Author: Blánaid Sheeran
Blánaid Sheeran is the In House Contributor of the ELSA Law Review Blog. She is a second-year student at the European Law School, Maastricht University. She also participates in the Faculty of Law Honours Programme and inter-faculty Honours+ Programme. She has worked as an editor at ELSA Maastricht Law Review (Emaas) since 2019.
1. Introduction
While grocery shopping in PPE would have drawn many a sideward glance five months ago, this is no longer the case. In a pandemic-struck world, it has become the norm to take all sensible measures to prevent the reckless transmission of COVID-19. More than 50 countries worldwide have recently mandated the use of face masks, or in some cases simple cloth coverings, in public spaces.[1]Face masks, whilst remaining complementary to other measures, are becoming established as a widespread means of source control.[2] The measures have been welcomed by citizens in many countries: 94% of participants in a French poll supported wearing masks,[3]while 84% of respondents in a US survey had actually used a face covering in public to curb the spread of the virus.[4]
The current appreciation for facial coverings is starkly juxtaposed with the increasing trend for enactment of legislation which totally or partially bans exactly that. This has caused many to question (or further question) the purpose of such bans and the true intention behind them. While the various laws appear neutral, and do not go so far as to single out the clothing or symbols associated with any specific religion,[5] it is apparent that the supposed wrongfulness of face covering depends greatly on the context of the act and the person who performs it.[6]
This post explores the concepts of lawful and unlawful covered faces in the context of the face covering measures adopted in Europe in response to COVID-19. In particular, the current mandates will be used to expand upon the analysis of arguments that promote the importance of a totally uncovered face for social interaction, as accepted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in S.A.S v France.[7] The potential influence of the exceptional trend for face covering in altering some European communities’ perception of the hijab will also be discussed. This post does not aim to balance all elements of the debate surrounding the wearing of the hijab, only to highlight and reason the inherent contradiction between concealment that is promoted and concealment that is abhorred.
As further detailed below, this post argues that the restrictions on face coverings were predominantly implemented with headdresses worn by Muslim women in mind. However, it is already necessary to define the scope of this term. A burqa covers the entire body, head and face, including the eyes. A niqab differs in that it leaves the eye area uncovered.[8] Hijabis often used to describe a cloth that covers the hair, ears and neck, while the face remains fully visible; however, its literal Arabic meaning denotes a much broader concept that has been used to incorporate all the aforementioned forms of headdress.[9] Authors diverge as to the most appropriate expression to encompass all clothing under consideration. By adopting hijab, when necessary, as an overarching term for the affected Muslim women’s head coverings, this post does not aim to deny or underestimate the significances of each individual garment, but rather to emphasise the single-minded nature of the targeted prohibitions.
2. The Bans Under Domestic Law
Legislative restrictions on the wearing of face coverings and/or religious clothing have grown increasingly common. The measures can be broadly categorised into total bans (prohibition in all public spaces) and partial bans (prohibition in certain places or situations). Moreover, while some countries enact their restrictions solely with the purpose of regulating religious clothing and symbols in certain circumstances, others have chosen the broader approach of banning face-covering clothing in all forms.[10]
France is a well-publicised example of the latter. Itis often referenced as the European pioneer in anti-face covering legislation. In 2004, Law 2004-2288[11] was enacted, thereby banning the wearing of signs or dress by which pupils manifest a religious affiliation in public schools, colleges and lycées. This was followed by a 2010 law banning face-covering clothing in public spaces.[12] Belgium followed suit, adopting a Federal Act prohibiting the wearing of any clothing totally or principally hiding the face in 2011.[13] Bulgarian law, as of 2016, imposes a similar total ban. Austria and Denmark, as of 1 October 2017 and 1 August 2019 respectively, are the most recent Member States to effect prohibitions on the covering of faces in public areas.[14] In contrast, other countries have more limited sectoral or regional restrictions, albeit with similarly exclusive effects. For example, in Germany, the Ludinjudgement[15] of the Federal Constitutional Court gave the Lander competence to decide whether a general ban on religious clothing and symbols was appropriate in public schools: eight Lander enacted such legislation.[16]
