The Politicization of the Headscarf in The Netherlands

Anass Bendrif and Matthew Haney

Introduction
Over the past 50 years, The Netherlands has been transformed from a relatively homogeneous society to one characterized by ethnic and cultural diversity. Today over 8% of The
Netherlands 16 million people are of non-Dutch origin. More
than half of the non-Dutch are Muslims, mostly from Turkey
and Morocco. In many ways, The Netherlands evolution to
a multicultural society has paralleled that of other European
countries, including Germany, France, England, and
Denmark. Even the high percentage of Muslims among new
immigrants is not unique to The Netherlands. Yet with its long
history of inclusive nationalism, religious pluralism, and deepseated tolerance, The Netherlands has generally been more
successful than its neighbors at accepting new immigrants
and their accompanying cultural differences. Where in other
European nations conflicts over multiculturalism and even
outright racism towards immigrants have long been prevalent,
The Netherlands have been historically able to maintain a
largely benign environment for incoming immigrants and their
children.

tion of this debate in Dutch society. Finally, the voices of

women who wear the scarves are presented, along with
analysis and thoughts for the future.

However, over recent years The Netherlands has found itself

increasingly engaged in conflicts over multiculturalism that are
similar to its European neighbors. In particular, debates over
the merits of multiculturalism and even outright attacks on
Islam and Muslims have become widespread. People have
begun to question whether or not Islam is compatible with
Dutch norms and values. It is in this context that the debate
over the headscarf, a simple cloth that many Muslim women
wear, has erupted. (The headscarf is alternately known as the
veil or simply scarf). For some, use of the headscarf is
considered symbolic of the oppression of Muslim women and
the ills and intolerance of Islam. For others, the right to wear
it is seen as an issue of civil rights related to the maintenance
of historical and cultural identity, transcending national
boundaries. This debate has entered the political arena as
politicians and the media have joined with regular citizens in
framing the discussions.

While many immigrants came to The Netherlands as guest

workers, many others came as repatriates from Dutch
colonies or former Dutch colonies. Between 1946 and 1962
during the decolonization process over 300,000 migrants
from Indonesia and New Guinea arrived. The majority was of
mixed Indonesian-Dutch descent and entitled to settle in The
Netherlands on the basis of their Dutch citizenship. Suriname,
another former Dutch colony, also figures prominently in
Dutch immigration. Until 1975 Suriname formed part of the
Dutch Kingdom. Surinamese migration was therefore open
and easy. Migration from Suriname was highest during the
few years leading up to independence in 1975, as well as in
1979, immediately before the expiration of the transitional
agreement on the settlement of mutual subjects. Dutch citizens of Surinamese origin now number over 300,000. Finally,
the Dutch Antilles, which is still a part of the Dutch Kingdom,
has open immigration with The Netherlands. Therefore many
Antilleans move fluidly between The Netherlands and their
home country. Nevertheless, there are nearly 100,000
Antillean-Dutch residents in The Netherlands.

Overview: Multiculturalism in The Netherlands

The beginning of The Netherlands transformation into an
immigrant country can be traced to the mid-1950s. Labor
shortages resulting from the demands of postwar reconstruction led the country to recruit guest workers. The first wave
of guest workers was primarily from Spain, Italy, and
Yugoslavia. This was followed by an influx of large numbers
of guest workers from North Africa and Turkey. At the time, it
was thought that most of these guest workers would return
to their home countries. Yet many, particularly the Turkish and
North African guest workers, chose to stay. Beginning in the
late 1970s, some were even able to bring their families from
their home countries. By January 1994, the number of residents from the former recruitment countries had increased to
450,000, of which Turks and Moroccans formed by far the
largest groups.

Examination of the timing and content of debate over Muslim

womens use of the headscarf in The Netherlands offers
insight into evolving Dutch attitudes towards Islam and multiculturalism. To that end, this paper gives an overview of the
history and character of multiculturalism in The Netherlands.
In particular, the countrys strong character as a tolerant
nation is considered. The September 11th terrorist attacks,
along with other factors that have fueled the headscarf
debate, are reviewed. Contemporary debate over the headscarf is presented, followed by emerging effects of politiciza-

The aggregate of these migration waves has yielded an

increasingly multi-cultural society in The Netherlands, totaling
8% of the total Dutch population. And as noted, over half of
these immigrants come from Muslim countries, with many
bringing Islam and its visible cultural practices, including use
of the headscarf, with them.

