A narrowly approved constitutional amendment bars parliamentarians from wearing conspicuous religious symbols. Opponents say it breaches fundamental rights.
Geneva’s attempt to keep religion out of politics is heading to court. A constitutional amendment bars members of cantonal and municipal parliaments from wearing conspicuous religious symbols, such as headscarves, kippahs and crosses.
Voters approved the measure by a narrow margin in June. The result has done little to settle the argument. Four legal challenges have since been lodged.
The measure grew out of a proposal, backed by the Swiss People’s Party (UDC/SVP), the Liberals (PLR/FDP), the Centre and the right-wing populist Mouvement Citoyen Genevois, to ban religious symbols including headscarves in the cantonal parliament.
Geneva already imposes strict rules on religious neutrality known as laïcité. Since 2019 members of the cantonal government and municipal executives have been required to refrain from displaying religious symbols while carrying out official duties. Civil servants and teachers are subject to similar restrictions.
Parliamentarians, however, were excluded. Geneva’s Constitutional Chamber argued at the time that elected legislators represent society, in all its diversity, rather than the state itself.
That distinction angered supporters of a broader ban. Céline Zuber-Roy, an FDP parliamentarian, made the point theatrically last year by appearing in the chamber with a colander on her head. The colander is the emblem of the Pastafarianism, a religion created by Bobby Henderson, an American physics graduate, to be taught alongside creationism in schools in the US state Kansas—if schools were going to teach one untestable supernatural explanation, a feature of all religious claims, they should also teach his claim that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Zuber-Roy’s stunt aimed to show hat conspicuous religious symbols distract from parliamentary debate and compromise the chamber’s appearance of confessional neutrality.
That distinction angered supporters of a broader ban. Céline Zuber-Roy, an PLR/FDP parliamentarian, made the case theatrically last year by appearing in the chamber with a colander on her head. The stunt was meant to show that conspicuous religious symbols can distract from parliamentary debate and undermine the chamber’s appearance of confessional neutrality.
The colander is an emblem of Pastafarianism, a religion created in 2005 by Bobby Henderson, an American physics graduate, in protest at attempts to teach intelligent design alongside evolution in Kansas schools. His point was that if one untestable supernatural explanation deserved a place in the classroom, so did his claim that the universe had been created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The cantonal parliament subsequently voted to put a ban into the constitution. The vote was extremely close (51.5% in favour) and went against the wishes of Geneva’s government.
Because the proposal required a constitutional amendment, it was put to a popular vote. The electorate approved it in June. Opposition came mainly from the left. Carole-Anne Kast, a Socialist member of Geneva’s cantonal government, lamented the result and argued that the measure was unconstitutional.
A test for the courts
The dispute has now moved from the ballot box to the courts. The amendment has prompted four legal challenges, according to SRF. The first was filed in December 2025 and the latest in September 2026. The latest challenge was brought by two private citizens, one Muslim and one Christian.
All of the challenges broadly argue that the ban violates higher law, freedom of conscience, democratic principles and the fundamental rights of the individual.
Green members of the cantonal parliament, evangelical Christians and a Protestant local politician have also challenged the amendment.
The controversy reflects a broader tension in Geneva’s conception of secularism. The canton has maintained a strict separation of church and state since 1907 and, unlike Switzerland’s other cantons, prohibits religious symbols in parts of the public sector.
That makes Geneva closer to France, where laïcité has long generated disputes over the place of religion in public life. The principle is intended to provide a neutral framework in which people of different beliefs can live together. Its critics argue that, when neutrality is enforced through bans on religious dress and symbols, it can instead deepen social divisions.
Geneva’s courts will now have to decide where neutrality ends and religious freedom begins.
For more stories like this on Switzerland follow us on Facebook and Twitter.