These restrictions are for the most part framed in neutral language. Even those which plainly state their purpose to be a restriction on the visibility of religious clothing do not distinguish which religion or specific practices they wish to circumscribe. However, public and parliamentary debate, as well as corresponding legal commentaries make it clear that the hijab was a significant concern of the legislators.[17] For example, the proposed 2007 amendment to the Dutch Penal Code specifically prohibited wearing the burqa or niqab in public.[18] During similar discussions over the prohibition of religious veils in Belgium, a law-maker considered it would be appropriate to call the law “Law Forbidding the Wearing of the Burqa or Niqab.”[19] Whilst neither of those proposals were accepted, they do provide insight into the mindset of some of the lawmakers who successfully adopted successive legislation in the area of face-covering. This position is further evidenced in application and enforcement of the laws. For example, in a survey on the manner in which Belgian judges applied Article 759 of the Belgian Judicial Code – “[t]he audience attends the sessions with uncovered heads…” – some judges, albeit a small minority, confirmed that they would require removal of an Islamic headscarf, but not of a Catholic nun’s veil. Others plainly stated they would require the removal of the Islamic headscarf, but not of any other religious head-covering.[20]
While the bans do not constitute a world-wide, or even Europe-wide,[21] phenomena, they do signal an increasing trend towards anti-face covering legislation. The legislative history and approaches to enforcement described above, show that Muslims have been particularly affected, and perhaps even targeted, by the recent spate of legislation. In this context, the compatibility of this trend with various international standards has understandably been questioned. This has ultimately led to repeated examination by the ECtHR.
3. Article 9 ECHR and the “Living Together” Argument
There are a variety of reasons why an individual may wear a hijab, not all of which fall neatly into the category of “religious”.[22] However, the dominant analytical approach, evidenced in case law and academia, has been that to prevent a person from wearing religious clothing constitutes an interference with his or her religious freedom.[23]
The fundamental human right to freedom of religion is found in Article 9 ECHR. Although interference with the fact of having a religious belief is prohibited,[24] Article 9(2)subjects the external manifestation of that right to limitations. This is called the forum externum and encompasses, inter alia, a Muslim woman’s right to wear the hijab.[25] Restrictions on this right must be prescribed by law, necessary in a democratic society, and fulfil a certain legitimate aim. In general, the ECtHR has held that states’ bans on the wearing of religious clothing are justified under Article 9(2).[26] Amongst the listed legitimate aims, the protection of the rights and freedoms of others has proven particularly contentious. It has often been argued, although not always successfully, to include the most controversial of aims such as, protection against proselytising, and gender equality. The ECtHR’s judgement in S.A.S v France extended the scope of the “protection of the rights and freedoms of others” even further. The applicant was a practising Muslim, living in France, who chose to wear religious clothing to conceal her face on certain occasions. When the general prohibition on face-covering clothing came into force, she could no longer do this. The Court accepted that “respect for the minimum requirements of life in society”,[27] otherwise known as the “living together” argument, is linked to the protection of the rights of others,[28] and concluded that the general ban is compatible with Article 8 ECHR.[29] The ECtHR accepted France’s claim that “the barrier raised against others by a veil concealing the face [breaches the right of others] to live in a space of socialisation which makes living together easier.”[30] In a somewhat ironic statement, the Court further noted the important role of the State in securing the conditions whereby individuals can live together in their diversity.[31] Ultimately, the Court accepted the essential nature of interaction between individuals, and the adverse effects that face covering would have on this.[32]
The judgment in S.A.S v Francetriggered a heated discussion surrounding the failure of international courts to protect hijab wearers. Today, the effects of theS.A.S v France are as relevant today as ever before. Several of the controversial statements accepted or made by the Court focus on the adverse consequences of the covering of a face on the interaction between individuals. As people across the globe don masks in the name of public health, many who once disapproved of covered faces have taken a quick turnabout.
