A Veiled Threat: Belcacemi and Oussar v Belgium

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialAcademicpeer-review

1 Citation (Web of Science)


The freedom of the individual can easily come into conflict with his or her obligation to integrate in society. The case of Belcacemi and Oussar v Belgium provides a good example. It is evident that some restrictions of citizens' freedoms must be accepted for a state to function and, more basically, persist; as a consequence, it is acceptable that certain demands, incorporated in criminal law, are made of citizens. The issue of the extent to which such restrictions are justified has increasingly become a topic of discussion. The present case raises a number of important questions with respect to the right to wear a full-face veil in public if the societal norm is that the face should be visible, the most salient of which are whether women should be 'protected' from unequal treatment against their will and to what extent society may impose values on the individual. I will argue that Belgian law places unwarranted restrictions on citizens and that the values behind it testify to an outlook that is difficult to reconcile with the freedom of conscience and religion.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)190-200
Number of pages11
JournalEcclesiastical Law Journal
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - May 2018


  • Belgium
  • citizenship
  • religious dress


Dive into the research topics of 'A Veiled Threat: Belcacemi and Oussar v Belgium'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this