"EU workplace headscarf ban is legal, says ECJ"

[Raz]

I don't see the issue with this. If the company has a policy of no religious symbols then why should a Muslim be allowed to wear their head scarf but a Christian not a cross? The ruling is just making things equal.

As said, there's a big difference between wearing the hijab and wearing the cross. A more apt comparison would be a Sikh's turban and a hijab, since they're both technically obligatory and not really a choice as such.

It makes sense to make things equal and fair for all, but this doesn't seem to be the best approach as it does alienate people.

 

[MikeTheNative]

As said, there's a big difference between wearing the hijab and wearing the cross. A more apt comparison would be a Sikh's turban and a hijab, since they're both technically obligatory and not really a choice as such.

It makes sense to make things equal and fair for all, but this doesn't seem to be the best approach as it does alienate people.

At the end of the day, they don't have to wear it, that's just what the religion they follow says. That does beg the question are Sikh's still allowed their turbans?

 

[Vonhelmet]

At the end of the day, they don't have to wear it, that's just what the religion they follow says. That does beg the question are Sikh's still allowed their turbans?

Sikhs are bound by their religion to wear a turban. I don't believe that Muslims are bound to cover their head - as I understand it, it's largely a cultural thing. Likewise Christians are not bound to wear a cross. There are distinctions to be drawn here.

 

[MikeTheNative]

Sikhs are bound by their religion to wear a turban. I don't believe that Muslims are bound to cover their head - as I understand it, it's largely a cultural thing. Likewise Christians are not bound to wear a cross. There are distinctions to be drawn here.

As somebody who's not religious and has never been I'm never going to understand the need to have to wear and item of cloth, so I don't see the difference myself.

 

[Raz]

Sikhs are bound by their religion to wear a turban. I don't believe that Muslims are bound to cover their head - as I understand it, it's largely a cultural thing. Likewise Christians are not bound to wear a cross. There are distinctions to be drawn here.

Without getting in to interpretations and 'modern' views, pretty much all sects/groups of Muslims agree that the hijab (not necessarily the veil/burkha) is a requirement.

But you make the point as well, for Sikhs and Muslims wearing the turban and hijab aren't an option, like wearing a cross. The two can't really be compared.

 

[Raz]

As somebody who's not religious and has never been I'm never going to understand the need to have to wear and item of cloth, so I don't see the difference myself.

That may be part of the problem - people who aren't religious don't always understand how things work for religious people and the impact it has on them (given that religion - or a curious blend of religion and culture plays a huge part in their lives) so when secularists make laws they don't always understand what impact it can have. That's not to say it's a bad thing i.e. making things fair or equal but a lot of thinking needs to be done beforehand...

 

[MikeTheNative]

That may be part of the problem - people who aren't religious don't always understand how things work for religious people and the impact it has on them (given that religion - or a curious blend of religion and culture plays a huge part in their lives) so when secularists make laws they don't always understand what impact it can have. That's not to say it's a bad thing i.e. making things fair or equal but a lot of thinking needs to be done beforehand...

That's a good point. It's all about getting the correct balance but getting that seems almost impossible without upsetting at least one group.

 

[CaptainComedy]

As said, there's a big difference between wearing the hijab and wearing the cross. A more apt comparison would be a Sikh's turban and a hijab, since they're both technically obligatory and not really a choice as such.

It makes sense to make things equal and fair for all, but this doesn't seem to be the best approach as it does alienate people.

Everyone is free to choose their religion, but much like a man will suffer reprocutions for getting full facial tattoos and complain that he can't get a job in a school, a person who chooses a religion that conflicts with a job cannot complain of the situation they place upon themselves.

 

[Raz]

Everyone is free to choose their religion, but much like a man will suffer reprocutions for getting full facial tattoos and complain that he can't get a job in a school, a person who chooses a religion that conflicts with a job cannot complain of the situation they place upon themselves.

Well, yes. In principle that's fine. But how far do you go before certain groups can only go for a limited range of careers/jobs?

I think it's more than fair to expect e.g. a Muslim worker in a supermarket refusing to touch ham/alcoholic products to look for another role in the same company or find another job in a different environment. However, a rule that states no turbans and no hijabs potentially restricts a large group of people primarily of an minority ethnic background. Could that also have consequences beyond directly impacting the individual?

 

[mrk]

Well, yes. In principle that's fine. But how far do you go before certain groups can only go for a limited range of careers/jobs?

I think it's more than fair to expect e.g. a Muslim worker in a supermarket refusing to touch ham/alcoholic products to look for another role in the same company or find another job in a different environment. However, a rule that states no turbans and no hijabs potentially restricts a large group of people primarily of an minority ethnic background. Could that also have consequences beyond directly impacting the individual?

Even that is stretching it a bit. The problem I have with this is that touching ham. or a alcoholic product isn't against Islam, since you are not consuming the product. In fact this topic was brought to light in recent TV talks with scholars on those religious channels, and the scholars stated that it's perfectly fine as long as it is not being consumed. It's the same with people who refuse to use any aftershave product that contains alcohol, but due to the above is perfectly fine to use since the alcohol used is so processed that it has no intoxicating effect. Just like the Vegans who were up in arms about the new £5 note containing animal products, only to be put into their place by actual facts.

As usual, some people claim their freedom is being restricted by western culture, when in fact it isn't. Their interpretation of freedom, however, is somewhat skewed and isolated to thinking only about themselves rather than their fellow people around them.