4. The Mandates: Exceptions to Unlawful Concealment
Over 50 countries worldwide that have instated mandatory wearing of face masks or alternative face coverings in public.[33] Pressure for supply in the public market has run higher than ever before. Fashion houses,[34] carmakers,[35] mattress companies,[36] and a variety of other product manufacturers quickly adapted their skillset to help meet the new demand.[37] Considering the inevitable outcome for a popular product in limited stock during a time of panic-buying, it is no surprise that some governments and health authorities have recommended the use of homemade alternatives.[38] According to the CDC, simple cloth face coverings can be made from household items including bandanas, old t-shirts, or square cotton cloth.[39] The ECDC stated that non-medical face masks can even be made using materials such as paper.[40] Some evidence shows that non-medical face covers decrease the release to the environment of respiratory droplets.[41] Thus, their use may serve as a means of source control by stopping persons who are symptomatic or asymptomatic from infecting others.[42]
The mandating of masks has, in general, been supported by the public. This includes the populations of some countries with the most stringent restrictions on face coverings. In France, where 94% the population are reported to support the use of face coverings in response to COVID-19,[43] the government has refused to relax the application of the 2010 Law for the wearers of burqas and niqabs. In a statement given to the Washington Post, France’s Interior Ministry confirmed that women who wear religious face coverings will still be punished[44] This is in spite of reports that French authorities have not specified the requirements for a COVID-19-acceptable face covering.[45] In particular, this has drawn statements of criticism from those who argue that burqas and niqabs could provide equal or more extensive protection than the CDC’s and EDC’s suggested materials for homemade masks.
In the context of an increased trend towards restrictions on face coverings, the irony of encouraging face coverings has not gone unnoticed.[46] Unwillingness to allow certain types of face coverings, especially ones that provide a similar level of protection to their recommended counterparts, further supports the argument in favour of the hijab-targeted nature of the original restrictions. The longevity of face-mask normality in Europe cannot yet be known. However, many have become accustomed to the presence of thin cloth covers in their every-day interactions. Unfortunately, this tolerance has not necessarily been extended to hijab wearers.
5. Continuation of the Bans: Public Perception and Potential for Change
It indeed seems that the wrongfulness of concealment depends more on the identity of the actor than the context of the act. This statement stands both for the perception of those who enacted hijab restrictions and the populace of “others” whose rights and freedoms were supposedly endangered by even partially concealed faces. For the former, it is hard to overlook the nonsensical nature of maintaining a prohibition on any form of clothing that provides the same or greater protection than that which has been recommended. The latter, who, according to the ECtHR, “may not wish to see practices or attitudes developing [in public spaces] which would fundamentally call into question the possibility of open interpersonal relationships,”[47] have become a part of the very practice that supposedly breaches their right to living in a space of socialisation. This does not mean that the widespread use of face masks should be considered redundant or ill-intended, but it does encourage a critical analysis of why clothing that is, in particular, worn by Muslim women encouraged the legislative responses that necessitated exceptions in the first place.
The full extent of the substantial academic analysis in this area cannot be explored within the scope of this post; however, it should not be overlooked that the legislative movement against face-coverings in Europe developed in parallel with a heated discussion about immigration and integration. Inward migration has led to the diversification of the mainly Christian population.[48] In a reflection on the reasons behind the implementation of the 2010 French law, Barton notes that the threat of “otherness” is in particular felt in relation to Muslims. Potential differences in cultural, political and ideological beliefs are seen as a threat to the established order rather than something enriching.[49] By not complying with traditionally accepted practices and values, a person is considered “the other”. Veils, such as the burqa and niqab, have, in particular, been assessed with disapproval as a symbol of cultural threat.[50] The foundations of the discomfort or disdain with which some view veiled Muslim women may, in part, stem from their visible presentation as a challenge to states’ governance and dominant cultural norms.[51] This gives further insight into the pro-prohibition argument of “living together”.[52] It is apparent that the ECtHR’s perception of who constitutes the real “other” in need of protection is very different from whom it actually may be. Moreover, if the conscious or unconscious perception of the hijabis one of threat, the State’s role in “securing the conditions whereby individuals can live together in their diversity”[53] is in need of reassessment.