68

The Tolerant Nation

Though The Netherlands has only recently become an ethnically diverse society, it has long been a culturally diverse society. There is and always has been significant cultural variation
in Dutch society, deriving from differences in religion, class,
and regional and urban-rural variations. Historically, religion
has been the most dominant of these elements of diversity. In
particular, Catholics and Protestants in Dutch society have
built their own respective organizational networks spanning all
domains of public life in a process known as pillarization.
Pillarization, along with the generally decentralized nature of
Dutch society, has led to a relatively weak nationalism in The
Netherlands. This contrasts with other European countries,
such as Germany and France, where the greater unity of language, culture and religion is a fundamental aspect of nationalism. As such, The Netherlands version of nationalism has
proven less rigid and more inclusive than that of other
European nations.

woman and her headscarf were generally not harrassed at a

societal level; the issue was simply not even on the table.
The Shift in Political Discourse: September 11th
and Other Factors
So what changed? What is it that pushed this tolerant nation
into a fierce and at times violent debate about multiculturalism
and particularly about Islam? There were early warning signs
in the mid and late 1990s. National debates on minority policy, immigration, and illegal migrants began to garner greater
attention. An increasingly unfriendly climate towards asylum
seekers and foreigners across Europe gave strength to antiimmigrant parties in The Netherlands. In national parliamentary elections in May 1994, such parties won 3 of 150 seats
still a relatively small percentage in the European context, but
three times more than before in The Netherlands. Though
these parties did not present any major threat, they did offer
signs that impatience and frustration with multiculturalism
were on the rise. For example, in its 1999 and 2000 annual
reports, the National Bureau Against Racial Discrimination
drew attention to the frustrations as to tolerance and the
multicultural society and the eagerness with which the public and the media complain about aspects of the multicultural
society.

In addition to its more inclusive nationalism, The Netherlands

has also been highly tolerant of variant behaviors and practices that other nations have restricted or banned. In fact,
there are ample reasons why The Netherlands is hailed by
many as the worlds most tolerant nation. It was the first
country to accept marriage between same-sex couples, to
regulate prostitution, to approve and control euthanasia, and
to allow the over-the-counter sale of marijuana. According to
Professor Rosi Braidotti, Director of Gender Studies at the
University of Utrecht, Because of The Netherlands' mainly
Protestant roots, the Dutch generally believe that if you leave
a human being to himself he will be a good person.
These factorsa history of tolerance, inclusive nationalism,
and cultural variationcombined to create a more benign
and accepting environment for immigrants to The
Netherlands than existed in many other European nations.
Though the period up until the late 1990s did witness some
debate over multiculturalism and Islam, it was rarely as heated or divisive as it was in neighboring countries. In fact,
beginning in the 1970s, The Netherlands began to make
proactive efforts to include and welcome new immigrants into
Dutch society. In the Minorities Bill of 1983 a multicultural and
pluralistic society is envisaged in which immigrants have the
same rights and opportunities to practice and develop their
own cultural and religious identity as do other groups in Dutch
society. As part of this bill, the government set out to
strengthen immigrant communities, stimulate their political
participation and facilitates their religious activities.

Though there was clearly some dissatisfaction and even

anger boiling underneath the surface of Dutch society
throughout the 1990s, the terrorist attacks of September
11th, 2001, brought the problem of Islam in The
Netherlands to the forefront. According to Halim El Madkouri,
the Director of the Programme for Religion and Identity at
FORUM, the Institute for Multicultural Development, It was
the terrorist attacks of September 11th that opened the door
in The Netherlands for both the attack on Islam and [the
attack on] the headscarf. All of a sudden, this largely tolerant society began to witness a rising tide of racism and discrimination against Muslims, as well as the emergence of a
public debate over the merits of a multicultural society.
Prominent politicians and scholars across the political spectrum attacked the concept of a multicultural society and
argued for dramatic changes in the countrys policies towards
immigrants and refugees. Much of this debate was directed
at Islam and the effect that the presence of Islam was having
on Dutch society. As Rod Dreher from the National Review
puts it, If not for the Islamist terrorist attacks, the fear and
loathing many Dutch people have concerning the presence of
Muslims in their country would not have been aired in
Hollands ultra-politically correct public square.

