Is a school trip to a mosque preaching or teaching? California school district gets hit with lawsuit.

PALO ALTO, Calif. (RNS) — A group of parents of various faiths sued Palo Alto Unified School District over a 2025 school trip to a mosque, claiming students were gifted Qurans and female students were encouraged to wear hijabs.

(Photo by Jose Alonso/Unsplash/Creative Commons)

Andrew Esensten

August 25, 2026 

RNS

PALO ALTO, Calif. (RNS) — Last fall, a group of students at Palo Alto High School took a field trip to a local mosque, meeting the mosque’s imam and a Muslim civil rights lawyer. The students observed Dhuhr prayers, listened to students recite passages from the Quran and were given Qurans as gifts, while female students also were encouraged to wear hijabs, according to a civil rights lawsuit filed by some parents and students.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court by Jewish, Hindu and Zoroastrian parents and students, claims Palo Alto Unified School District violated students’ First Amendment rights and state laws requiring religious neutrality by elevating one religion and disfavoring or stigmatizing “students and families who do not share the promoted religious perspective.” The lawsuit is raising questions about where the line is drawn between education about religion and religious indoctrination.

The fall 2025 trip was part of the high school’s Social Justice Pathway curriculum, a three-year track beginning in students’ sophomore year. A recruitment video highlights field trips to the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art and the former immigration station on Angel Island, and it includes photographs of students during a prior trip to the mosque. The plaintiffs, who include several Jewish parents and students, one Hindu parent and one Zoroastrian parent, belong to a group called Community Members for Religious Neutrality in Public Schools – San Francisco Bay Area.

“The flavor of this trip was that this particular faith is particularly worthy for this particular purpose (social justice),” David Rosenberg-Wohl, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, said in an interview. “When you favor one faith, you denigrate the others.”

The plaintiffs also contend that Zahra Billoo, the executive director of the Bay Area office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, spoke to students unchallenged, even though she had previously made “publicly documented hostile and discriminatory statements regarding Jews and sharply ideological political views.” In 2021, she referred to the Anti-Defamation League, chapters of Hillel International, The Jewish Federations of North America and “Zionist synagogues” as “enemies” for supposedly stoking Islamophobia, according to news reports.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to bar the school district from religious activities without parental consent and to institute new policies on photographing students and vetting speakers. The lawsuit claims students were photographed wearing religious attire without parental consent, and the mosque later posted the photos online. Rosenberg-Wohl said some of the photos were removed after the lawsuit was filed.

Both the mosque and some Palo Alto students disputed some of the claims in the lawsuit — including that all students were given Qurans as gifts and that the school program, by only visiting a mosque, was giving preferential treatment to Islam. The mosque’s communications director, Mongi Dhaouadi, said staff simply left the books on a table at the back of the hall for anyone who wanted to take one home. 

The exterior of the Muslim Community Association (MCA) in Santa Clara, Calif. (Photo by Andrew Esensten)

The school district didn’t respond to requests for comment. Local NBC affiliate KRON4 said the superintendent noted that district policy requires instruction about religion to be “academic, not devotional.”

Ari Y. Kelman, a Stanford professor of education and Jewish studies, said the lawsuit highlights the challenges public high schools face in teaching about religion in an experiential way. “It’s one thing to say these are the Five Pillars of Islam, or these are the books of the Torah — you can answer those kinds of questions on a multiple-choice test,” he said. “But if you want to help students get inside of the material, that kind of approach can be mistaken for proselytizing, even if it is not.” In college, a standard assignment in a religion course is to visit a house of worship for a faith that is not your own, according to Kelman. “But there are developmental differences between 18-year-olds and 15- or 16-year-olds that their teachers should be conscious of,” he said.

The mosque that hosted the students, the Muslim Community Association (MCA), is located in the city of Santa Clara in Silicon Valley. Founded in 1981, it is one of the largest Islamic centers in the U.S., with more than 3,000 people attending Jumah prayers on Fridays, according to its website. The religious director, Imam Fuad Mohamed, was born in Ethiopia, and community members hail from 50 different countries.

The center, which is not being sued, released a statement this week reaffirming its commitment to hosting groups like the one from Palo Alto High School. “Visitors to MCA have the opportunity to learn about our faith, ask questions, and observe our community as it practices its traditions,” it read in part. “Learning about a religion is not the same as being asked to practice it.”

