has passed it becomes part of the Draft
Resolution

Checklist for your Resolution

Heading 1. Code (e.g. Draft Resolution 1.1)
2. Committee name spelled out
3. Subject (as in the Study Guide)
4. Sponsors/ Signatories (in total 1/5 of the committee)
Preambular Clauses a) First word is a gerund (Recalling, Keeping in mind, etc.) and italicized
b) Comma after each clause
Operative Clauses a) First word is a verb in 3rd person and italicized
b) Semi-colons after each clause
c) Each clause is numbered and indented
d) Make sure there is a period at the end of the final operative clause.
Sub-Clauses Subclauses should only be used on operative clauses, and should only be used if there are a
legitimate 2+ sub-clauses - is there's only one, it should be folded up into the main clause. Subclause
structure usually has the first half of a clause in the main portion, prior to the colon, and then multiple
possible endings to that clause in each lettered sub-portion. Following any "path" through the clause will
yield a full clause - you can even do sub-sub-clauses to add another layer! A properly formatted sub-
clause examble is below.
1. Reaffirms that I:
a. like: i. you; ii. basketball;
b. hate: i. that guy;
ii. coffee;
2. (Next clause)
Style  Correct spelling/grammar/tenses: present tense
 Always use ‘Member States’ instead of ‘nations’ or ‘countries’
 Acronyms are spelled out the first time they are used, with the acronym in parentheses
Content
 Can your committee discuss what is in the working paper?
 Clauses may be ordered by more general to more specific
 International commitments are referenced correctly, or aren't referenced at all
 The central international documents i.e. UN Charter, any big declarations/ conventions, previous
Resolutions on that matter are referred to
 Make sure the clauses don't refer to anything too specific - i.e. a specific NGO or Member State
 Make sure the preambular clauses are not operative clauses in disguise
 This section should lay the groundwork and provide context for the operative clauses

Sample Resolution
United Nations
A/RES/65/309 General Assembly Distr.: General 25 August 2011 Sixty-fifth session Agenda item 13

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 65/309. Happiness: towards a

holistic approach to development
The General Assembly,
Bearing in mind the purposes and principles of the United Nations, as set forth in the Charter of the
United Nations, which include the promotion of the economic advancement and social progress of all
peoples,
Conscious that the pursuit of happiness is a fundamental human goal,
Cognizant that happiness as a universal goal and aspiration embodies the spirit of the Millennium
Development Goals,
Recognizing that the gross domestic product indicator by nature was not designed to and does not
adequately reflect the happiness and well-being of people in a country,
Conscious that unsustainable patterns of production and consumption can impede sustainable
development, and recognizing the need for a more inclusive, equitable and balanced approach to
economic growth that promotes sustainable development, poverty eradication, happiness and well-
being of all peoples,
Acknowledging the need to promote sustainable development and achieve the Millennium
Development Goals,
1. Invites Member States to pursue the elaboration of additional measures that better capture the
importance of the pursuit of happiness and well-being in development with a view to guiding their
public policies;
2. Invites those Member States that have taken initiatives to develop new indicators, and other
initiatives, to share information thereon with the Secretary-General as a contribution to the United
Nations development agenda, including the Millennium Development Goals;
3. Welcomes the offer of Bhutan to convene during the sixty-sixth session of the General Assembly a
panel discussion on the theme of happiness and well-being;
4. Invites the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States and relevant regional and
international organizations on the pursuit of happiness and well-being and to communicate such views
to the General Assembly at its sixty-seventh session for further consideration.
109th plenary meeting 19 July 2011

Committee Description

The Commission on the Status of Women is a functional commission of the United Nations Economic
and Social Council (ECOSOC). It represents the main international body focusing on the issue of gender
equality and the empowerment of women. Throughout its history, the Commission on the Status of
Women (or CSW, as it is more often referred to), has conducted a wide variety of actions regarding the
monitoring of women’s lives, changes and development with regard to empowerment in order to shape
global policies and to promote women’s rights within society.
1 History
Women's rights have been an issue for centuries and still are today. Abuse and inequality have been
challenging societies for a long period of time. This is one of the reasons why right from the very
beginning of the UN, representatives of the nations felt the need to create a special body dealing with
this part of human rights. It was at a time when both, the advancement of women and the abuses and
inequalities were calling attention. Moreover, at the San Francisco conference in 1945 when the UN
Charter was signed, this preoccupation started to take shape. At that moment, out of 160
representatives of the member nations, only four were women. Nonetheless, they managed to include
women’s rights in the document.1 With this stated, a sub-commission was established under the
Commission on Human Rights. However, the NGO representatives and women delegated to the sub-
commission did not think this was enough. They urged for the creation of a special and separate body.
Subsequently, the Commission was established by ECOSOC resolution 11(II) of 21 June 1946.