In fact, if one chose in the early 1980s or 90s to predict

where a multicultural society might best succeed, The
Netherlands was a good choice. When compared to other
European nations it experienced little overt conflict over multicultural issues. And although certainly not a perfectly integrated, non-racist Utopia, Dutch citizens pretty much left
each other alone, which in general allowed for what appeared
to be sustainable diversity. In this environment the Muslim

The Dutch right wing took full advantage of this political climate and escalated attacks on Islam and multiculturalism. At
the head of this right wing assault was the Dutch politician
Pim Fortuyn. Fortuyn, a charismatic and flamboyant former
sociology professor, came to prominence largely by persuading voters that the secular West was in the midst of a clash of
civilizations with intolerant Islam. Fortuyn slammed Islam in
public and in his book Against the Islamization of Our Culture.
69

Among other things, Fortuyn called for the end of Muslim

immigration and the repeal of the first article of The
Netherlands constitution, which forbids discrimination.

While our women had been emancipated, theirs had not

a dichotomy that was central to the perceived superiority of
our culture over theirs.

Fortuyns rhetoric about the backwardness of Islam and the

superiority of Western culture was not new, but it took a distinct form within the Dutch context of uber-tolerance. As a
gay man, Fortuyn could not help but be concerned (and even
offended by) the fact that traditional Muslim culture does not
accept homosexuality. Thus Fortuyn asked, How can we tolerate Muslims, when they dont accept our liberal values of
tolerating everybody? Yet, as Professor Braidotti of the
University of Utrecht points out, There was a fundamental
paradox in Fortuyns rhetoric that many Dutch did not seem
to catch: He was using Dutch tolerance as a justification to be
intolerant against Muslims. (It might be noted here that
much of traditional Christianity has similar institutional intolerance with regard to homosexuality, but Fortuyn did not
engage that debate.) Despite such hypocrisy, Fortuyn and his
new party Lijst Pim Fortuyn quickly rose to the forefront of
Dutch politics. Polls predicted that his party would gain up to
17% of seats in the 2002 parliamentary elections. Just eight
days before the election, an animal rights activist assassinated Fortuyn. Yet his anti-Islamic, anti-immigrant message lived
on, and it put the debate over multiculturalism at center
stage.

As such, the contemporary focus on the Muslim woman within Dutch society, though new in its intensity and ferocity, has
deep roots within the history of the West. In particular, different notions of womens emancipation are central to relationships between cultures. Moreover, our Western way is
thought by some to be the only way. As such, when the
Dutch did move towards questioning the existence of cultural difference within their society, the mores and status of the
women of the Other became a heated source of debate.
Within this context, Muslim women who wear the headscarf
in The Netherlands have been perceived by many to be doing
so because they are forced to, as part of their identity in a culture that maintains an inferior notion of womens emancipation. The headscarf has thus come to symbolize the role of
women within Islam and, with that, the differing notions of
emancipation between Western and Muslim cultures. This is
one of the primary components of the current headscarf
debate, emerging from longstanding historical attitudes and
concerns.
The politicization of the headscarf in Dutch society is also
related to a belief in the separation of religion and the public
sphere. Though not as dominant as in France (a country that
prides itself on its secularism), the separation of church and
state is strongly valued in The Netherlands. And the headscarf, perhaps as much as anything else, is a clear symbol of
adherence to specific religious precepts. Even those who
might be unconcerned about the role of women within Islam
may be simply afraid that the headscarf is encroaching on
Dutch secularism. This has become a matter of contention
particularly within schools and courts, where there has been
a call by politicians and others, highlighted by the media, to
ban headscarves among employees of these state institutions. The assumption here is that a person with a visible and
concrete symbol of religious devotion cannot be neutral.

It was in this context that the politicization of the headscarf in

The Netherlands emerged. As Muslim journalist Samira
Abbos points out, The headscarf was simply not a political
issue within wider Dutch society before September 11th.
September 11th and Pim Fortuyn pushed the Dutch population towards questioning the entire multicultural evolution
here. As Professor Braidotti put it, September 11th led to an
incredible disruption of a consensus about multiculturalism
and tolerance in Dutch societya consensus that is still yet
to be reconstructed. Out of the ashes of this old consensus
arose a new political discourse in The Netherlands in which
certain cultures and cultural practices could be questioned.
The live and let live attitude towards minorities was fundamentally altered. A new discourse emerged: If they do not
accept our values, then they cannot be a part of our
society.

