After years of service with the Rotterdam Police Department, Sarah Izat was offered a promotion to the position of extraordinary investigating officer. She was overjoyed, but when she arrived for her first day of work wearing a headscarf with her uniform, she was sent home. The reason: according to the department, wearing a headscarf contravenes the department's internal Code of Conduct, which requires police officers to embody neutral and uniform police authority. Furthermore, the department said that this is in the interests of the security of Izat herself.

The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights disagreed. On 20 November 2017, the institute ruled that Sarah was allowed to wear a headscarf as a police officer, since it does not harm the neutral and uniform authority of the police and does not jeopardise her safety.

Neha Bagga of Liberties member NJCM interviewed her.

Neha Bagga: What was your reaction when you heard the ruling of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights?

Sarah Izat: The judgment of the institute was satisfactory. I see it as victory in the ambition of a Muslim woman in the labour market, especially after the Achbita ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union earlier this year. In that judgment, the Court confirmed that it is in principle permitted for employers to prohibit the wearing of religious symbols in the workplace. However, this must be done under certain conditions. I think that the Court's ruling legitimises discrimination, in particular towards Muslim women. I believe that this decision ensures that you as a Muslim are suddenly limited in your opportunities in the labour market. Because of the judgment, you have to reconsider previously made choices while you do not really want to. You are forced to choose between your principles and something you like to do: enter the labour market and participate. I don't think that is necessary, but the Court of Justice does. Thanks to the advice from the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, I can hope again.

From normal student and police officer in Rotterdam to a well-known Dutch person. How did you experience this transition, especially after your announcement in the newspaper de Volkskrant?

I have not noticed a transition. I am still Sarah Izat, a normal student and a proud police officer. I think the most important thing is to be myself. But what I hope is that I can now speak for several groups in society. That more people support me, so I can represent them. With that in mind, I am ready to fight. To fight for universal values and norms and to bring people together. That is something that I want to stand up for. But at the same time, it is also a fight that I fight with myself. I therefore do a lot of self-reflection to remain critical and sharp, not only to the rest of the world, but also to myself.

This issue has caused much discussion in the Netherlands. The criticism (especially on social media) was out in the open. How do you deal with that?

I let it go. I do not take those reactions very seriously, although I do read them. Everyone has the right to say what he or she thinks, and so do I. I am accused of standing up for my rights through legal means. But I do not do anything other than what is in the police Code of Conduct, which allows us to use these legal means. Everyone can have an opinion and express it. I have a lot of respect for that and I also understand that people talk from their emotions. But let us treat each other with respect. I also get a lot of nice reactions. Recently I received a handwritten letter from a lady in Rhoon. I think it was a beautiful gesture and nice that she takes the trouble to write me. Things like that will make everything right again.

The decision of the institute is an advice; it is not binding. Why did you still choose to go to the Institute for Human Rights?

If you go to court and have no previous judgments that defend your position, you have already lost, especially in view of the Achbita ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. The reason I chose the institute is that it specifically looks at human rights. Since I think I am restricted in my right to freedom of religion, I chose to go there. I am aware that the advice of the institute is a principled decision and that the police do not have to follow this, but what we should not forget is that it is authoritative. The police will have to look at the advice. Moreover, this statement creates positive case law. So suppose we still want to go to court, I now have this advice that supports me in that process.

Earlier you stated that the Dutch police experience an 'identity crisis', because on the one hand they want to express neutrality based on the Code of Conduct and on the other hand they want to be inclusive. In your opinion, how could the Code of Conduct convey a better balance between neutrality and inclusiveness?

I think neutrality is something that should be discussed at a much earlier stage, already during the job interview. In addition, I think it is important that we really go into what neutrality entails and link that term to police action. I do not regard someone as neutral on the basis of someone's appearance. If we elaborate on neutrality in a way that everyone agrees with, then we can apply it in the selection. We can really find something for this. Think of more intense background checks or an extra course in the training of police officers. I am willing to work with the police on this.

What do you think the effect of the judgment will be? Did you already think about this?

It may be that the police do not follow the decision. In that case, I will happily keep on working for the police. But it may be that they do. Then that would really be a dream come true. The point is that in both cases the police will study the judgment. Now we just have to wait.

What I hope to have achieved with this judgment is that Muslim women are not held back by rules of a discriminatory nature and that they also stand up for their rights. However, this does not only apply to Muslim women, but to everyone who believes that they have been discriminated against on any grounds whatsoever.

You have previously indicated that you want to become a judge and that you value inclusiveness. Suppose you hold this function. How do you think you can contribute to that inclusiveness later in that position?

It will probably take a long time before I have achieved that, because I first want to gain experience and get to know the interaction between law and society. But what I see around me now is that women are still underrepresented in certain international and European courts. For example, the Court of Justice of the European Union has 27 judges of which only 5 are women. Even more worrying is the example of the International Court of Justice, which has 15 judges of which only 3 are women. The Netherlands itself has dropped to 32 in the global gender equality ranking.

I hope that by the time I am a judge, I no longer have to fight the battle for inclusiveness and representativeness. But if that is necessary, I would like to boost those numbers.

What are your plans for the future?

I find it difficult to say, but I have always wanted to hold a position in which I represent people. I always see that ambition coming back to me. It started with being a class representative in high school and grew into the ambition to become minister of foreign affairs. I have many ambitions, but I would need multiple lives to make them all true. What I sincerely hope is that I can make a positive contribution to the position of women and the recognition of women's rights. Many women, even now, are often seen as inferior. These women deserve a name. I hope to play a role in this by representing this group in order to ultimately eliminate discrimination in any kind of capacity.

Interview by: Neha Bagga of the NJCM, working group European Law