2 Structure

The membership is decided by the ECOSOC based on the geographical distribution. Likewise, there are
forty-five members representing forty-five countries according to the arrangements of the Council:
thirteen members from Africa; eleven from Asia; nine from Latin America and Caribbean; eight from
Western Europe and other States and four from Eastern Europe. They are in office for four years.
Meanwhile, they meet every year in New York at the United Nations Headquarters and for ten weeks
(February to March) they present their activity.

3 Activity and mandate

At the first Commission meeting in February 1947, all of the 15 delegates were women, which had been
unheard of before. Even more avant-garde: the Commission saw to it that gender-sensitive language be
used in the then draft of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.4 The main purposes of the
Commission were to evaluate the situation of women’s rights, to identify challenges, formulating
international conventions aiming at changing discriminatory legislation and fostering global awareness
of women’s issues, to make recommendations and formulate concrete policies to promote gender
equality and women’s empowerment. The Commission thus embarked on a vast research to assess the
status of women worldwide. Studies were launched in order to collect information on the legal status of
women, their access to education, their work opportunities and their civil rights.5 The Commission's
mandate was expanded in 1987 by ECOSOC resolution 1987/22 to include the functions of promoting
the objectives of equality, development and peace, monitoring the implementation of measures for the
advancement of women, and reviewing and appraising progress made at the national, subregional,
regional and global levels. The CSW is heavily involved with the World Conferences on Women (e.g.
1995 in Beijing) and monitors the implementation of their decisions.6 The Economic and Social Council
(ECOSOC) again modified the Commission's terms of reference in 1996, in its resolution 1996/6, deciding
that the Commission should: (a) Assist the Council in monitoring, reviewing and appraising progress
achieved and problems encountered in the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for
Action at all levels, and should advise the Council thereon; (b) Continue to ensure support for
mainstreaming a gender perspective in United Nations activities and develop further its catalytic role in
that regard in other areas; (c) Identify issues where United Nations system-wide coordination needed to
be improved in order to assist the Council in its coordination function; (d) Identify emerging issues,
trends and new approaches to issues affecting the situation of women or equality between women and
men that required consideration and make substantive recommendations thereon; (e) Maintain and
enhance public awareness and support for the implementation of the Platform for Action.7 Differing
slightly from other committees simulated at MUIMUN 2012, the CSW does not adopt resolutions.
Instead, it publishes so-called Agreed Conclusions which are less restricted in terms of style and
wording: While resolutions typically consist of one single sentence which is divided up into
preambulatory and operative clauses, the CSW's Agreed Conclusions may contain sub-headings and
multiple sentences.8 These Agreed Conclusions are then presented to the ECOSOC which should
consider the points that were made and try to help with their implementation.

4 Conclusion
The Commission proved during the second half of the last century to be committed to the promotion of
gender equality. It plays a major part in the international arena, raising awareness, shaping policies and
ensuring that UN activities share a gender perspective. It relies on the cooperation with governments,
UN entities, regional and international organizations and NGOs to keep promoting women’s rights and
to advance gender equality.

Topic : Tackling Religious Discrimination against

Women; Muslim Women in the West
“U.N. Women was created due to the acknowledgement that gender equality and women’s
empowerment was still, despite progress, far from what it should be. Transforming political will and
decisions, such as the member states creating U.N. Women, into concrete steps towards gender equality
and women’s empowerment, I think is one of the main challenges” – Michelle Bachelet

Introduction
Muslims, particularly Muslim women, are facing a rise of discrimination in Western European countries
in the aftermath of 9/11. National debates relating to the ban of ostentatious religious signs at public
schools or the burqa in the public space have contributed to the reinforcement of the stigmatization of
Muslim women and also their discriminatory exclusion in everyday life beyond the spheres addressed in
legislation on religious clothing. Sociological and anthropological research shows that the exclusion of
Muslim women has grown during the last decade: more and more Muslim women are barred from
education, vocational training, employment, health, housing, services, or public areas because they
wear a headscarf. Most of the time, Muslim women challenge their exclusion or their detrimental
treatment on the basis of religious discrimination. Not only do Muslim women perceive they are
discriminated against just on this ground but also the vast majority of courts, tribunals and Equality
bodies tackle the headscarf ban as discrimination based on the sole basis of religion or belief. Such an
approach does not take into account the multiple identities of the victims, e.g. as women and believers.
It does not capture the complexity of discrimination experienced by veiled Muslim women. Tackling
discrimination against Muslim women as merely a religious one reflects neither the reality nor the
mechanism of such a complex segregation process. Multiple elements playing a role in the
marginalization of this specific group of persons can be observed, like (alleged) foreign nationality,
ethnic origin or immigration background, and social status, which may amplify disadvantages in the
educational system and the job market (Barskanmaz, 2009 and Fundamental Rights Agency, 2009).

