Values and Veils in Danish and Norwegian Parliamentary Debates and the Absence of Gender

Abstract

This is a case study on the kinds of values that were invoked in the parliamentary debates in 2009 on whether or not Danish judges and Norwegian policewomen should be allowed to wear veils for religious reasons in their line of duty. The case marks a shift and the limits of the until-then fairly liberal religious accommodation by the two states. Despite the high esteem of gender equality in Denmark and Norway, gender values are less referred to in these debates and the most common values are instead secularism, secular progress and neutrality or, more explicitly, the impartiality and credibility of the state. The findings are understood as a sign of the adaptive character of symbolic politics to focus on different values depending on the issue, as the underlying purpose is to distinguish between the majority population and (religious) minorities through the use of a narrative of secular progress. A secularism based on such narrative is used to express a clash between values associated with secularity, freedom and modernity and religion, oppression and tradition, here symbolised by the wearing of veils.

Religion as a Means to Societal Cohesion in Nordic Politics 1988 – 2010

“…Second, I will discuss privatised religion as an expression of weak politicisation of religion in diversity. Such privatisation is less visible in Nordic politics as religion rarely has been explicitly referred to as a private matter, with the exception of the Danish and Norwegian debates on the wearing of veils by judges and policewomen 75 . However, in those debates that argument has been used to distinguish between non-acceptable forms of religion (the wearing of veils in a public office) and what has been perceived as cultural and neutral expressions, rather than between public and private religion.…”

“…In the third article 27 , I have categorised parliamentary speeches by which reason(s) that each speaker argues with in relation to the majority church. In the fourth article 28 , I have similarly categorised parliamentary speeches by which values that each speaker argues with.…”

The political accommodation of military turbans and the police hijab in Norway: windows of opportunity

“…Several studies have therefore focused on this event as a site of discursive contestation. Lindberg (2015), studying how Parliament debated accommodation of the hijab in the police, argues that the practice of Muslim veiling in the police became impermissible because it threatened, in a European narrative of secular progress, 'the very identity of the modern state in terms of public trust'. However, the arguments used in Parliamentary debate may just be a justification for one's position.…”

“…The same MP also went far to insinuate that this was only the first of 'Muslim demands' that would follow, thus framing the issue as a matter of regulating Islam specifically, more than religion in general (Lindberg 2015). Ellingsen wanted Storberget to engage personally, which would pressure the coalition government to present their argument for accommodation.…”