Council of State: ban on religious symbols on enforcement officers affects freedom of religion
The advisory body warns that the VVD initiative touches on the constitutional freedom of religion.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
The Council of State has criticised a private member’s bill by VVD MP Claire Martens-America to ban visible religious expressions among uniformed enforcement officers (boa’s). The advice was published on Monday and states that the proposal affects freedom of religion.
The proposal would ban boa’s from wearing visible expressions of religion or belief when wearing a uniform or work clothing and having contact with the public as part of their work. Examples include religious head coverings or other visible symbols.
Martens-America justifies the proposal by pointing to the special position of boa’s. According to the sponsor, they perform a government task, may use force under certain conditions and must therefore appear neutral. The VVD defends the idea as a uniform rule intended to make the impartiality of the government visible.
The Council of State does not regard the ban as an ordinary dress code. Because it restricts religious expressions, the Advisory Division says it falls within the scope of the freedom of religion under Article 6 of the Constitution. The Council points out that restricting this fundamental right requires a statutory basis and must be carefully justified.
The advice is not binding. The sponsor can amend or proceed with the proposal, after which the Lower House will assess it politically and legally. The publication of the advice therefore does not mean that the ban has taken effect or that boa’s must now change their clothing.
The debate has been under way for some time. An earlier cabinet plan to restrict religious expressions among boa’s through a general administrative order encountered legal objections. In answers to parliamentary questions, it was previously stated that a formal legislative amendment would be necessary if the restriction were pursued.
Supporters see neutrality as a condition for trust in supervision and enforcement. Opponents believe neutrality should be demonstrated through professional conduct rather than by banning religious clothing. They also fear that qualified boa’s will be excluded because of their faith.
The next step lies with the sponsor and the Lower House. The proposal is not yet law; the advice does not require boa’s to change their clothing.
Also show where in Europe and in the world
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The Council of State has issued advice on a VVD private member’s bill.
- The proposal restricts visible religious expressions among uniformed boa’s who have contact with the public.
- The Council of State says that the measure affects freedom of religion and that the advice is not binding.
Left
Arguments A boa should be assessed by everyone as a professional based on their conduct, not their faith or appearance. A ban could exclude people wearing religious clothing from public positions and could thereby reinforce discrimination.
Values Equal treatment, freedom of religion and inclusion.
Consequences Maintaining the ban could reduce the workforce and damage religious communities’ trust in the government.
Centre
Arguments The government may impose requirements concerning uniforms and impartiality, but restricting fundamental rights requires a clear statutory basis, demonstrable necessity and proportionate rules. Alternatives, such as codes of conduct and complaints procedures, deserve comparison.
Values The rule of law, proportionality and institutional trust.
Consequences A carefully amended proposal could reduce legal risks, but could still lead to lengthy parliamentary and judicial scrutiny.
Right
Arguments Boa’s represent authority and may use force; citizens must be able to trust that they do not project religious or political preferences. A uniform without visible signs of faith makes that neutrality recognisable to everyone.
Values Authority, equality before the government and public order.
Consequences A ban could increase uniformity, but might make recruitment more difficult and would require a legally robust framework.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The publication date, the sponsor and the main elements of the proposal have been confirmed by the Council of State. The text correctly distinguishes between non-binding advice and legislation in force.
- confirmed The Council of State published the advice on 19 October 2026. — Stated on the official advice page. source
- confirmed Claire Martens-America submitted the private member’s bill. — The Council of State names her as a Lower House MP and the sponsor. source
- confirmed The proposal bans visible religious expressions among uniformed boa’s when they are in contact with the public. — Description in the Council of State’s advice. source
- confirmed The advice is not binding. — The Council of State is an advisory body; the advice itself contains no decision to introduce the measure. source
Editor's note
The new fact is the publication of the advice on 19 October. The Council of State provides legal advice, not a binding decision; the bill is therefore not yet a rule in force.Sources
More on this in Dutch media
- De Telegraaf — „boa raad van state”
- AD — „boa raad van state”
- de Volkskrant — „boa raad van state”