In general, headscarves or face veils are not forbidden in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, for public employment such as in the judiciary, police and army forces, women are not allowed to wear a headscarf or face veil. Laws of these institutions generally forbid wearing religious symbols at the employment. But we must question who is most affected by these bans. We argue that the latest constitutional jurisprudence of the Bosnian Constitutional Court, which upheld bans on displayed religious symbol effectively only target Muslim women wearing a headscarf.  Bearing in mind that the constitutionality of having a beard in the Armed Forces as a religious manifestation has already been confirmed, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no case before the Court where an applicant of another religion complained about bans on religious symbols. This can be explained by the practical fact that other religious symbols, such as a cross, can be worn under a uniform. Thus, wearing such a symbol does not challenge or disrupt state neutrality. However, a hijab, as a religious symbol, cannot be hidden. Therefore, we argue that upholding state neutrality in religious matters within the Bosnian Army Forces, in order to permit headscarf bans, constitutes intersectional discrimination against Muslim women.

The headscarf dispute began after Emela Mujanović, as a soldier of the Bosnian Army Forces, challenged the headscarf ban at her employment before the Constitutional Court after she exhausted all domestic legal remedies (Case no. AP-1795/21). Mujanović’s main argument was that the religious symbol ban in the Bosnia Army Forces infringes her religious rights, the right to private and family life and her right to non-discrimination as a woman. We will focus on the last argument since it contributes to our thesis of intersectional discrimination of Muslim women in the Bosnian constitutional jurisprudence.  Mujanović argued that as a woman she was not allowed to wear a headscarf at employment, while at the same time men were allowed to have beards as a religious manifestation (para. 71). The Court, in its particular response to this argument, explained that having a beard does not per se constitute an only religious symbol. Having a longer beard, as the Court argued, can also be related to lifestyle, fashion, or any other personal beliefs (para. 71). On the other hand, the Court explained, a headscarf constitutes an exclusively religious symbol (para. 51). Referring to the ECtHR jurisprudence concerning hijab cases, the Court stated that this ban is necessary in a democratic society (para. 64). In other words, it proportionately protects the neutrality of state institutions by prohibiting the wearing of religious symbols, including a hijab (para. 71). Therefore, according to constitutional jurisprudence – beards are allowed, and headscarves are not – in the Bosnian Army Forces. In other words, under the seemingly neutral norm that forbids religious symbols in the Army Forces, the Court concluded that Muslim men can have a beard, while Muslim women cannot wear a headscarf.

Intersectional discrimination entails discrimination on multiple grounds, and in the case of a hijab ban, both religion and gender are implicated. The Court in this case failed to consider that a headscarf is not merely a religious symbol. A headscarf is at the same time a women’s symbol and constitutes an inseparable part of women’s identities. Muslim women’s resistance to taking off their headscarves despite headscarf bans (like in France) that obstruct them from pursuing their careers, like in Mujanović’s case, contributes to this thesis. Moreover, Mujanović’s resistance to take off her headscarf, despite impairing her career in the Army, entails that a headscarf constitutes something more than a religious symbol for her. Muslim women face a lack of career opportunities because, wherever religious symbols are prohibited, their choice to wear a hijab limits their employability. Therefore, the Court failed to consider the broader implications of this judgment, as the hijab (religious) ban infringes not only on the religious rights of Muslim women but also on their entire lives and careers as women. Thus, by neglecting to consider the intersectionality of the hijab ban, the Court allowed the intersectional discrimination of Muslim women in Bosnia and Herzegovina.