|
Court Report for BGE 134 I 56 and BGE 134 I 49 Recently, in the Birr decision of 2008, the Federal Court had to consider a migrant’s naturalization application which had been rejected by the Municipal Citizens’ Assembly (Einwohner-Gemeindeversammlung) on the grounds that his wife’s headscarf represented a religious symbol of insufficient integration, and non-compliance with basic laws.[1] The Assembly argued: ‘The headscarf gives women a different gender and social role, which contradicts the principle of equality, guaranteed in general by universally applicable human rights, and in particular by the Swiss constitution. It is therefore contested that Mr. K. [...] respects, minds, and lives in accordance with equality between men and women’.[2] The Court ruled against the decision of the Assembly. It concluded that the ‘unequal treatment of the claimant as a result of a religious manifestation, and the compliance with religious practices by his wife cannot be justified on qualified or objective grounds whatsoever. Beliefs which are based upon religious motivation or advice to wear certain clothes are generally not to be examined or valued’.[3] Similarly, in the Buchs ruling of 2008 the naturalization of a migrant was initially refused because she was wearing a headscarf. The Municipal Citizens’ Council (Einwohnerrat) justified the refusal by stating that the migrant’s wearing of a headscarf ‘manifested a fundamentalist belief’.[4] In addition, the council claimed that the headscarf is not a religious symbol, but a ‘visible expression of the subjugation of women by men’.[5] However, the Federal Court held the local council’s ruling unconstitutional and responded: ‘The wearing of a headscarf by women, […] who believe in Islam is an expression of religious conviction’, and continued by stating that ‘allegations of individual municipal councillors, which deny the religious character and symbol of the wearing of a headscarf, cannot rebut this reasoning’.[6] It is noticeable that the question whether a headscarf can, indeed, be regarded as a religious symbol was neither posed, nor commented on by the court.
[1] It must be noted that the right to freedom of belief and conscience as protected under Article 15 of the constitution received in this decision no direct or independent meaning. It is the fundamental right to equality that was predominately in question here. Freedom of belief and conscience played a secondary role only. See Federal Supreme Court Decision (BGE 134 I 56, E. 4.1, S. 59).
[2] (Author’s translation) ‘Das Kopftuch weist Frauen eine geschlechtlich und sozial differente Rolle zu, die im Gegensatz zum Gleichheitsgrundsatz der universell gültigen allgemeinen Menschenrechte und insbesondere der Schweizerischen Bundesverfassung steht. Somit wird bestritten, dass Herr K. [...] die Gleichstellung von Mann und Frau respektiert, achtet und danach auch lebt’. See Federal Supreme Court Decision (BGE 134 I 56, Sachverhalt, S. 57).
[3] (Author’s translation) ‘Diese Ungleichbehandlung des Beschwerdeführers infolge eines religiösen Bekenntnisses und der Befolgung von religiösen Gebräuche durch die Ehefrau läss sich durch keinerlei qualifizierte oder objektive Gründe rechtfertigen. Glaubensinhalte, die ein religiös motiviertes Verhalten begründen oder bestimmte Bekleidungsweisen nahelegen, sind grundsätzlich nicht zu überprüfen und zu bewerten’. See Federal Supreme Court Decision (BGE 134 I 56, E. 5.2, S. 63).
[4] (Author’s translation) ‘eine fundamentalistische Glaubensrichtung bezeuge’. See Federal Supreme Court Decision (BGE 134 I 49, Sachverhalt, S. 50).
[5] (Author’s translation) ‘sichtbarer Ausdruck der Unterwerfung der Frau unter den Mann’. See Federal Supreme Court Decision (BGE 134 I 49, Sachverhalt, S. 50).
[6] (Author’s translation) ‘Daran vermögen die Behauptungen einzelner, die Einbürgerung ablehnender Einwohnerräte, die dem Tragen des Kopftuches den Charakter eines religiösen Symbols aberkennen, nichts zu ändern’. See Federal Supreme Court Decision (BGE 134 I 49, Sachverhalt, S. 50).
|