Discussion of the problem

1. How it all started
Since the early 1990s, heated debates have emerged in Western European countries about head and
body covering of Muslim women in the public sphere, particularly in institutions such as schools, the civil
service, and in courts. Different countries have found different ways of regulating the wearing of
religious clothes. While the debate began with a focus on the education sector, soon the public service
sector was included. In the meantime, commentators observed effects of the debates on the labor
market in general. As the EU Fundamental Rights Agency maintains, the selective bans on wearing the
Islamic headscarf, as a form of ‘Legal discrimination’, had an impact apart from those intended by the
laws and increased “the ‘Acceptability’ of such discrimination against women” (EU Fundamental Rights
Agency, 2011: 75). In conclusion, the effects of laws banning headscarves or face-veils are not restricted
alone to the passing and enactment of the actual law, but beyond that they become symbols in public
debates on Muslims in Europe, immigration, and integration, (Soharso and Lettinga, 2008, also Korteweg
and Yurdakul, 2011) which according to Mr. Sunier, tend to follow the logic of domestication of Islam in
Europe (Sunier, 2009). Different twists in the debates in different national contexts have led to different
policies and juridical measures throughout Europe.

2. Debates about the banning of headscarves in schools and

work places
Debates in the 1990ies and the early 2000s lead to the prohibition of students to attend public schools
with a headscarf in France and for teachers to wear a headscarf in public schools in Germany. However,
debates about possibilities of banning the wearing of headscarves have been discussed in all Western
European countries, yet with different intensity and subtexts but always reflecting on integration, the
role and visibility of religion and especially Islam in public space, national identity and the situation of
Muslim women (Amir-Moazami, 2007:158.). Throughout Europe feminists became leading voices in
these debates sustaining the opinion that the headscarf is an unmistaken symbol of the oppression of
women and therefore incompatible with women’s rights. This position is expressed in a statement of a
German women’s organization: “For TERRE DES FEMMES, the headscarf is a symbol of a patriarchal
gender hierarchy, i.e. the guardianship of men over women. This is maintained by both men and
women.”(4) The French philosopher Elisabeth Badinter warns that the tolerance of the headscarf would
in fact mean to abolish gender equality. “En autorisant de facto le foulard islamique, symbole de la
soumission féminine, vous donnez un blanc-seing aux pères et aux frères, c’est-à-dire au patriarcat le
plus dur de la planète. En dernier ressort, ce n’est plus le respect de l’égalité des sexes et du libre arbitre
qui fait loi en France.”(Badinter et al. 1989). Similarly, many feminist activists spoke in favor of
restricting the religious freedom of Muslim women in order to enable them to develop a free will and
independency of male domination. This included the support for exclusive solutions that compel women
to withdraw either their headscarves or themselves from society. This position is far from being
uncontested among feminists. In their effects Ms Freedman argues, “the policy of banning Muslim
women from wearing headscarves has in fact been detrimental to the exercise of their rights, acting to
further exclude them from European societies in the name of supposedly universal, but arguably
Eurocentric conceptions of women’s rights” (Freedman, 2007: 29). With reference to feminist debates
over banning the headscarf in the education sector in Germany and France, Ms Rommelspacher and Ms
Wallach Scott both point out the contradiction between justifying a ban with the aim to free Muslim
women from the oppression of traditional or patriarchal society and the consequences of the ban that
led to the expulsion of the headscarf-wearing women from schools or employment. This way, veiled
Muslim women, (i.e. those wearing headscarves), appear as women who need rescuing or, if trying to
speak for themselves, as dangerous elements in the project of Islamization. According to
Rommelspacher, this builds a foil that enables “Western-style” women to appear as “emancipated”
while the demands for gender equality within the European context are put on hold (Rommelspacher
2009 and Wallach Scott, 2007). Recent approaches in gender studies have described this phenomenon
as an intersection of different forms of hierarchies, in this case gender, race and religion that instead of
supporting them leads to further exclusion of those women who are perceived as victims of male
oppression.

3. Confronting the intersections between Gender and Religion

In a comparison of media debates and legal policies in four national contexts Ms Korteweg and Ms
Yurdakul contend that discussions of honour-related violence that stigmatize certain immigrant
communities are more likely to lead to general anti-immigrant policies or policies that impede
settlement, while debates that frame honour-related violence as a variant of the generally widespread
problem of domestic violence and violence against women are more likely to lead to policies that
directly target these forms of violence. The outcome is quite different as the authors show: in the first
case women are not supported, while immigration is further restricted, which by politicians is presented
as a means of fighting violence against women. In the second case victims of violence are directly and
indirectly supported in the field of NGOs (Korteweg and Yurdakul, 2011). Like restricting policies to
prohibit domestic and honor related violence, a ban of headscarves in certain sectors of education and
the work life on the one and the support of Muslim women in attempts to emancipate from male
domination by offering access to participation in society on the other hand offer two different answers
to address the marginalization of Muslim women (Holzleithner, 2008). Increasingly, restrictions on
religious clothing and headscarf bans are criticized, as Muslim women beyond the education sector see
themselves confronted with the decision between work or wearing a headscarf (Roseberry, 2011: 191).
They are furthermore described “as indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex and religion, as they
affect women more than men and Muslims more than Christians.” (5) Hence, measures that confront
one dimension of discrimination (gender) are not only questioned in their effects on a subgroup, but
perceived as responsible for discrimination at the intersection with another dimension (religion).