Dhaouadi, the mosque’s communication and outreach director, gave RNS a tour of the center on Thursday. In the lobby, an exhibit on famous Muslim converts included photos and biographies of Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, British broadcaster Lauren Booth and social media personality Sneako, among others. Dhaouadi, who was born in Tunisia, pointed out the men’s and women’s prayer halls, classrooms for students enrolled in a pre-K through twelfth-grade Islamic school, a Zakah (charity) office, a bookstore and an outdoor field, where dozens of children were doing soccer drills.

Over tea in the center’s halal cafe, he disputed the idea that the students were coerced to take home Qurans or put on hijabs. “Some did and some didn’t,” he said. “It was completely up to them. Same thing with the hijabs. There was no coercion.”

Mongi Dhaouadi, the communication and outreach director at Muslim Community Association (MCA) in Santa Clara, Calif. (Photo by Andrew Esensten)

Juni Thurston, a 17-year-old senior, is not involved with the lawsuit and missed the mosque visit due to illness, but in an email, she pushed back against the idea that the Social Justice Pathway program gave preferential treatment to one religion. She said classmates studied seven religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Baha’i and Taoism. “While the Santa Clara Muslim Community Association was the only religious site visited, other religions received specialized attention in other ways,” she said in an email, noting that students read “Night” by Elie Wiesel and other texts to gain a deeper understanding of Judaism.

Students who visited the mosque last fall had to have permission slips signed by their parents, according to Thurston, who is the editor-in-chief of the school newspaper. In an opinion piece published last week, she wrote that a female student told her women were encouraged to cover their hair only if they wished to enter the prayer hall. That student chose to cover her hair with her hoodie rather than with a hijab. Thurston also wrote that another student told her that speakers did not promote Islam over other faiths.

When asked to comment on the students’ accounts, Rosenberg-Wohl said, “I’m sure there are a number of students who came out liking what happened. What they think about it is irrelevant. What the Constitution says about it is relevant.”

Thurston, however, did write that she was “disappointed” that the mosque invited Billoo to speak. She defended her teachers against accusations of being complicit in religious indoctrination.

“The idea that they would be working to indoctrinate students into Islam, or any religion, is an idea extremely foreign to me as a student who has had them as my teachers for the past two years,” she wrote.

Billoo addressed another cohort of students at the mosque in the fall of 2022. In a statement, Billoo said, “We are concerned that this lawsuit risks turning ordinary engagement with Islam and Muslims into something suspicious and could have a chilling effect on educators who want their students to learn about the diverse communities around them.”

 Opinion

A Muslim educator and a rabbi: One ideology threatens us both

(RNS) — White supremacy does not distinguish between the communities it seeks to intimidate. Our resistance shouldn’t distinguish between them, either.

Imam Taha Hassane, center, embraces another person as they attend a vigil the day after a shooting, outside of the Islamic Center of San Diego, Tuesday, May 19, 2026, in San Diego. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

Sharon Kleinbaum and Debbie Almontaser

August 21, 2026 

RNS

(RNS) — On Aug. 14, a man barged into New York City’s Central Synagogue during Shabbat services, striking a congregant, damaging religious property and headbutting a guard — leaving many Jewish Americans feeling vulnerable once again. The next day, an Islamic center under construction on Long Island was defaced with graffiti. “F— Islam” was written over a banner, which previously read, “NEW MOSQUE COMING SOON! Where Faith and Community Come Together!” 

We — a rabbi and a Muslim educator — learned of the synagogue attack while attending a five-day interfaith retreat. We had spent days praying, studying our sacred texts and speaking honestly about grief, fear,  hope and responsibility — not as representatives of competing communities but as faith leaders committed to the dignity of every human being.  When we heard about the anti-Muslim vandalism after the retreat, it underscored the urgency of those conversations. The hate from these incidents was a brutal reminder of how much work we need to do.   

Only months earlier, on May 18, worshippers at the Islamic Center of San Diego and its day school were targeted in a shooting that left three dead and shook Muslim communities across the country. A few weeks before that, on March 12, a vehicle-ramming and shooting attack occurred at Temple Israel, a Reform synagogue in West Bloomfield Township, Michigan.  
 
Different houses of worship, different victims, the same message of hate and intimidation.  

