“Burkini” bans in Belgian municipal swimming pools: Banning as a default option
| Published date | 01 December 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0924051918801613 |
| Date | 01 December 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
‘‘Burkini’’ bans in Belgian
municipal swimming pools:
Banning as a default option
Eva Brems
Professor, Human Rights Centre at Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Saı
¨la Ouald Chaib
Postdoctoral researcher, Human Rights Centre at Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Katrijn Vanhees
PhD candidate, Human Rights Centre at Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Abstract
Muslim women’s religious dress is a matter that exercises many minds and the recent public debate
on the so-called ‘‘burkini’’ (preferably phrased as ‘‘body covering swimwear’’) is the umpteenth
variation on the theme. Following the French commotion on the presence of ‘‘burkini’’ wearers at
the coast in 2016, the ‘‘burkini’’ became the subject of public debate in Belgium. Whereas the
‘‘burkini’’ did not cause much public unrest in the context of the Belgian coast, the majority of local
swimming pools in the Flemish region of Belgium do have dress codes banning the ‘‘burkini’’, even
before the (inter)national media outcry. This article discusses the prevalence of these restrictive
dress regulations and scrutinizes the rationalisation behind local ‘‘burkini’’ bans in municipal
swimming pools. These findings are complemented with the perspectives and experiences of
‘‘burkini’’ wearers, who challenged the ‘‘burkini’’ bans before the court. Finally, this article analyses
the ‘‘burkini’’ bans in light of European human rights standards.
Keywords
Religious dress, municipal regulations, swimming pools, discrimination, Flanders, European Court
of Human Rights
Corresponding author:
Eva Brems, Human Rights Centre at Ghent University, Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
E-mail: eva.brems@ugent.be
Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights
2018, Vol. 36(4) 270–289
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0924051918801613
journals.sagepub.com/home/nqh
NQHR
NQHR
1. Introduction
In the summer of 2016, so-called ‘‘burkini’’ bans on French beaches drew worldwide attention. In
its neighbouring country Belgium, politicians and media eagerly joined the debate, confirming
once more the saying ‘when it pours in Paris, it rains in Brussels’. France’s ‘‘burkini’’ beach bans
were eventually ruled illegal, and Belgium never introduced them. Yet in the meantime, under the
radar in Belgium, body covering swimwear is banned in the majority of municipal swimming
pools, which are the prime swimming spots in the country. The lack of attention for these bans in
municipal swimming pools is surprising, especially since their potential impact on women who
wish to swim with a ‘‘burkini’’ is even more important than bans applying to the beach. In fact,
these bans in swimming pools deny access to basic sport activities throughout the entire year. This
research zooms in on such bans in Flanders, the Northern Dutch-language region of Belgium. In
Section 2 it maps the prevalence and stated reasons behind Flemish ‘‘burkini’’ bans in municipal
swimming pools, Section 3 looks into the experiences of ‘‘burkini’’ wearers, before analysing the
bans in the light of European human rights standards in Section 4. First however, a short intro-
duction is due to the ‘‘burkini’’ debate, which is discussed in Section 1.1 and the Belgian context
regarding restrictions on female Muslims’ dress is discussed in Section 1.2.
1.1. ‘When it pours in Paris ...’: The ‘‘burkini’’ debate in the summer of 2016 in France
The word ‘‘burkini’’ is an unfortunate description.The combination of ‘‘burqa’’and ‘‘bikini’’ is only
witty if one can shake off the negative connotations of the idea of a burqa. Since the introduction of
the so-called ‘‘burqa bans’’ in France and Belgium - in 2010 and 2011 respectively -
1
that is not an
option. Yet what sounds like an Islamophobic slur in Europe, was conceived as simply an eye-
catching brand name in the very different context of Australia. In a country with a strong beach
culture, the designer was targeting a previously unaddressed segment of the market:Muslim women
who want to respe ct religious modesty requiremen ts, while fully participating i n Australia’s beach
culture.
2
Despite being a brand name and registered trademark, burqini/burkini became the generic
term to indicate body covering swimwear worn by Muslim women, as is available from numerous
brands today.
3
It is made out of similarfabric as other swimwear. It covers theentire body, but leaves
the face, the hands and the feet uncovered.
4
It consists of two separate pieces; the pants and a tunic
worn over the pants. Additionally, the swimsuit also comes with a cap or hood, sometimes attached
to the swimsuit, which in many cases covers the neck as well.
It was at the end of July 2016 – with the beach season at Coˆte d’Azur in full swing- that the
mayor of Cannes launched the new trend of banning ‘‘burkinis’’ from the municipal beaches.
5
1. France: Act n2010-1192 of 11 October 2010 prohibiting the concealment of the face in public; Belgium: Act of 1 June
2011 to institute a prohibition on wearing clothing that covers the face, or a large part of it, BS 13 July 2011.
2. ; accessed 22 August 2018; Helen McCue and Ghena Krayem, ‘Shari’a and Muslim Women’s Agency in
a Multicultural Context: Recent Changes in Sports Culture’ in A. Possamai and others (eds.), The Sociology of Shari’a:
Case Studies from around the World (Springer 2015) 112.
3. The authors prefer the use of the term ‘body covering swimwear’. For the purpose of this article, however, they will use
the term ‘‘burkini’’ for practical reasons.
4. Some models have shorter sleeves and pants.
5. Concretely, these decisions did not mention the ‘‘burkini’’ as such, but rather banned swimwear that did not respect the
principle of laı
¨cit´
e(the French conception of secularism), for example municipalities of Cannes and Villeneuve-Loubet,
as cited by Council of State, cf. infra.
Brems et al. 271
To continue reading
Request your trial