Finally, for some, the headscarfs politicization may simply

reflect the age-old human reaction to the embodiment of cultural difference, without regard to religion or even terrorism.
That is, those who fear multiculturalism may fear the effect
that any difference will have on ones society. In his article
Discomfort of Strangers, David Goodhart helps to illuminate
such views. Goodhart argues that visible ethnic diversity
reminds people that there are strangers in their midst that
may or may not share their same values and interests. The
headscarf is a concrete, visible and unavoidable expression of
cultural difference within contemporary Dutch society. One
avenue to challenge the existence of increasing differences in
Dutch society is to challenge use of that symbol. The current
environment may simply have made space for that reaction,
without the cultural pressure for tolerance that largely contained it in earlier years.

Contemporary Debate Over the Headscarf

After September 11th, a new environment was generated in
which Islam, immigration, and multiculturalism were fiercely
debated. Why did the headscarf, in particular, become central to this debate? Full understanding comes from first
examining the historical view of Muslim women. For hundreds of years, the Muslim woman has been a subject of
Western observation, analysis, and concern. The Muslim
woman was most often portrayed in story (and later in film) as
highly sexualized. At the same time, she was observed to be
oppressed: a silent victim of Islamic culture. Moreover, this
representation and preoccupation with Muslim women existed within a dichotomy of our women and their women.
70

prohibition of scarves in the educational field and the labor

marketa trend that has increased significantly over the past
four years. Such examples of discrimination, according to
the LBR, are contrary to Dutch legislation but are largely
ignored by government agencies in charge of enforcing such
legislation.

It should be noted here that the overwhelming majority of the

people in The Netherlands who are publicly debating the
issue of headscarveswhether they be pundits, politicians,
or ordinary citizensare not Muslim women. Sadly, those
people who would be most affected by policy changes are
the ones whose voices are, to date, the least audible. Yet this
is not to say that there are no Muslim women who are engaging with each other and the wider society about this issue.
According to Sawarti Saharso, a Professor at the University of
Amsterdam, Many Muslim women have spoken out against
attacks on the headscarf and many have even joined organizations that help advocate for women who choose to wear
the headscarf. Islam and Citizenship, My Veil and I, and
Nissa are three such organizations. All three have created
websites to publicize their cause. According to Mr. Halim El
Madkouri from FORUM, It is a pity that the headscarf issue
has become political, but it is good because it gives the
opportunity for Muslims to make their own statements.

In fact, perhaps one of the greatest indications of rising institutional intolerance towards the headscarf in The Netherlands
has been the increasingly lax attitude the government has
taken towards employers and even state institutions that discriminate against women who wear the headscarf. For
example, a Muslim woman named Ayse Tabakatepe was
denied a job as a court clerk after being told outright that the
reason was because her headscarf violated the neutrality of
the court. No action was taken against the court for this incident. Similarly, a court declared that a religious high school in
Rotterdam has the right to deny admission to girls who wear
the headscarf. The Schools Inspectorate refused to tackle
such rules, and the Ministry of Education, too, stated that
such prohibitions in religious schools are acceptable. In the
aftermath of the French decision banning headscarves in
public schools, there have been numerous calls within the
halls of power for such a ban in The Netherlands. Popular yet
controversial right-of-center politician Hirsi Ali, a female immigrant from Somalia and a former Muslim, supports such a
ban and intends to pursue one: I believe that children should
be brought up in a neutral setting. These symbols should not
be allowed in the schools. Again, though there have not
been major shifts in public policy in The Netherlands, shifts
and changes in limited actions by the government suggest
that the right to wear the headscarf may be even more
restricted in the near future.