---

RELATED: New York rabbi: Antisemitism is real. I’m not afraid

---

For too many American Jews and Muslims today, ordinary acts of faith have become calculations of risk. Is it safe for our children to visibly identify with their people? Should I wear my kippah walking to shul? Should I wear my hijab on the subway? Is it safe to send my child to Hebrew school or my daughter to Friday prayers? Will my synagogue need armed security? Will our mosque receive another bomb threat? These aren’t hypothetical questions — they’re daily realities.  

America has seen one of the sharpest increases in both antisemitism and Islamophobia in modern history. Jewish institutions have faced violence, harassment, vandalism and threats. Muslim communities have endured deadly attacks, mosque vandalism and unprecedented levels of discrimination. National organizations that track hate have documented record or near-record numbers of incidents targeting both. Fear has become a common language for both.  

Law enforcement escort families with children away from the Temple Israel synagogue Thursday, March 12, 2026, in West Bloomfield Township, Mich. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)

The trauma following Hamas’ horrific Oct. 7 attack, Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, political polarization and increasingly inflammatory public rhetoric have fed a climate where people confuse individuals with governments, faith with geopolitics, neighbors with enemies. That confusion is dangerous.   

American Jews are not responsible for every action of the Israeli government.  American Muslims are not responsible for Hamas or any other armed group.  

Yet both communities are increasingly judged through those lenses, and both are asking the same questions: Is it safe to gather for worship? Is it safe for our children to visibly identify with their people and practice their faith? Is it safe simply to be who we are?  

In both communities, the fear is real, as is the pain. Perhaps the greatest tragedy is that this fear is so often carried alone, when it should be confronted together. As faith leaders, we know our communities don’t agree on every political issue. We have different histories, different narratives and often different views on the Middle East. Yet we also know this: No disagreement justifies hatred, no political conflict justifies the intimidation of American Jews or American Muslims and no child should grow up believing that their synagogue or mosque needs armed protection simply because of who they are.  

There’s another truth our country too often overlooks. The ideology that threatens Jewish communities and the one that threatens Muslim communities are same. For generations, white supremacist movements have targeted Jews with conspiracy theories about power and control while portraying Muslims as dangerous outsiders with a hidden agenda — people who don’t belong in America.   

That same ideology has fueled attacks on Black churches, Sikh gurdwaras, immigrant communities and many others. It rejects the pluralistic democracy that both of our faiths depend on. White supremacy does not distinguish between the communities it seeks to intimidate. Our resistance shouldn’t distinguish between them, either.

Jewish and Muslim organizations have stood together  after attacks on houses of worship. Rabbis have visited mosques after acts of anti-Muslim hatred; imams have stood beside Jewish congregations after antisemitic violence. Together, our communities have partnered on feeding the hungry, welcoming refugees, advocating for civil rights and strengthening our democracy.   

Too much of our public conversation today rewards outrage over relationships. Social media amplifies the loudest voices. Political rhetoric often deepens suspicion instead of understanding. Every act of hate is met with more anger, feeding a cycle in which fear becomes normalized. It doesn’t have to be this way. 

This moment calls for people of faith to have moral courage. Jewish leaders should continue speaking out unequivocally against Islamophobia — not because it’s politically convenient but because justice demands consistency. Muslim leaders should continue speaking out against antisemitism with equal clarity — not because every political disagreement has been resolved but because hatred toward Jews has no place in any movement for justice. And members of both communities must resist those who profit from keeping us divided, including news networks and nefarious interest groups.  

We can mourn Palestinian lives and Israeli lives. We can condemn all forms of political violence — including violence committed by states, armed groups and extremists — and oppose the suffering of civilians. We can advocate for peace while rejecting hatred against our neighbors. Most importantly, we can refuse to let our grief become someone else’s weapon. Our interfaith retreat reminded us of our shared humanity. Because our faiths teach that every human being is created with inherent dignity.  

Our call today is simple: Let us lower the temperature. Let us reject the politics of fear. Let us refuse the false choice that one community’s safety must come at another’s expense. And let us unite — Jews, Muslims, Christians and all people of conscience — to confront white supremacy and every ideology that seeks to divide Americans by race, religion or ethnicity.

The future of our communities won’t be secured by louder accusations. It will be secured by deeper relationships. The antidote to hate has never been silence — it has always been solidarity. If we defend one another with the same urgency we defend ourselves, we will not only make our synagogues and mosques safer. We will strengthen the promise of America itself.  

Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum, left, and Debbie Almontaser. (Courtesy photo)

Debbie Almontaser is the founder and chief executive officer of Bridging Cultures Group and was the founding principal of Khalil Gibran International Academy in Brooklyn. Sharon Kleinbaum is senior rabbi emerita of Congregation Beit Simchat Torah in New York and co-founder and board member of New York Jewish Agenda.   

Christian nationalists’ professed support for religious pluralism is often drowned out by perceptions that Christians are under threat

(The Conversation) — Two political scientists explain why Christian nationalist beliefs endure.

A sense of threat can fuel Christian nationalism. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Brooklyn Walker and Paul Djupe

August 21, 2026 

RNS

(The Conversation) — Christian nationalism, a worldview that sees the United States as a Christian nation and believes that Christianity should have a privileged role in American civic life, has been shown to be related to a host of social attitudes.

Research shows that people who hold Christian nationalistic beliefs tend to, on average, also show antipathy toward religious minorities and racial and ethnic minorities, as well as have sexist and anti-democratic attitudes.

Our research found that many Christian nationalists endorse religious pluralism, meaning that they value religious diversity – in principle. But we also found that this support for religious pluralism is often drowned out by perceptions of threats to Christians.

How we did the research

For our new research, published in the academic journal Politics & Religion in March 2026, we surveyed 1,500 American Christians in January 2024.

In healthy democracies, most citizens respect the civil liberties of others, including members of social groups they dislike. We asked our respondents which social group they liked the least, such as Christian fundamentalists, environmental activists, President Donald Trump supporters or atheists. We then asked them if they thought members of that group should be able to make public speeches, teach in public schools or run for political office, among others. The responses, taken together, showed respondents’ political tolerance for people who they dislike.

We also asked respondents how much they agreed with a series of statements commonly used to measure support for Christian nationalism, such as whether the federal government should declare the United States a Christian nation. On a scale of 0 to 1, the average Christian nationalism score was 0.64, indicating that American Christians tend to support the idea of a Christian America.

To capture ideas that run directly counter to Christian nationalism, we then asked about their support for religious pluralism. Respondents agreed or disagreed with statements such as “nations should not favor one religion over another,” and “we need to advocate the Christian values of loving your neighbor as yourself.” Together, these made up our anti-Christian nationalism measure.

On average, participants rated their agreement with these statements as 0.74, higher than the agreement with Christian nationalist ideas – suggesting that anti-Christian nationalist views were more widely supported by American Christians.

What the research found

Some of the survey questions measuring Christian nationalism and anti-Christian nationalism captured opposite ideas.

Without assigning respondents to any categories, we asked them if they agreed with statements like “The federal government should declare the United States a Christian nation” or “Nations should not favor one religion over another.” We found that people who agreed with one were likely to agree with the other. In other words, respondents who advocated for a Christian nation also affirmed religious freedom for all.

While this might seem surprising, social scientists have long known that people hold lots of conflicting arguments in their heads. American Christians have likely heard both Christian nationalist and anti-Christian nationalist messages through their congregations, media and social networks.

Our statistical models show that religious pluralism is related to tolerance differently depending on views on Christian nationalism. We isolated strong supporters and strong opponents of Christian nationalism. Predictably, among strong opponents of Christian nationalism, anti-Christian nationalism views were associated with increased tolerance. But, surprisingly, strong supporters of Christian nationalism maintained the same level of tolerance.

According to our data, people who agree with anti-Christian nationalist ideas, yet also embrace Christian nationalist ones, tend to have a fear of persecution. We asked respondents if their least-liked social group posed a threat to the American way of life and people’s freedom. Both groups had similar perceptions that the “American way of life” and everyday freedom were threatened.

This perception of threat was lower only among respondents who both strongly rejected Christian nationalism and embraced anti-Christian nationalism. In other words, support for religious pluralism, on its own, isn’t sufficient to reduce the sense of threat among those who hold Christian nationalist views.

Why it matters

Christian nationalism has emerged as a significant challenge to religious pluralism. Efforts to counter it can often be more credible if they came from other Christians. But for those efforts to work, they need to tackle Christian nationalism at its root.

