Headscarf Row: Belgian Teacher Dismissed, Union Appeals

A Belgian teacher has been dismissed by the East Flanders provincial authority for refusing to teach without her headscarf, a decision her union is now appealing and that has reignited debate over religious expression and neutrality rules in Belgian education. Hadija Amajoud, who taught at a provincial school for special primary education in Assenede since 2022, said the move denies her the right to be herself. “We teach pupils to believe they can be who they are, but I am not allowed to be myself,” she told VRT NWS in an interview on Radio 1’s De Ochtend.

The dismissal, made public on 14 September, follows a long disciplinary process triggered by the province’s ban on visible religious and philosophical symbols for staff. Amajoud is believed to be the first teacher in Flanders dismissed specifically for wearing a headscarf. The socialist union ACOD says it will challenge the decision before the Chamber of Appeal in Brussels.

A Case Years in the Making

Amajoud began teaching at Kiempunt Campus Assenede on 1 September 2022, already wearing a headscarf, and received a permanent appointment on 1 January 2024. A first disciplinary procedure opened in May 2024 was halted that October without sanction, because the province’s code of conduct at the time did not apply and no disciplinary offence could be established.

The picture changed on 1 September 2024, when an explicit ban on visible religious and philosophical symbols for staff took effect, with an exception for teachers of philosophical subjects such as Islam. A second disciplinary procedure followed, culminating in a hearing on 3 September 2026 and the dismissal announced days later. The disciplinary council that decided the case is composed of the East Flanders deputation, a coalition of Vooruit, CD&V and N-VA.

The Province’s Case

First deputy Kurt Moens of the N-VA defended the decision, framing it as a matter of respecting democratically adopted rules. “As a deputation, we are bound to respect a democratically approved staff regulation,” he said. He argued that neutrality is essential to the school environment, telling VRT that society is diverse and that schools must “deal with that reality in a good way.”

Moens has pointed to gender equality, respect and freedom of religion as the values the policy seeks to emphasise, and to a parent survey at one of the province’s nine provincial schools showing 90 percent support for the ban. He has also dismissed the idea that protest should sway the council: “I don’t only listen to the voice of the loudest shouters.”

The neutrality push extends beyond teachers. On 17 December 2025, the provincial council approved a ban on religious clothing and symbols for pupils from the 2026-2027 school year by 26 votes to 5, with 2 abstentions, as VRT NWS reported. That vote marked a shift within the coalition, with Vooruit supporting a measure it had previously opposed. Moens said the timing was adjusted so that pupils who cannot reconcile themselves with the ban have time to change schools.

A Finding of Discrimination

The province’s position has been directly challenged by the Flemish Human Rights Institute (VMRI). In a ruling on 11 December 2025, the institute’s Disputes Chamber concluded that the province discriminated against a teacher in its education system. It found direct discrimination on grounds of belief for the period before September 2024, because wearing no headscarf was not a “genuine and determining occupational requirement.” For the period after, it found indirect discrimination, concluding that the ban’s heavy impact on the teacher outweighed the province’s stated aim of guaranteeing neutrality. The chamber also described the treatment of the teacher as harassment that created “a hostile, offensive and humiliating working environment,” as VRT NWS detailed.

The VMRI’s findings are not binding, and the province rejected its recommendation to withdraw the general ban. “This is an opinion, a vision, an advice, but it is not binding,” Moens said at the time. “Our vision around neutrality will remain.”

The Courts Weigh In

Amajoud has also pursued the matter through the courts. Her application for an injunction was rejected by a court of first instance earlier in 2026. Separately, six pupils and three non-profit organisations challenged the pupil ban before the Council of State, which on 11 May 2026 refused to suspend the regulation. The Council found that the applicants had not demonstrated sufficient urgency, ruling that pupils had not shown they would be temporarily unable to attend alternative education at an acceptable distance, according to VRT NWS.

Lawyer Timo Lehaen of Progress Lawyers Network, representing the pupils and organisations, disputed that reasoning. “For at least two of the pupils there is no alternative available,” he said, arguing that a school in Zottegem cited as an option enforces a similar ban in practice and that the pupils cannot turn to the examination commission. “In practice they will be left without education from 1 September.” The substantive case on the ban’s legality is still pending.

A Broader Debate

Belgium has no single national rule on religious symbols in schools; policies vary by educational network and governing body, and the GO! network already applies a general ban on visible religious and philosophical symbols for staff, with an exception for teachers of philosophical subjects. Similar tensions have arisen before: in 2006 a religion teacher was dismissed for wearing a headscarf outside lessons, a decision the Council of State annulled in 2009.

Amajoud has argued that her case raises questions beyond her own situation. “It’s not only about my headscarf or about me personally,” she has said. “For me this goes much broader — about a fundamental right, the right to religious expression.” She remains critical of the province’s insistence on a strict reading of neutrality. “In times of teacher shortages, we should perhaps think about how we want to interpret the concept of neutrality,” she said. “Actually, nobody is neutral. Every teacher stands before a class with his or her own convictions.”

She has also rejected the province’s suggestion that she could keep her headscarf by teaching Islamic religion, saying she does not want to be reduced to her faith and is not trained for the subject. During the procedure, she proposed replacing her usual headscarf with a neutral turban or bandana — an offer she says was not taken seriously.

What to Watch

ACOD’s appeal before the Chamber of Appeal in Brussels will be closely watched, both for Amajoud’s own case and for its potential to set a precedent in provincial education. Union officials have framed the dismissal as part of a wider pattern. “There are several disciplinary procedures running against teachers who stand up for their pupils,” said Stefan Haelvoet, provincial secretary of ACOD Onderwijs. “Those disciplinary procedures are being misused.”

For now, Amajoud says she will not be deterred. “I lose not only my job, but also my income, my security and my permanent appointment,” she said. “For me it doesn’t stop here.” The outcome may hinge on whether appeal bodies accept the province’s reading of neutrality — or the human rights institute’s finding that, in this case at least, the rule came at too high a cost to an individual.