Abstract

In the last chapter of her book Liberalism's Religion [2017], Cécile Laborde argues that it is the practices and beliefs aimed at protecting individual integrity that can be candidates for exemptions. It therefore proposes two tests (sincerity and acceptability) in order to assess the link between these beliefs and practices and the individual’s integrity and considers the setting up of a deliberative process. We argue in this article that these two tests and the establishment of a deliberative process are not feasible because they do not take into account, or they even participate in the invisibilization of the voices of women of Muslim faith in the public sphere within Western liberal societies. Our criticism is thus formulated in three points. First, we question the thick sincerity test and the assessment of the coherence between the beliefs/practices of an individual and his integrity, while different public spaces of Western liberal democracies invisibilize Muslim women and make their voice inaudible. We then examine the thin acceptability test, in a context of securitization of Islam and Muslims, allowing the reproduction of discourses racializing Islam and culturalizing gender oppression. Finally, we argue that thinking about the process of democratic deliberation involves reporting on the forms of epistemic injustice and moral injury that occur against minority groups – especially Muslim women. This criticism will be illustrated by excerpts from Swiss parliamentary debates as part of the parliamentary initiative against face concealment.