4. Data on Discrimination of Women

Recent quantitative surveys and data generated by NGOs that offer counseling for victims of
discrimination, show that effects of the bans have unfolded also in other areas of everyday life such as
public transport, searching for housing, in the health system, in the social service sector, or in their
neighborhood. Cases that are discussed publicly often refer to job refusals; Muslim women report cases
of being kept from a promotion in a job or being graded differently than other students in school. (Open
Society Institute, 2009) Amongst Muslim women, those wearing the headscarf are the first victims
suffering from discrimination. Even if Muslim men also can get into conflict over beards, turbans or
jilbabs, there has been a significant rise in complaints about unequal treatment of women who wear a
headscarf around Europe (1). According to a 2009 Open Society Institute (OSI) study led in 11 European
cities, 81% of non-Muslims state that they have never experienced religious discrimination, while this is
shared by only 35% of the Muslim respondents (OSI, 2009). The European Union Minorities and
Discrimination Survey (EU-MIDIS), carried out in 2009 within 14 EU Member States, also shows evidence
of a high level of experiences of discrimination among Muslims in general (2).In countries, such as
France, where statistics are broken down by gender, it appears that more women complain about
religious discrimination than men (3). Moreover, research carried out in the Netherlands showed that 15
out of the 40 Muslim women interviewed who wore a headscarf had experienced problems when
applying for a job because of their headscarf. Several of the Muslim women interviewed expressly
confessed that they did not apply for a position when they suspected that headscarves would not be
accepted (4). According to OSI city-reports, Muslim women also felt they had fewer job opportunities
because of their appearance, specifically when they wear a head cover or other Islamic clothing
(especially OSI, 2010b: 114). Similarly, a survey published by the Norwegian Centre Against Ethnic
Discrimination showed that 20% of the 300 private corporations that took part in the study would not
accept their employees wearing religious head-dress at work (5). Only a limited number of these
corporations referred to the working dress requirements. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the headscarf
ban in these cases is merely a way to meet legitimate security requirements.

Disadvantage and Discrimination

Socio-Economic Disparities
Disadvantage is measured through data. Patterns of disadvantage revealed by data are, in part, a
product of prior decisions about how to categorize people. These decisions, in turn, reflect political
decisions about which patterns are likely to be important and which groups deserve protection. Britain
is one of the few EU member states where the national census includes a question on religion and thus
allows the data to be disaggregated and analyzed by religion. Many European countries prohibit the
collection of data on the basis of personal characteristics such as religion. In others, while there is no
such prohibition, the official practice has been to collect data on the basis of ethnicity, national origin or
country of birth. In the absence of data on Muslims, as a group, some ethnic or national categories can
provide a proxy for data on Muslims. Within the research literature, the most significant ethnic proxies
for Muslims are Bangladeshis, Maghrebis, Pakistanis and Turks. Using data for these groups to
understand the position of Muslims has its limitations. First, not all members of the proxy group are
Muslims. Second, such data tell us nothing of the situation of Muslims beyond that group. Furthermore,
when the data are based on country of birth, they provide limited information on the situation of
second- and third-generation, European-born, Muslims from such ethnic or national groups. Within the
confines of this paper, it is possible to provide only a snapshot of some statistics and data relating to
Muslims, or proxy groups for Muslims, which indicate disadvantage in respect of some key socio-
economic indicators within the European Union. Disadvantage in the labor market can be measured in
several ways—for example, higher unemployment rate, lower employment rate, or concentration in
unskilled or semi-skilled sectors of the economy. Unemployment rates running at twice the national
average can be found for children of Moroccan and Algerian immigrants in France and for Turkish
nationals in Germany. In the Netherlands, the unemployment rate among Moroccans and Turks is
between two and a half to three times the national averages. In Belgium, the Moroccan and Turkish
unemployment rate, at 38 per cent, is five times the national unemployment rate of 7 per cent. In
Britain, data from the 2001 census show that, of young people aged sixteen to twenty-four, Muslims
have the highest unemployment rate of all groups. Even for those in work, employment is over-
concentrated in particular sectors. In Britain, 40 per cent of Muslim men with jobs were working in the
distribution, hotel and restaurant industries, compared with 30 per cent of Christian men. Moreover, 40
per cent of Muslims are in the lowest occupational groups, compared to 30 per cent of Christians.
Muslim men are among the least likely to be in managerial or professional jobs and the most likely to be
in low-skilled jobs. In France, 40 per cent of Muslims work in factories, compared to 21 per cent of the
general population. In the Netherlands, the majority of Moroccans and Turks with jobs are employed in
“elementary or low-level” jobs. These findings support the conclusion drawn by the European
Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) that Muslim “Unemployment rates are higher
than average. Muslims are often employed in jobs that require lower qualifications and as a group they
are over-represented in low-paying sectors of the economy.” - European Monitoring Centre on Racism
and Xenophobia, Muslims in the European Union: Discrimination and Islamophobia (Vienna: EUMC,
2006), p. 8. The impact of poor labor-market participation can be felt in other areas of life such as
income, housing and health. In the Netherlands, the average annual income in a Moroccan or Turkish
household (13,600 Euros) is one-third below the national average. Muslims in Britain are
disproportionately represented in the most deprived urban communities: one-third of the Muslim
population live in the 10 per cent most deprived neighborhoods. In France, around half of Algerians and
Moroccans and over 40 per cent of people of Turkish and Tunisian background live in social housing.
According to Sonia Tebbakh of the Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Grenoble, “the strong presence of
immigrants in [social housing] can be ascribed to their limited financial means and to a housing shortage
in the private sector”, this imposes “unequal conditions of access and selection”. Rates of certain
chronic illnesses, particularly cardiovascular diseases, are significantly higher among those of Turkish
background than in the general population in both Germany and the Netherlands. In Britain, health data
on ethnic minorities show that Pakistanis and Bangladeshis have the highest rate of diagnosed heart
disease. The 2001 British census indicates that Muslims reported the highest illness rates of all faith
groups. In education the picture is more complex. A study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development, measuring performance in mathematics, found that in France, Germany and the
Netherlands there is a significant difference in the performance of “secondgeneration” children of
migrants compared to the national average. But the last few years have seen significant improvements
in the attainment levels of Pakistani and Bangladeshi pupils in Britain and of Turkish and Moroccan
pupils in the Netherlands. In Britain, over half of Muslims aged sixteen to twenty-five participate in post-
compulsory education; this is higher than the national average (42 per cent).

