Council of State faults bill banning religious symbols for boa's

The Council of State has advised that a private member's bill banning boa's from wearing visible expressions of religion or belief is not properly justified. It recommends that the initiator add to the explanatory memorandum and, if that proves impossible, amend the bill or drop it.

Under the bill, boa's (buitengewoon opsporingsambtenaren) would not be allowed to wear such expressions in uniform or work clothing when dealing with the public. The Council's advisory division says the bill does not show why a national ban covering every type of boa is necessary, given that it infringes freedom of religion and the right to equal treatment.

The initiator justifies the ban by pointing out that boa's have a special government task in which they may use force under certain conditions. Citizens, she argues, have a right to a neutral attitude and appearance from them.

What the Council objects to

The Council says the initiator assumes a strict separation of religion and state in regulating boa uniforms. She names no examples of other laws with such a strict separation, and the memorandum does not explain why this strict form is necessary.

It also says the bill does not show that visible religious expressions by boa's cause problems in practice. Nor does it explain why less far-reaching alternatives, such as more diverse uniforms, would not be enough.

Boa's come in many types and work for many different employers, the Council notes, and not all belong to the "sterke arm", the enforcement arm. The bill and its memorandum overlook these differences in tasks, powers and working contexts, it says.