CCPR/C/123/D/2807/2016 Annex II Joint opinion of Committee members Ilze Brands Kehris and Sarah Cleveland (concurring) 1. We concur with the majority opinion. Regarding the stated aim of promoting public safety and order, we consider that the State party has not only failed to establish a comprehensive, significant and specific threat that would justify a blanket ban on wearing the full-face veil in public, but has also not explained in which ways the State party’s previously existing legislation providing for uncovering one’s face in public space for specific purposes or at specific times, such as security checks and identity checks, or in specific locations, such as schools and hospitals – which are not contested here – is not adequate to ensure public safety and order. Thus, in addition to the criminal nature of the sanction and its effect on the author and those Muslim women who, like her, choose to wear the full-face veil, which is not proportionate to the stated aim (para. 7.11), this blanket ban has not been shown to be either necessary or proportionate to its stated legitimate aim of promoting public safety. 2. With respect to protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of others and the concept of “living together” that the State party relates to this aim, there is a lack of clarity regarding which fundamental rights are specifically intended to be protected (para. 7.10). The State party’s position is also unclear on how respect for the rights of persons belonging to minorities, including religious minorities, are taken into account in this concept in order to safeguard the value of pluralism and avoid the abuse of a dominant position by the majority.1 This reinforces the doubts about the claim that the concept of “living together” constitutes a legitimate aim under the fundamental rights and freedom of others in article 18 (3) of the Covenant. 3. Although the State party does not explicitly refer to equality between men and women in its arguments, in the background documents from the national debates and the preparatory work in the National Assembly, equality figured as a significant factor in the adoption of this legislation. In this regard, the argument that the full-face veil is inherently oppressive and stems from the patriarchal subjugation of women, which intends to prevent them from participating as equals in society, is relevant. However, in view of the fact that another criminal provision in article 4 of the same Act, which is not contested, penalizes the serious offence of compelling a person to wear such a veil, the argument as applied to the comprehensive ban on wearing the veil seems to imply that whenever a woman dons a fullface veil it cannot be her own informed and autonomous decision, which may reinforce a stereotype that Muslim women are oppressed. Penalizing wearing the full-face veil in order to protect women could thus, instead of promoting gender equality, potentially contribute to the further stigmatization of Muslim women who choose to wear the full-face veil, as well as more broadly of Muslims, based on a stereotypical perception of the role of women among Muslims. In any case, the State or the majority’s view that the practice is oppressive must accommodate the author’s own explicit choice to wear certain clothing in public to manifest her religious belief.2 The equality argument is thus not convincing as a legitimate aim for a blanket prohibition of full-face veils in all public spaces in France. 4. Finally, the present Views take into account the specific context of the case in France, including the fact that a very small number of women have chosen to wear the full veil. Apart from the inherent vulnerability to negative stereotyping of members of a minority – indeed, 1 2 16 European Court of Human Rights, S.A.S. v France, application No. 43835/11, Judgment, 1 July 2014, para. 127. A/68/290, para. 74 (d), in which the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief stated that policies designed to empower individuals exposed to gender-related discrimination could not claim credibility unless they paid careful attention to the self-understandings, interests and assessments voiced by the concerned persons themselves, including women from religious minorities. That principle should always be observed, in particular before setting legislative or jurisdictional limits to a right to freedom, for example the right to wear religious garments.