Employment
While survey data show the levels of disadvantage experienced by some Muslims in Europe, identifying
the sources of this disadvantage and the role of discrimination in causing, reinforcing or exacerbating it
is more difficult. If we take the example of the labour market, disadvantage here is the outcome of a
variety of interrelated factors, including levels of human capital, structural changes in the economy,
social networks and place of residence. Roxane Silberman and Irène Fournier, for example, suggest that
the greater risk of unemployment in France among the second-generation children of nonEU migrants
cannot be accounted for by their educational levels. They argue that part of the explanation lies in the
lower social capital and access to employment in the networks of the children’s parents.4 While it is not
possible to gauge with precision the exact role of discrimination in the disadvantage experienced by
Muslims, there is evidence that discrimination does play some part. The EUMC notes that “There is a
large body of evidence that demonstrates the persistent scale and dimension of discrimination in
employment … The data show that not all migrants are equally exposed to racism and discrimination in
employment. Muslims appear to be particularly affected.” - EUMC, Muslims in the European Union, p.
46. In Britain, a government report analyzing available data on South Asians found that “even after
controlling for a range of factors, Sikhs and Indian Muslims remain almost twice as likely to be
unemployed as Hindus”. However, the report warns against any automatic conclusion that a “religion
penalty” necessarily exists as “religion may simply be a proxy for other factors determining employment,
such as education and fluency [in English]”.6Joanne Lindley’s analysis of this same data found that
Muslims experience “some unexplainable employment penalty, relative to other non-white religions,
over and above all other characteristics (including ethnic differences and language fluency)”. However,
while this supports claims that Muslims face religious discrimination, the difference may also conceal
further “immeasurable components”. International Labor Organization studies that involve “situation
testing” in employment in Germany and the Netherlands provide evidence of discrimination against
some Muslim groups. Situation testing in France found that a job applicant from the Maghreb had five
times less chance of receiving a positive reply than other applicants. Surveys of minority groups can
provide an indication of their perceptions of discrimination. In Britain, a 2004 Home Office Citizenship
Survey of those who had been refused a job in the past five years found that a quarter of Bangladeshis
and 12 per cent of Pakistanis blamed racial discrimination as the main reason for the refusals.
Perceptions of religious discrimination, lower than perceptions of racial discrimination, were highest for
Bangladeshis (13 per cent) and Pakistanis (9 per cent). Pakistanis were also the most likely to cite
religion as a reason for being refused a promotion in the preceding five years.