Disapproval of the hijab likelystems from many complicated presuppositions, some of which have already been highlighted. However, the intricacies of the argument that the “face plays an important role in social interaction”[54] deserves specific attention considering the subject matter of this post. The importance of a visible face in certain societies has manifested itself in the movement against face covering.[55] Bullock, a lecturer in Islamic politics at University of Toronto, proposes a distinct motive for the unease surrounding face-covering garb: face politics.[56] Western liberalism has led to a new perception of the meaning of a face. This includes the belief that reading a face can “display the essential nature of the person within.”[57] Its importance can perhaps be exemplified by the prevalence of sayings such as, “show your true face” or “ take at face value”. Thus, the “systematic concealment of the face in public paces”[58] that, according to the ECtHR, is simply irreconcilable with the fundamental requirements of “living together”,[59] may actually stem from the feelings of suspicion and unease in those who have grown accustomed to face-centred communication. While it is unlikely that facemasks will become a permanent feature in European society, the growing familiarisation of non-hijab wearers with face-coverings does have the potential for movement towards de-stigmatisation of face-coverings in general.
However, this view should not be overestimated. Considering the exceptional nature of the current situation, the public’s perception of face masks may simply be moulded into one of precaution in times of necessity. In an evidence review on the use of face-masks against COVID-19, researchers noted the applicability of the precautionary principle to the argument for ensuring widespread use of masks.[60] “When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm.”[61] The loss of life and economic slump seen throughout the past months is “morally unacceptable harm”; the positive impact of non-medical mask wearing is “scientifically plausible but uncertain”.[62] This principle can perhaps also be utilised to expand on the mindset of mask-wearers and those implementing mandates. Face-covering is not a factor for consideration in the ordinary (pre-pandemic) times but is only seen as a temporary and morally required addition to current life.
6. Conclusion
Political context and legislative history signal the targeted nature of the laws adopted to restrict the use of face coverings in public spaces. As the European pioneers in the introduction of such legislation, this argument has been furthered by the continued intolerance of, in particular, the French authorities towards the wearing of the hijab when circumstances led to the adoption of face coverings for the population at large. Ultimately, it is unsurprising that the perception of hijab wearers as a threat to the established way of life has not simply vanished. Fear and prejudice towards Islam in general have become an unfortunate reality in social and political discourse. This has led to the perpetuation of feelings of threat and unease towards the hijab. The irony in mandating, or at least recommending, face coverings in the context of their assessment as fundamentally incompatible with the requirements of living together is notable and has the potential to disprove certain misbeliefs about the hijab. Ultimately, considering the potential perceptions of those whose rights and freedoms are protected by the “living together” argument, the tension between the concepts of lawful and unlawful face covering is not irreconcilable. However, the double-standard emphasises the importance of continuing the critical analysis of ant-hijab legislative trends.
Sources
[1]Sources vary, see: Douglas Broom ‘Corona Virus: Here’s what you need to know about face masks’ (WE Forum, 22 May 2020) < https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/coronavirus-face-masks-rules-supply/> accessed 29 May 2020 ; ‘100+ Countries now have mandatory mask laws’ (#Masks4All, updated n.d.) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/coronavirus-face-masks-rules-supply accessed 29 May 2020; ‘Which countries have made wearing face masks compulsory?’ (Aljazeera, 20 May 2020) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/countries-wearing-face-masks-compulsory-200423094510867.htmlaccessed 25 May 2020.
[2]European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, ‘Using face masks in the community: Reducing COVID-19 transmission from potentially asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic people through the use of face masks’ (Technical Report, Stokholm 2020) https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COVID-19-use-face-masks-community.pdfaccessed 25 May 2020, 3.