Many American Christians prioritize religious pluralism and love of neighbor.
Benjamin Hanson/Middle East Images via AFP via Getty images

Our findings indicate that the root of the problem is not a lack of support for religious pluralism or insufficient willingness to love thy neighbor. It is perceptions of threats posed by disliked groups.

We have observed that the Christian media ecosystem is saturated with messages that American Christians are excluded from public life – ostracized from social institutions like higher education, discriminated against in everyday life and only one election away from losing their Bibles or being jailed for their faith. This sense of threat can trigger authoritarian tendencies, including support for taking away civil liberties like the ability to give public speeches or run for political office from disliked others.

What still isn’t known

Political scientists need to know more about the contours of threat: By whom and what do some Christians feel threatened? Social scientists also do not fully understand how that sense of threat can be dialed down, not just in a lab experiment but also in Christians’ experiences.

Improving our understanding of threat could guide the work of faith leaders striving for a more tolerant, pro-democratic role of faith in the public sphere.

This research was funded by a Jack Shand Research Grant from the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion.

(Brooklyn Walker, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Tennessee. Paul Djupe, Director of the Data for Political Research Program, Denison University. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)

 

Portugal enacts 'burqa law' banning face coverings in public space

Copyright AP Photo

By Joana Mourão Carvalho & Greta Ruffino

Published on 20/08/2026 -  EURONEWS

In Portugal, violators face fines ranging from €150 to €3,000, with exemptions for health, professional, artistic or weather-related reasons, as well as in places of worship, diplomatic missions and on aircraft.

Portugal's President António Jose Seguro has enacted a law banning face coverings in public spaces, a measure widely seen as targeting Muslim women who wear full-face veils.

"The face must be considered a central element of human identity and communication," Seguro said in a statement late Tuesday.

The legislation, dubbed the "burqa law" by local media, was approved by parliament in July with the support of the governing right-wing coalition and far-right parties. Left-wing parties voted against it.

The law prohibits clothing designed to conceal the face or prevent identification in public spaces. It also bans forcing someone to cover their face for reasons related to gender, religion, age or origin.

Seguro acknowledged that the issue was one of "great social and cultural sensitivity".

President of the Republic promulgated law after changes to Chega's proposal Miguel Figueiredo Lopes/Presidencia da Republica

Left-wing parties warn of Islamophobia risks and question security justification

The bill put forward by the far-right Chega party received negative opinions from the Portuguese Bar Association, the High Council of the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Portuguese Association of Women Lawyers, alongside concerns over its potential unconstitutionality.

The centre-left Socialist Party (PS), green-left Livre and the Portuguese Communist Party (PCP) opposed the proposal, warning it could fuel Islamophobia. It was backed by the centre-right Social Democratic Party (PSD).

The PS denounced "Islamophobic purpose that was evident in the explanatory memorandum [of the bill], the context of radicalism in which we live and the risks this creates for the communities directly targeted."

The PCP said the proposal had "nothing to do with women's rights, nor with security issues", but was "solely about fuelling hate speech and violence against those who are different, fuelling racist and xenophobic discourse."

Livre accused the right of "hypocrisy" and of conducting the debate in a "biased manner", in an attempt to create in Portugal "a moral panic over a supposed Islamic invasion that the far right so often talks about."

Full-face veil bans: How do rules compare across Europe?

Copyright Ritzau Scanpix

By Greta Ruffino & Joana Mourão Carvalho

Published on 20/08/2026 - EURONEWS

European countries take widely different approaches to full-face veils, from nationwide bans to restrictions in specific public spaces. Euronews looks at how the rules vary across the continent.

On Thursday, Portugal joined a growing list of European countries that have banned or restricted burqas and other full-face veils in public spaces.

But rules vary widely across the continent. Euronews breaks down how different European countries regulate face coverings.

France pioneered Europe’s face-covering ban

France became the first European country to ban full-face coverings in public spaces in 2011. Violations can result in a fine or mandatory civic education.

The French government argued that face coverings prevent people from being clearly identified, posing potential security risks and hindering social interaction in a society where facial recognition and expression play an important role in communication.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, questions were raised over whether protective face masks were compatible with the ban. Authorities later clarified that masks were permitted under existing health and safety exemptions.

Belgium: Fines and prison for violations

In Belgium, the ban dates back to 2011, with offenders facing fines or up to seven days in prison.

Alongside France, Belgium was one of the first European countries to introduce such restrictions, citing public security and social integration.