Outside the Workplace

Muslims experience discrimination in a wide range of areas besides employment. One review of reports
by non-governmental organisations and official bodies concludes that “direct and indirect discrimination
in the housing sector—both public and private—appear to be widespread phenomena”. Discrimination
can take the form of a refusal to rent or sell accommodation, the imposition of extra conditions to
obtain housing, and the application of discriminatory criteria in the allocation of social housing. Evidence
is also emerging of the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslims by police and security services in some
EU states. The International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights reports that in Germany, “since
September 11, thousands of Muslims have been subjected to screening for their personal data, house
searches, interrogations, and arrests solely because their profiles have matched certain basic criteria,
foremost of which is affiliation to Islam.” Other areas in which Muslims experience discrimination
include “civic integration” programmes. In Germany, the Gesprächsleitfaden (interview guideline)
produced by the government of Baden-Württemberg for examining citizenship applicants provides one
example of discrimination. The guideline, which targets applicants from Muslim countries only, consists
of thirty questions to help determine whether an applicant’s formal acceptance of liberal– democratic
values, as required by German nationality law, is sincere. All the questions, as Christian Joppke notes,
“are formulated in terms of a binary opposition between liberal democracy and a certain idea of Islam,
as prescribing or condoning arranged marriage, patriarchy, homophobia, veiling and terrorism”. Thus,
question 23 reads: “You heard about the assaults on 11 September 2001 in New York and on 11 March
2004 in Madrid. Were the protagonists in your eyes terrorists or freedom fighters? Elaborate on your
statement.” Joppke comments: While one may see insult in the transparency of such “questions” (and
correspondingly low intelligence imputed to citizenship candidates), their discriminatory edge consists
of “interpreting … the liberal-democratic order primarily in opposition to the presumed values of a
specific group”, as a legal evaluation of the Gesprächsleitfaden for the city of Heidelberg put it … In
other words, such “liberalism” is nothing but a device for excluding a specific group, Muslims.
The increasing restrictions on immigration and access to citizenship are perceived by Muslims in
Germany and Denmark as targeted at Muslim migration. In the Netherlands, a new “integration test”
has been introduced for family-reunification applicants that must be taken at a Dutch embassy abroad
and passed before even a temporary residence permit is granted. Joppke finds that “most of the family
migrants targeted by the Dutch policy are Muslims of Turkish or Moroccan origins”. Thus, “what began
as an immigrant integration policy has … turned into its opposite, a no-immigration policy”. A significant
proportion of refugees and asylum-seekers in Europe are Muslims. For this group, their refugee status
may be the main way in which they experience discrimination. Similarly, there are significant numbers of
Muslims among the population of undocumented migrants. The cultural anthropologist Nina Mühe
notes that “The one group that has no access at all to health and social protection in Germany is the
considerable number of the so-called illegal immigrants, many of whom are Muslims. All persons and
institutions that help those “illegals” are culpable of aiding and abetting illegal entry and illegal
residence, and by law every official institution must report any case of illegal residence.” - Nina Mühe,
Muslims in the EU: Cities Report—Germany (Budapest, Open Society Institute, 2007), p. 7. In European
states where the practical exercise of certain religious freedoms requires official permission, the
authorities’ discretion to grant such permission creates further areas in which Muslims may experience
discrimination. The most common examples include securing planning permission for mosques or
religious burial grounds, the right to slaughter animals in line with religious laws, the wearing of
headscarves by women, the state funding of Muslim schools, and the recognition of Islam as an “official
religion” in countries where there are institutionalized relations between the state and religious
communities. The debate over the right of Muslim women to wear an Islamic headscarf or hijab
illustrates the potential for the public discussion of such issues to reinforce stereotypes and prejudices
that further stigmatize Muslims and thereby increase their risk of suffering discrimination. The hijab has
become a symbolic focal point for the discussion of multiculturalism and national identity. In France,
where the hijab has been the topic of heated public debate since 1989, national legislation was passed
in 2004 prohibiting pupils from wearing ostentatious religious symbols in schools. In Germany, while the
Federal Supreme Court deemed the headscarf ban to be unconstitutional, it left it open for individual
federal states to introduce legislation banning religious symbols in schools. The court emphasized that
regulations introduced by individual states should be non-discriminatory, but many have not adhered to
this principle. The preamble to Baden-Württemberg’s legislation, for example, made it clear that the
regulations were aimed at Islamic headscarves and did not concern the display and representation of
Christian and Western symbols and traditions. Lawmakers relied on state constitutional provisions which
require schools to pass Christian values and traditions on to pupils