Though it is beyond the scope of this paper to fully analyze

the real reasons that Muslim women wear the scarf, it is
worth noting that the Muslim women and Muslim womens
organizations contacted during the course of this research all
argued strongly that the headscarf is a voluntary and conscious religious choice. Further, they did not acknowledge it
as a burden, or a symbol of oppression. Some Muslim
women even suggested to us that they knew women that
previously did not wear the headscarf who do so now, for
political reasons. Perhaps most importantly, the women and
organizations interviewed unanimously view the politicization
of the headscarf in The Netherlands as a major problem, one
that has resulted in increased levels of discrimination against
women who wear the headscarf.
Emerging Effects of the Politicization of the
Headscarf
The politicization of the headscarf in The Netherlands has not
approached the levels it has in France, Germany, and
Belgium. In particular, the legal ban on headscarves in public schools in France has gained extensive international attention. The Dutch have not yet enacted any similar formal, legislative changes to public policy regarding headscarves. Even
so, politicization of the headscarf has begun to impact the
daily lives of Muslim women. As the mass media, prominent
politicians and citizens have begun to talk about the headscarf as a symbol of oppression or unwanted religious devotion, Muslim women with headscarves have clearly felt the
effects. Samia, a newly converted Dutch Muslim, describes
how society shuts the door on people who wear the headscarf and sees them as strange and dangerous. Samias
views are shared by Samira Abbos, the Moroccan journalist,
who says: Headscarves prevent women from integrating due
to societys reaction to their headscarf and their resulting
inability to find work, not because of the headscarf itself. In
their 2002, re p o rt the National Bureau Against Racial
Discrimination (LBR) confirms these views: Muslims who
wear scarves are regularly discriminated against and face

Conclusion
Historically The Netherlands has been a nation of tolerance,
respecting internal differences in religion and other attributes
through a uniquely inclusive nationalism. However, successive waves of immigration, dominated by Muslims, have challenged The Netherlands capacity for cultural absorption and
integration. Further, September 11th and the rise of prominent right wing politicians such as Pim Fortuyn exacerbated
fear of religious and cultural differences in society, particularly
with respect to Islam. The use of the headscarf by Muslim
women is a concrete and visible symbol of these differences,
and it thus has emerged in Dutch society as a focus of the
multiculturalism debate.
Although formal change in laws and public policy regarding
the use of the headscarf in The Netherlands has been
extremely limited to date, the issue is far from resolved. Court
actions and increased discrimination by Muslim women point
to the need for thoughtful policy-making in this area. Perhaps
most importantly, when examined in terms of timing and content, this seemingly narrow issue of the use of the headscarf
yields recommendations for the greater policy landscape in
The Netherlands.
71

Websites
http://www.cgb.nl
http://www.e-quality.nl
http://www.maryams.net
http://www.mijnsluierenik.nl
http://www.irr.org.uk
http://www.islamonline.net
http://www.isim.nl
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/pim-fortuyn.html

In particular, reviewing the history and dynamics of the headscarf debate suggests that the Dutch government revisit its
tolerant roots, assessing where separation of religious symbols from public venues fits relative to its respect for individual and cultural differences and freedoms. Moral leadership
is needed both to challenge new forms of discrimination and
to reconstruct a social consensus rooted firmly in Dutch tolerance. Further, it is clear that facilitating increased visible
participation of Muslim women in the policy debate is needed
to arrive at a workable solution for the headscarf issue, as well
as to create an inclusive model for addressing other multicultural concerns.
Interviews
Samira Abbos, Journalist.
Rosi Braidotti, University of Utrecht.
Halim El Madkouri, FORUM, Director of Project for Religion
and Identity.
Samia, Dutch Muslim woman.
Gloria Wekker, University of Utrecht.
Vazira Zamindar, Research Fellow with the International
Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World (ISIM)
Articles and Books
Dreher, Rod. On Tiptoe Through the Tulips. National
Review: July 15, 2002.
Dutch Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. AntiIslamic Attacks in 2002.
Fadil, Nadia. Muslim Girls in Belgium. ISIM Newsletter 13:
December 2003
Fazila-Yacoobali, Vazira. Veiled Politics: Rethinking the
Debate on Hijab. ISIM Newsletter 13: December 2003.
Freund, Charles. Fortuyns Folly. Reason online: May 7,
2002.
Goodhart, David. Discomfort of Strangers. The Guardian:
February 24, 2004.
Herrera, Linda. Banning Face Veiling: The Boundaries of
Liberal Education. ISIM Newsletter 13: December 2003
National Bureau against Racial Discrimination. Racism in
The Netherlands: Year in Perspective 2001.
Penninx, Rinus. Immigration, Minorities Policy and
Multiculturalism in Dutch Society since 1960. The
Challenge of Diversity: 1996.
Yegenoglu, Meyda. Colonial Fantasies: Towards a Feminist
Reading of Islam. Cambridge: 1998
Zemni, Sami. Islam, European Identity and the Limits of
Multiculturalism. Religious Freedom and the Neutrality of
the State: The Position of Islam in the European Union:
2002

72