[3]James McCauley, ‘France mandates masks to control the coronavirus. Burqas remain banned.’ (The Washington Post, 10 May 2020) https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/france-face-masks-coronavirus/2020/05/09/6fbd50fc-8ae6-11ea-80df-d24b35a568ae_story.htmlaccessed 25 May 2020.
[4]‘COVID-19: Tracking American Perspectives’ (Voter Study Group, updated 20 May 2020) https://www.voterstudygroup.org/covid-19-updates#accessed 25 May 2020.
[5]European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination, ‘Religious clothing and symbols in employment: A legal analysis of the situation in the EU Member States’ (Luxembourg 2017) https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?item_id=608849accessed 25 May 2020.
[6]James McCauley, ‘France mandates masks to control the coronavirus. Burqas remain banned.’ (The Washington Post, 10 May 2020) https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/france-face-masks-coronavirus/2020/05/09/6fbd50fc-8ae6-11ea-80df-d24b35a568ae_story.htmlaccessed 25 May 2020.
[7]SAS v France (2014) App no. 4385/11 (ECHR 1 July 2014), para 121, 122.
[8]Daniel Barton, ‘Is the French Burka Ban Compatible with International Human Rights Law Standards?’ [2012] Essex Human Rights Review 9(1), 2; Aymen Ati, ‘The Post-9/11 Securitisation of the Hijab and International Human Rights Law: the Strasbourg Court, Article 9 and Hijab Restrictions’ [2019] QMHRR 5(1), 6.
[9]Aymen Ati, ‘The Post-9/11 Securitisation of the Hijab and International Human Rights Law: the Strasbourg Court, Article 9 and Hijab Restrictions’ [2019] QMHRR 5(1), 6.
[10]European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination, ‘Religious clothing and symbols in employment: A legal analysis of the situation in the EU Member States’ (Luxembourg 2017) https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?item_id=608849accessed 25 May 2020, 8.
[11]Loi no. 2004-228 du 15 Mars 2004 encadrant, en application du principe de laïcité, le port de signes ou de tenues manifestant une appartenance religieuse dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics.
[12]Loi no. 2010-1192 du 11 Octobre 2010 interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l’espace public [Law 2010-1192 of 11 October 2010 Act Prohibiting Concealment of the Face in Public Places], Journal Officiel de la République Française (no 0273, 12 October 2010, p. 18344).
[13]European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination, ‘Religious clothing and symbols in employment: A legal analysis of the situation in the EU Member States’ (Luxembourg 2017) https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?item_id=608849accessed 25 May 2020, 82.
[14]Ibid; Aymen Ati, ‘The Post-9/11 Securitisation of the Hijab and International Human Rights Law: the Strasbourg Court, Article 9 and Hijab Restrictions’ [2019] QMHRR 5(1), 3; ——‘Denmark passes ban on niqabs and Burkas’ (BBC News, 31 May2018) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44319921 accessed 25 May 2020.
[15]Federal Constitutional Court, 24 September 2003, 2 BvR 1436/02.
[16]European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination, ‘Religious clothing and symbols in employment: A legal analysis of the situation in the EU Member States’ (Luxembourg 2017) https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?item_id=608849accessed 25 May 2020, 85.
[17]European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination, ‘Religious clothing and symbols in employment: A legal analysis of the situation in the EU Member States’ (Luxembourg 2017) https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?item_id=608849accessed 25 May 2020, 82 – 87; Sally Pei, ‘Unveiling Inequality: Burqa Bans and Non-discrimination Jurisprudence at the European Court of Human Rights’ [2013] 122 Yale L.J, 1090;
[18]Ibid, 1091.
[19]Ibid.
[20]Eva Brems et al, ‘Head-Covering Bans in Belgian Courtrooms and Beyond: Headscarf Persecution and the Complicity of Supranational Courts’
[21]Within the European Union (EU), only a minority of Member States have national, regional and/or local legal prohibitions.