Legal and Policy Tools to Address Discrimination

EU Measures
What legal and policy tools can be utilized to tackle the discrimination experienced by Muslims in
Europe? Our focus will be on action that is possible at the EU rather than member-state level.
Discrimination was of concern to the European Economic Community at its inception in 1957 only to the
extent that it interfered with market integration. The community’s founding document, the Treaty of
Rome, contained only a general prohibition of discrimination against workers of member states on the
grounds of nationality, and a provision on equal pay for men and women, for equal work or work of
equal value. Thus, in the Treaty of Rome, “there was already something but it looked like nothing”. The
treaty’s sparse provisions were not expected to form the basis for a far-reaching system of tackling
discrimination or promoting equality; their primary purpose was market integration. Yet, over the past
fifty years, the European Union has become a significant catalyst for anti-discrimination measures in
member states, as the “limited conception of non-discrimination which was concealed in the Treaty
evolved over the years into a fundamental principle of social policy with constitutional aspirations”. EU
measures against discrimination were initially expanded to cover sex discrimination, first in relation to
equal pay, and later to ensure equal treatment in access to employment and in social security schemes.
The potential for action on other grounds of discrimination came with the insertion of Article 13 into the
Treaty of Rome by the Treaty of Amsterdam, which entered into force in May 1999. Article 13 provides
that “appropriate action” may be taken “to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin,
religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation”. This dramatic expansion of the grounds of
discrimination covered by EU law was the result of determined lobbying and concern about ethnic
tension in an enlarged European Union. Initial scepticism that the necessary unanimity would be ever be
found for measures to be passed was confounded when the inclusion of the far-right Freedom Party in
Austria’s government in October 1999 provided the impetus for urgent EU action. Two EU Directives
were adopted in 2000. The first, Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000, covered discrimination
on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin (hereafter the “Race Directive”). The second, Council Directive
2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, prohibited discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief,
disability, age or sexual orientation (hereafter the “Framework Directive”). The Framework Directive
confines itself to prohibiting discrimination in employment and occupation. The Race Directive goes
beyond employment to cover education, social protections such as social security and healthcare, and
access to and supply of goods and services. The Directives suggest that EU action is no longer driven by
market integration alone; they recognise that discrimination undermines achieving the objectives of the
Treaty of Rome, including the attainment of economic and social cohesion and solidarity. Racial
discrimination undermines the European Union’s goal of creating “an area of freedom, security and
justice”. Moreover, tackling such discrimination, beyond the narrow confines of employment, is needed,
as the Race Directive puts it, to “ensure the development of democratic and tolerant societies which
allow the participation of all persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin”. Evelyn Ellis argues that the
rationale for adopting Article 13 and its Directives “lies preponderantly in the concepts of fairness,
autonomy, human dignity and respect for human rights, the creation of a better society in which the
quality of people’s lives will be improved”. The European Court of Justice in Mangold v. Helm (2005)
held that the source of this principle of equal treatment in the Framework Directive is found in “the
various international instruments and in the constitutional traditions common to the Member States”.
The move from prohibiting discrimination towards achieving equality is further strengthened in the
European Union’s “Charter of Fundamental Rights”. The result, it has been suggested, is a model in
which the traditional anti-discrimination approach has been joined by a new commitment to substantive
equality and by a desire to manage diversity. Such a shift, from non-discrimination to equality, leaves
the concept of equality unresolved. The two Directives cover both direct and indirect discrimination.
Direct discrimination is taken to occur when a person is treated less favorably than another on the
prohibited ground. Indirect discrimination is taken to occur when an apparently neutral provision,
criterion or practice would put a person having a certain relevant characteristic at a particular
disadvantage compared with other persons unless that provision, criterion or practice is objectively
justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary. The
two Directives also deem harassment and instructions to discriminate to be forms of discrimination.
Harassment is defined as unwanted conduct related to the prohibited ground which takes place “with
the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person and of creating an intimidating, hostile,
degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”. Both Directives provide an exemption which allows
for discrimination on the basis of a certain characteristic where “by reason of the nature of the
particular occupational activities concerned or of the context in which they are carried out, such a
characteristic constitutes a genuine and determining occupational requirement, provided that the
objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate”. Furthermore, Article 2(5) of the
Framework Directive provides that the directive’s stipulations “shall be without prejudice to measures
laid down by national law” that are necessary “for public security, for the maintenance of public order
and the prevention of criminal offences, for the protection of health and for the protection of the rights
and freedoms of others”. As will be discussed below, the importation of such a broad exemption,
mirroring the language of the European Convention on Human Rights, may restrict the potential to
challenge state actions which indirectly discriminate. The Framework Directive also provides an
exemption from the prohibition on religious discrimination for faith organisations when “a person’s
religion or belief constitutes a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard
to the organisation’s ethos”. Furthermore, such organisations can “require individuals working for them
to act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation’s ethos”. These Directives lie at the core of the
protection that European law offers Muslims in addressing discrimination. While Article 13 is framed in
terms of combating discrimination, several aspects of the Race Directive and the Framework Directive
appear to entail more substantive equality. First, there is the reference to “equal treatment” in the title
of the Directives. Furthermore, in contrast to earlier EU Directives on equal treatment between men and
women, the Race and Framework Directives link positive action more clearly to the goal of “ensuring full
equality in practice”. However, the greatest potential for using the Directives to go beyond formal
equality lies in their inclusion of indirect discrimination among the forms of discrimination they cover.
Two distinct conceptions coexist of the function of the Directives’ provisions in this regard. Under the
first conception, the provisions serve to unmask instances of intentional discrimination. Under the
second conception, intention is no longer relevant; instead, the indirect discrimination provisions aim
“permanently [to] revise institutionalized habits and procedures, in order to make them more
hospitable to difference”. Thus, the indirect discrimination provisions have been identified by Tamara K.
Hervey as the “primary legal tool” for tackling structural inequality. However, the potential for achieving
structural change is circumscribed because the Directives allow that a criterion, provision or practice
that has a disparate impact on a certain group may be “objectively justified” if the measure is in pursuit
of a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

