Ishan Howach, 36, resigned from the Institute for the Equality of Women and Men (IEFH) on Friday, where he served as the government commissioner responsible for ensuring compliance with the law and the public interest.
To justify her decision, the woman got involved in the fight against sexual discrimination, especially at work, saying she wanted to “protect herself from cyber-down”. He regretted having been the target of “relentless personal attacks” since his appointment to the post was revealed six weeks ago.
Can a hidden woman exercise a function of public authority and represent a State which must adhere to the principle of neutrality in its relationship to worship? The question is even shared within the government coalition led by Alexander de Crowe.
The Prime Minister first defended the “concrete CV” of the graduate.
Distinctive religious signs
The Flemish liberal also noted that the federal government forbids any civil servant to “come into contact with the public” by wearing a separate religious identity.Me Howach at IEFH.
But the appointment was bitterly contested by the Colo-Kron party and its Foreign Secretary, Sarah Schlitz, in the opposition, as well as in the coalition formation and the reform movement (MR, French-speaking liberal).
The controversy intensified on July 3 with comments made in the newspaper Evening From Brussels Ishen Howch wrote that four days later he was considered “bad”.
In the interview, the daughter of this Moroccan ambassador deemed “discriminatory” the ban on wearing religious symbols in Belgium.
“Not a debate: are we questioning the separation of controversy and state? How can this be denied with the population change? He added.
Contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood?
Mr. Many saw it as a matter of state neutrality, described by De Crowe as a “fundamental principle”.Me During a lively question-and-answer session in the House on Thursday.
M. De Crew and MMe Belgian civil intelligence – State security – Mr. They had to explain himself to a parliamentary committee on Monday on a note which provoked “suspicions” of intercommunications.Me Hawach and the Muslim Brotherhood of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The person concerned was already strongly united on July 3, confirming that he did not know that the movement was “near or far”. M. De Crew and MMe Schlitz refused to disclose the contents of this memo – “classified” and therefore confidential – and M. withdrew all contact with the resignation.Me Hou.