[22]Jill Marshall, ‘The Legal Recognition of Personality: Full-Face Veils and Permissible Choices’ (2014) 10 Int’l J L Context 64, 65; Daniel Barton, ‘Is the French Burka Ban Compatible with International Human Rights Law Standards?’ [2012] Essex Human Rights Review 9(1), 10-11.
[23]Ibid; Sally Pei, ‘Unveiling Inequality: Burqa Bans and Nondiscrimination Jurisprudence at the European Court of Human Rights’ [2013] 122 Yale L.J, 1089.
[24]Daniel Barton, ‘Is the French Burka Ban Compatible with International Human Rights Law Standards?’ [2012] Essex Human Rights Review 9(1), 4; European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination, ‘Religious clothing and symbols in employment: A legal analysis of the situation in the EU Member States’ (Luxembourg 2017) https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?item_id=608849accessed 25 May 2020, 30; Aymen Ati, ‘The Post-9/11 Securitisation of the Hijab and International Human Rights Law: the Strasbourg Court, Article 9 and Hijab Restrictions’ [2019] QMHRR 5(1), 7-8.
[25]This element of the article is often referred to as the forum internum.
[26]European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination, ‘Religious clothing and symbols in employment: A legal analysis of the situation in the EU Member States’ (Luxembourg 2017) https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?item_id=608849accessed 25 May 2020, 32.
[27]SAS v France (2014) App no. 4385/11 (ECHR 1 July 2014), paras 121-122.
[28]Ibid.
[29]Ibid, 157-159.
[30]Ibid, para 122.
[31]Ibid, para 141.
[32]Ibid, paras 141-142.
[33]Sources vary, see: Douglas Broom ‘Corona Virus: Here’s what you need to know about face masks’ (WE Forum, 22 May 2020) < https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/coronavirus-face-masks-rules-supply/> accessed 29 May 2020 ;‘100+ Countries now have mandatory mask laws’ (#Masks4All, upated n.d.) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/coronavirus-face-masks-rules-supply accessed 29 May 2020; ‘Which countries have made wearing face masks compulsory?’ (Aljazeera, 20 May 2020) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/countries-wearing-face-masks-compulsory-200423094510867.htmlaccessed 25 May 2020.
[34]Lizzie Thomson, ‘Burberry is making gowns and masks for the NHS in its trench coat factory’ (Metro,30 March 2020) https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/30/burberry-making-gowns-masks-nhs-12479187/?ito=cbshareaccessed 29 May 2020.
[35]Emma Thommasson, ‘BMW to start producing face masks’ (Reuters, April 8 2020) https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-bmw/bmw-to-start-producing-face-masks-idUKKBN21Q0ZZaccessed 29 May 2020.
[36]Adele Jackson-Gibson, ‘Here’s Where You Can Buy Face Masks Online Right Now’ (Good Housekeeping, 4 May 2020) https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/health/a32081206/where-to-buy-cloth-face-masks-online/accessed 29 May 2020.
[37]Ibid.
[38]See, for example: CDC, ‘Use of Cloth Face Coverings to Help Slow the Spread of COVID-19’ (CDC, last reviewed 23 May 2020) https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.htmlaccessed 29 May 2020; Lauren Chadwick, ‘US recommends wearing cloth mask in public to prevent COVID-19 in stark change on position’ (Euronews, 4 May 2020) https://www.euronews.com/2020/04/03/could-more-western-countries-start-recommending-wearing-masks-to-prevent-coronavirus-sprea accessed 29 May 2020; First Nations Health authority, ‘ Homemade Face Masks’ (First Nations Health Authority, as updated May 14 2020) https://www.fnha.ca/about/news-and-events/news/homemade-face-masks accessed 29 May 2020.
[39]CDC, ‘How to Make Cloth Face Coverings’ (CDC, as last reviewed 21 May 2020) https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-to-make-cloth-face-covering.html accessed 29 May 2020.
[40]European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, ‘Using face masks in the community: Reducing COVID-19 transmission from potentially asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic people through the use of face masks’ (ECDC Technical Report, Stokholm 2020) https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COVID-19-use-face-masks-community.pdfaccessed 25 May 2020, 1.