A
Vision of Equality
The use of the two Directives’ prohibition of indirect discrimination to challenge the structures and
institutional settings which discriminate against members of a particular group is more likely when there
is an understanding of why there is protection from discrimination on particular grounds and when
there is a general consensus as to what equality for that group would look like, at least in those areas
where equality law is being applied. Such understanding and consensus are necessary (but not
sufficient) to cause a shift from using the indirect discrimination provisions to address only concealed
intentional discrimination, to using them as a tool to revise permanently institutional habits and
procedures that are discriminatory. In tackling sex discrimination, for example, a growing understanding
of stereotyping and of the need to change structures that reproduce gender roles was important in
developing a clearer vision of what gender equality in the workplace looks like. The potential for
Muslims to utilize the indirect discrimination provisions to “revise institutionalised habits and
procedures” is constrained by the absence of any Europe-wide consensus on or vision of substantive
equality for Muslims. The provisions are a tool with which to challenge discriminatory institutionalised
habits and procedures and seek the accommodation of religious practices, such as religious dress,
festivals and holidays, prayers and dietary requirements. However, without broad consensus on what
would constitute religious equality, and agreement over the extent to which religious equality requires
such accommodation, using the Race and Framework Directives to challenge societal norms concerning
the role of religion in public life will be difficult. This is because, as noted above, any provision, criterion
or practice that indirectly discriminates against Muslims is open to being objectively justified. Here it
may be noted that the European Court of Justice has taken a “bifurcated approach” to justifications of
gender discrimination. The court is willing to question and challenge justifications when they are put
forward by an individual employer, subjecting them to a “robust proportionality test”; however, it grants
a broad discretion to justifications put forward by EU member states when the practice has been agreed
at state level and is found in legislation or reflects official state policy. Nevertheless, agreement and
consensus around what gender equality looks like do make it easier for the courts to challenge the
justifications put forward by individuals or the state. There are no such agreement and consensus on the
nature of religious equality. Furthermore, Article 2(5) of the Framework Directive introduces an extra
layer of protection for stateendorsed discriminatory practices. This exemption echoes the language of
the European Convention on Human Rights. In cases taken to the European Court of Human Rights by
Muslims claiming failures to accommodate manifestations of their religious belief, the court has shown a
readiness to defer, without significant interrogation, to the state’s claims that the restrictions on the
said manifestations are justified under the terms of Article 8(2) of the convention.

Conclusion
The lives of many Muslims in Europe are marked by social and economic exclusion and marginalisation.
The absence of the systematic collection of data on Muslims prevents us from drawing a comprehensive
picture of the disadvantage they experience. It should not, however, preclude us from seeing the
mounting evidence of this disadvantage, the reasons for which are complex and multifaceted. While it is
impossible to identify the precise contribution of discrimination to this situation, it is clear that it plays
some role. Article 13 of the Treaty of Rome provides the basis for EU action to address discrimination.
Weaknesses remain in the legal framework that has developed out of this basis. First, the Framework
Directive, which covers discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, does not cover key areas
where Muslims continue to experience discrimination, including housing, education, access to goods
and services, and the actions of public officials, particularly the police and immigration officers. Some of
these areas—education, housing, the provision of goods and services—would be covered if the scope of
the Framework Directive were extended to match that of the Race Directive. Other areas would still
remain outside the scope of EU action. In those areas covered by the Directives, the legal tools for
challenging embedded structural discrimination are in place, but their effective utilisation requires a
clear vision and consensus as to what religious equality for Muslims looks and feels like. The task of
developing such a vision can neither rest with Muslims alone, nor be developed without their
contribution. Here, organisations such as the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights and the equal-
treatment bodies of the member states have an important role to play. Finally, it is important to place
discrimination law in the wider policy context. Legal protection from discrimination is only one tool for
addressing Islamophobia and anti-Muslim prejudice. Effectively tackling discrimination requires using a
broader range of policy tools. Where, for example, discrimination is the result of the perpetuation of
stereotypes and prejudices about Muslims, then the solution lies in empowering Muslims to challenge
and disrupt these discourses. There is a role here for policies that encourage and support Muslim
participation in all areas of culture, from film, theatre and television to the arts and journalism.