No hijabs need apply.

Donal55

Well thats it.
The ECJ ruled today that employers may bar those that wear political or religious garb in the workplace and not be confronted with the word, discrimination.

The court gave judgement after two women were dismissed from their jobs in France and Belgium for refusing to remove their hijab.

My own view is that an employee who takes up work in a job has to adhere to certain policies and codes for example bullying and absenteeism. If an employer decides that you can't wear a crucifix or a hijab as part of a dress code so be it.
Don't go saying its discrimination.

jameorahiely

So I can't wear my Fedora to work tomorrow?

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

me_irl

jameorahiely wrote: »

So I can't wear my Fedora to work tomorrow?

If you praise at the church of neckbeards, then no m'boardsie. :pac:

DrumSteve

EU trying to keep all the right wingers onside with this one.

I do agree to a certain extent though, if I rock up to work wearing a balaclava I'd be told to get out.

Paleblood

"In fairness though, its not the crucifix I'm normally looking at when watching women's tennis."

I do have my eyes on the Korannnouuuwaaadaaaatt.

Winterlong

DrumSteve wrote: »

EU trying to keep all the right wingers onside with this one.

.

Nail on the head.
Wilders is on track to get about 15% of the Dutch seats. Le Pen is polling highest individually in the current round of the french election (but likely to get beaten by a combined left in the final). The right is getting stronger which is a worry to the liberal hearted EU.

Rumpy Pumpy

jameorahiely wrote: »

So I can't wear my Fedora to work tomorrow?

First they take your fedora; soon it will be your combats, wallet chain and death metal tshirt.

corner of hells

jameorahiely wrote: »

So I can't wear my Fedora to work tomorrow?

No , and you're not to wear your angorra either.

Your Face

Always keep your jabs high.

Mountainsandh

Winterlong wrote: »

Nail on the head.
Wilders is on track to get about 15% of the Dutch seats. Le Pen is polling highest individually in the current round of the french election (but likely to get beaten by a combined left in the final). The right is getting stronger which is a worry to the liberal hearted EU.

France's attachment to laicism predates Marine Le Pen.

end of the road

Winterlong wrote: »

Nail on the head.
Wilders is on track to get about 15% of the Dutch seats. Le Pen is polling highest individually in the current round of the french election (but likely to get beaten by a combined left in the final). The right is getting stronger which is a worry to the liberal hearted EU.

the court operates on the basis of law. not the basis of pleasing left wing or right wing. it isn't going to make a decisian on the basis of pleasing those on the far right or any other political viewpoint, as much as some might like to think they would.
in terms of EU law, it was never illegal for an employer to stop people wearing religious garments or symbols, as long as it was across the board and the dress code was nutral. each individual country may have separate laws on the issue however. i should think any case that was found to be discrimination on this issue, was found to be so on the basis that the dress code the employers had weren't nutral, religious symbols were banned but nothing else, and those employees were disciplined for wearing religious symbols when other symbols weren't banned. so this case does not change the fact that an employer can't decide to pick on whatever religion they fancy and cannot discriminate against someone on the basis of their religion.

GhostyMcGhost

DrumSteve wrote: »

I do agree to a certain extent though, if I rock up to work wearing a balaclava I'd be told to get out.

If you worked in a bank... yes

... For the 'RA... you'd be grand

What if i just call it a headscarf?

RiderOnTheStorm

Donal55 wrote:

..... The ECJ ruled today that employers may bar those that wear political or religious garb in the workplace ....

MAY bar wearing..... They don't have to. Its not a law or recommendation. Just that they can do it, and it won't be discrimination. And, if they do bar religious garb, it will have to include all religious garb & icons, including Christian crucifix , Jewish skull cap, and turban.

Donal55

RiderOnTheStorm wrote: »

MAY bar wearing..... They don't have to. Its not a law or recommendation. Just that they can do it, and it won't be discrimination. And, if they do bar religious garb, it will have to include all religious garb & icons, including Christian crucifix , Jewish skull cap, and turban.

Thats what I said. Thanks for reminding me.

Donal55

bubblypop wrote: »

What if i just call it a headscarf?

Its what your employer calls it that counts. And whether its included in a dress code.

RiderOnTheStorm

Donal55 wrote:

Thats what I said. Thanks for reminding me.