[41]European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, ‘Using face masks in the community: Reducing COVID-19 transmission from potentially asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic people through the use of face masks’ (ECDC Technical Report, Stokholm 2020) https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COVID-19-use-face-masks-community.pdfaccessed 25 May 2020, 1.
[42]Ibid, 2-3; WHO, ‘Q&A: Masks and COVID-19’ (WHO, 26 April 2020) https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-a-detail/q-a-on-covid-19-and-masksaccessed 29 May 2020.
[43]James McCauley, ‘France mandates masks to control the coronavirus. Burqas remain banned.’ (The Washington Post, 10 May 2020) https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/france-face-masks-coronavirus/2020/05/09/6fbd50fc-8ae6-11ea-80df-d24b35a568ae_story.htmlaccessed 25 May 2020.
[44]Ibid.
[45]Ibid.
[46]See, for example: Katherine Bullock, ‘We are all niqabis now: Coronavirus masks reveal hypocrisy of face covering bans’ (The Conversation, 27 April 2020) https://theconversation.com/we-are-all-niqabis-now-coronavirus-masks-reveal-hypocrisy-of-face-covering-bans-136030accessed 26 May 2020; James McCauley, ‘France mandates masks to control the coronavirus. Burqas remain banned.’ (The Washington Post, 10 May 2020) https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/france-face-masks-coronavirus/2020/05/09/6fbd50fc-8ae6-11ea-80df-d24b35a568ae_story.html accessed 25 May 2020; Jason Silverstein, ‘France will still ban Islamic face coverings even after making masks mandatory’ (CBS News, 12 May 2020) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/france-burqa-ban-islamic-face-coverings-masks-mandatory/accessed 1 June 2020.
[47]SAS v France (2014) App no. 4385/11 (ECHR 1 July 2014), para 122.
[48]European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination, ‘Religious clothing and symbols in employment: A legal analysis of the situation in the EU Member States’ (Luxembourg 2017) https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?item_id=608849accessed 25 May 2020, 20.
[49]Daniel Barton, ‘Is the French Burka Ban Compatible with International Human Rights Law Standards?’ [2012] Essex Human Rights Review 9(1), 24.
[50]Katherine Bullock, ‘We are all niqabis now: Coronavirus masks reveal hypocrisy of face covering bans’ (The Conversation, 27 April 2020) https://theconversation.com/we-are-all-niqabis-now-coronavirus-masks-reveal-hypocrisy-of-face-covering-bans-136030accessed 26 May 2020.
[51]Siobhán Mullally, ‘Civic Integration, Migrant Women and the Veil’ [2011] 74(1) The Modern Law Review, 29; Daniel Barton, ‘Is the French Burka Ban Compatible with International Human Rights Law Standards?’ [2012] Essex Human Rights Review 9(1), 26.
[52]SAS v France (2014) App no. 4385/11 (ECHR 1 July 2014), para 121.
[53]SAS v France (2014) App no. 4385/11 (ECHR 1 July 2014), para 141..
[54]SAS v France (2014) App no. 4385/11 (ECHR 1 July 2014), para 122.
[55]For further discussion on securitisation, see: Ibid.
[56]Katherine Bullock, ‘We are all niqabis now: Coronavirus masks reveal hypocrisy of face covering bans’ (The Conversation, 27 April 2020) https://theconversation.com/we-are-all-niqabis-now-coronavirus-masks-reveal-hypocrisy-of-face-covering-bans-136030accessed 26 May 2020.
[57]Ibid.
[58]SAS v France (2014) App no. 4385/11 (ECHR 1 July 2014), para 141.
[59]Ibid.
[60]Jeremy Howard et al, ‘Face Masks Against COVID-19: An Evidence Review’ (Preprints.org, 13 May 2020) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340603522_Face_Masks_Against_COVID-19_An_Evidence_Reviewaccessed 1 June 2020.
[61]Ibid.
[62]Ibid.