If a company has a rule for a certain uniform in order for said company's image to be consistent throughout its activities, then that's their policy and the workforce should comply to it. If a headscarf is a safety hazard in another line of work, then it rightly should be banned.

Can't help but think all this would be a non issue if people just employed some common sense. Sadly that seems to be a feature that very few people have these days.

 

[kaktus]

we live in an age where it is ok to identify yourself as a he/she/it/barely human and have all the rights and priviledges afforded to that identification as and when you please but not to wear a scarf if it is your religious belief to do so.

The hypocrisy of our so-called society is astonishing.

 

[Dis86]

we live in an age where it is ok to identify yourself as a he/she/it/barely human and have all the rights and priviledges afforded to that identification as and when you please but not to wear a scarf if it is your religious belief to do so.

The hypocrisy of our so-called society is astonishing.

Surely if you can identify as whatever you want...and all genders are equal then either every Muslim needs to wear one or none of them?

 

[h4rm0ny]

Hmmm. Mixed feelings on this. I do think hijab should be banned in schools. I don't think young girls should be encouraged to wear religious symbols - I think religion should be a choice adopted by an informed adult should they wish. But as adults my first instinct is to say that unless there is a health and safety reason for it (which there usually wont be), then religious symbols should be allowed.

But then I think some more about it and I realise I don't grant religious organizations any special status beyond any other political organization or power structure. I mean, would I be happy if the people greeting my clients as they arrived were wearing Scientology buttons? No, I would not. I would say that my place of business was not an appropriate place for people to use it to advertise their religious beliefs. Would I be happy if they were wearing BNP t-shirts or Nazi symbols? Again - no. And I don't think anyone would have any problem with me restricting such displays of affiliation. I don't see any difference relevant here between affiliation with a religious order or a political one. Indeed, organized religion to me IS a political organization - they fulfil all the necessary criteria by which I'd judge it such.

So whilst I was against such a ban on first response, after I've thought about it further I actually support it. Partisan and other political affiliation displays are inappropriate to most work environments.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

But wearing a BNP t-shirt, or any of the other things you mention, are not integral to their way of life, unlike the scarves than many Muslim women wear. The scarf is something they wear every single time they leave the house, it's part of the person that they show to the world. The same with a turban. Whilst wearing your BNP t-shirt is more likely to be a choice just show people who you are. I don't think that's the case with Muslims - they feel that they're doing a duty to their god (whether true or not) and I don't think we should necessarily impede on that - as long as everyone is treated equally.

 

[kaktus]

Surely if you can identify as whatever you want...and all genders are equal then either every Muslim needs to wear one or none of them?

Technically, all female muslims are supposed to however whether they choose to or not is the relevant point here. It doesn't matter if you're a muslim or a Babylonian monk - what you choose to wear and if and how it fits in with your individual beliefs is your business I think

 

[tom_e]

But wearing a BNP t-shirt, or any of the other things you mention, are not integral to their way of life,

Why not? Because someone else says so?

 

[h4rm0ny]

But wearing a BNP t-shirt, or any of the other things you mention, are not integral to their way of life, unlike the scarves than many Muslim women wear. The scarf is something they wear every single time they leave the house, it's part of the person that they show to the world. The same with a turban. Whilst wearing your BNP t-shirt is more likely to be a choice just show people who you are. I don't think that's the case with Muslims - they feel that they're doing a duty to their god (whether true or not) and I don't think we should necessarily impede on that - as long as everyone is treated equally.

Well, yes-ish. The trouble is that you're now making decisions on how much of someone's self-identity a given belief is rather than any objective rules. I've known die-hard socialists who pretty much never shut-up about bloody Marx or the revolution. It was pretty much how they defined themselves and probably never saw them without some little hammer and sickle pin or somesuch. I've also had muslim friends who wore the hijab pretty much just because of their parents and would take it off sometimes on a night out if they thought they could get away with it. I'll be upfront about a bias here in case it's affecting my arguments - I've known a number of girls from muslim backgrounds who were made very miserable by their parents' islamic beliefs and I feel no less horrified by those who have internalised it and wont - for example - talk to a guy as that is a sin. But my acknowledged bias aside, my actual argument is not that such a symbol can't be an integral part of someone's self-identity, but that if you make an allowance based on it being so, how can you state that any other political belief or affiliation can't be an integral part of someone's self-identity? It's a question of someone outside getting to decide when someone can express their beliefs and when they can't, when there's no objective distinction between those beliefs. Remember - I do not consider most organized religion to be any more rational than other political beliefs. Sometimes less. So, to me, you're asking me to create arbitrary distinctions based not on objective criteria, but on the grounds that 'this is really important to them'. Whilst that last is a slightly unfair distillation of what you're saying, it is the essential point you're making.

I don't know if this position I'm holding is correct - I'm going to think on it some more. But I hope that it's rationally presented and self-consistent.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

I'm absolutely fine with this. Head scarves are not "integral" to Islamic life. Not that this should even be a consideration for us. Who cares what an alien religion regards as integral? Our nation, our values.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Our nation, our values.

A nations values are made up of those who inhabit it.

Your values are most certainly not mine but we live in the same kingdom. Seems like the values of some people here is to give women the freedom to wear head scarfs at work and others disagree. Which side is this nations value?

 

[h4rm0ny]

I'm absolutely fine with this. Head scarves are not "integral" to Islamic life. Not that this should even be a consideration for us. Who cares what an alien religion regards as integral? Our nation, our values.

Whether something is right or wrong, doesn't come down to which point on the planet it actually happens in. Or to put it another way - please don't side with me, it sickens me.