The law aims to facilitate communication and prevent people from concealing their identities in public spaces, measures Belgian authorities have defended as essential to ensuring the full participation of all citizens in society.

Bulgaria: Full-face veils restricted to private spaces

The wearing of burqas and other full-face veils has been banned in public spaces in Bulgaria since September 2016 and is restricted to private homes and places of worship. Muslims make up around 12% of Bulgaria's population.

Austria: Face-veil ban extended to schools

In Austria, a ban on full-face veils, including the burqa and niqab, came into force in 2017 under legislation known as the "Anti-Face-Veiling Act". The measure was introduced on security and integration grounds, with authorities arguing that face coverings hinder communication and social cohesion.

Additionally, in 2025, Austria's parliament approved a law banning Islamic headscarves for girls under the age of 14 in schools. The ban explicitly refers to "the headscarf that covers the head in accordance with Islamic tradition".

Denmark: A blanket ban on face coverings

Denmark enacted a full ban on face coverings in all public places in 2018. The law, which prohibits any clothing that conceals the face — including burqas and niqabs — has been justified primarily on grounds of public identification and societal transparency.

Nemesis founder Alice Cordier protests against a conference by Jean-Luc Mélenchon at Sciences Po in Paris on 22 April 2024, holding a sign reading "Burqa=obscene". (AP Photo/Thibault Camus)

Netherlands: Partial restrictions in key institutions

In the Netherlands, a 2019 law restricts face coverings in specific public settings — such as schools, hospitals, and public transport — where clear communication and identification are deemed essential.

While not a total ban, it reflects a growing inclination toward regulating religious expression in state spaces.

Germany: A fragmented approach to face-covering bans

Germany has taken a fragmented approach, with some states introducing partial bans in schools and public spaces on security and communication grounds. Specific restrictions also apply to certain professions and everyday situations.

While some regions consider such bans necessary to promote integration and social cohesion, others fear they could isolate certain communities and undermine social inclusion.

Luxembourg: Full-face veils restricted in public institutions

In Luxembourg, a law restricting the wearing of full-face veils came into force in spring 2018.

Face coverings are prohibited on public transport, in schools and on school grounds, in facilities for children under 16, hospitals, common areas of care homes for older people, including corridors and lifts, as well as in judicial buildings and public administration facilities open to the public.

Spain: Legal silence, local discretion

Spain lacks national legislation on the issue, leaving decisions to the discretion of schools and institutions.

In 2013, the Supreme Court backed a Madrid high school's decision to exclude a hijab-wearing student, setting a precedent but not a standard.

While Islamic groups have stressed that the Spanish Constitution and a 1992 cooperation agreement together protect the right to wear religious attire, the Ministry of Education has not prioritised national guidance, arguing that such cases are rare and manageable at the local level.

Portugal: Legal neutrality, selective application

Portugal doesn’t explicitly ban religious symbols but permits institutions — both public and private — to enforce neutral dress codes, as long as these are applied uniformly.

The aim is to protect employees from religious pressure while ensuring that workplaces remain ideologically neutral.

Italy: A law from another era

Italy does not have a specific ban on religious dress, but a 1975 anti-terrorism law prohibits face coverings in public.

Though originally unrelated to religious attire, this law has occasionally been invoked to restrict the niqab and burqa in certain public or security-sensitive environments.

Sweden: Freedom first, local pushback

Sweden has no national ban on religious attire, and the veil remains permitted across public life. The national approach favours individual rights, though some municipalities have attempted to impose school-specific restrictions, citing integration and gender equality. These moves have sparked debate but have not yet reshaped national policy

Greece: Legal protections with practical limits

Greek law offers robust anti-discrimination protections based on religion across employment and public services. Yet, practice has sometimes told a more complicated story. In one 2022 case, a hospital barred a nursing student from wearing a headscarf during her internship, citing uniform regulations.

The Greek Ombudsman ruled the policy did not violate anti-discrimination laws, framing it as a dress code issue, not a religious one.

Restrictions on face- or body-covering veils, varying in scope and extent, are also in place in countries across several continents, including China, Australia, Russia, Canada, Sri Lanka, Gabon, Chad, Senegal, the Republic of the Congo, Cameroon, Morocco, Algeria and others.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for BURQA

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for HIJAB

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for BABUSHKA