The Dutch National Police Corps discriminated against an officer by not allowing her to wear a headscarf in combination with her uniform, according to a decision by the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights. The official reason for this prohibition was to achieve a neutral and uniform appearance and to guarantee the safety of the police officer. In this case, police authorities were not able to convince the Institute for Human Rights that these inherently important interests are necessary for the discharging of her duties.

Prohibition not necessary

The police officer is a Muslim and wears a headscarf. She works at the police as an assistant for intake and service, which means that she is predominantly occupied with answering the mobile service desk and handling 3D reports (via a video connection). She had been free to do her work while wearing a headscarf, in civilian clothing, while all her direct colleagues, who perform the same tasks, work in their uniform. The woman wished to wear her uniform and headscarf, but police regulations do not allow the uniform to be worn in combination with a headscarf. Under the police force's 'Code of Conduct for Lifestyle Neutrality' regulation, any visible and recognisable sign of, among other things, (life) beliefs, religion and political convictions, is forbidden. This is necessary for the neutral, impersonal and uniform appearance of the police. This is also necessary for the security of the police officer, according to police authorities.

With the ban, the force aims to achieve a neutral, uniform force and avoid any appearance of the contrary. The prohibition is also meant for the personal safety of the police officer involved. In general, these are clearly important interests. In this situation, however, the prohibition is not a necessary means to achieve these goals. If the woman answers the mobile service number, the citizen does not see her. The prohibition therefore does not necessarily contribute to the intended appearance of the police. If the woman records 3D declarations, the citizen will see her. But because she is in a different space than the citizen, her safety is not at stake.

No impairment of authority

Neutral authority, in the sense of avoiding a possible appearance of non-neutrality or non-objectivity, is only relevant to a limited extent. This is mainly due to the administrative nature of the work performed by the woman. The woman writes reports but does not decide what the police will do with them. The police force therefore was not able to show that the ban is really necessary. The Institute finds support for this in the fact that the force also allows the woman to do her job with a headscarf. Although she is wearing civilian clothes, she is unmistakably seen by the civilian as a police officer. For this reason, the Institute finds that the National Police discriminates on the basis of religion by not allowing the woman to wear the police uniform in combination with a headscarf.

Boundaries

It is clear that the question of whether a headscarf should be considered acceptable in combination with the police uniform generates a wide range of reactions. On a national and political level, the discussion has reached different levels of intensity. Nevertheless, the police force is bound by equal treatment legislation and must balance the interests of those involved. On the one hand, the interest of the National Police in an optimal execution of their tasks, and on the other hand the interest of the individual employee who wants to profess his or her faith.

The equal treatment law requires that where clothing regulations entail an infringement on religious freedom, this infringement is limited to what is strictly necessary. This strict necessity, according to the Institute for Human Rights, was not demonstrated in this case. For this reason, the Institute found that the prohibition against the woman wearing a headscarf in combination with her police uniform is not objectively justified in this case.