Sorry, my bad. I misunderstood :-)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Backwards Man

It's a poor bogman that judges a turf footer by what they wear on their head.

Mountainsandh

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear I don't know...
I would argue that it's the opposite happened.
I would argue that there was probably more employment for them and less discrimination when Islam and terrorism were less ominous in France.
I grew up there and in the 80s and 90s, tbh, it felt like a golden age of integration. Of course, not quite idyllic either, some incidents here and there. Overall though, I saw many many Muslim people very well integrated, working, and pretty much unconcerned about whether their female members were wearing hijabs or other religious garments all day.

Ah no, maybe not "unconcerned". Maybe some more practicing families would have had a grumbling Dad or older brother. But sure, the girls in my class weren't wearing anything in school, and other than grudgingly sticking to the Ramadan, and being good girls, they didn't feel an awful lot of pressure, and showed no inclination to wear any scarf. They did have the lovely pendants with the hand, or little stars for the Jewish girls (and boys). They did the Henna thing too, that was cool.

I am from a town with a very strong Jewish community, and a normal sized Muslim community. It's not a particularly posh town, my lycee was not particularly posh. Of the people in my Lycee class (Muslim or Jewish) that I kept in touch (or occasionally spy on ) with on Facebook, there's an actor in Paris, some other guy who's in engineering or something, a girl who's in HR I think... Two of my very best friends, one Arab guy (he's kabyle) is a very highly ranked solicitor, and my childhood best friend, a Jewish girl, is a career woman with some photo printing big company, gallivanting the planet on company trips.

In my days terrorist cells and radicalized Muslims were little bubbles that we rarely heard about.

The rest of Muslims went about their daily lives, without feeling the need to placard their Muslimhood. They were proud alright, would talk about being Muslim and practice proudly, go on about going to the bled in the summer, but that was all in good camaraderie.
And they had jobs.
Their Dads were all employed : council workers, construction workers, shops, food outlets ... I suppose the parents' generation weren't as educated as my generation, the language was a little bit of a weakness for other jobs. Jewish people were all very well off, in very good jobs. The ladies didn't like showing their hair either, so around where I lived, it was frequent to see them wearing wigs. Not all, just whoever wanted I guess.
Maybe I didn't see the badness as I was young.

But I'm not sure about that constant cause and effect link between unemployment+discrimination=terrorism.

How about tempering it a bit with terrorism + radicalization = unemployment and discrimination.

It's a mix of both I think.

I see the decision that is the topic of this thread as an attempt to set a limit to overt radicalization within a work environment, not discrimination.

Donal55

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

On the contrary, I think this ruling actually clarifies everything once and for all. Dress codes were they exist will have to be totally inclusive and be directed at all members of the workplace be they Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or other. Furthermore, it also identifies political attire or insignia as being discriminatory if only one ideal is portrayed as opposed to all.
Its up to HR depts be they public or private sector to look at their policies from now on.

Stheno

RiderOnTheStorm wrote: »

MAY bar wearing..... They don't have to. Its not a law or recommendation. Just that they can do it, and it won't be discrimination. And, if they do bar religious garb, it will have to include all religious garb & icons, including Christian crucifix , Jewish skull cap, and turban.

Well said, you forgot to say however that it's only customer facing employees to whom this ruling applies, and only if the company have a religion neutral dress code within their company policy.

Junkyard Tom

I hope the public boycott businesses and organisations that get zealous about this ruling.

Stheno

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I hope the public boycott businesses and organisations that get zealous about this ruling.

I don't actually, I'm atheist, and dislike having any religion causing people to dress or adorn themselves in a way that causes their identity to be suborned by the religious iconograghy they wear, or how they dress.

I'd happily see all religious related dress forbidden

Charles Babbage

DrumSteve wrote: »

EU trying to keep all the right wingers onside with this one.

I do agree to a certain extent though, if I rock up to work wearing a balaclava I'd be told to get out.

Not half as quick as if you were a nudist!

Junkyard Tom

Stheno wrote: »

I'd happily see all religious related dress forbidden

Atheist intolerance/zealotry? Interesting.

222233

I think this is great, in some jobs I wouldn't be concerned about someone wearing a hijab really, I mean if it's against the dress code it's not ideal- but my personal issue with it is in jobs where there are high security, for example midwives, bankers etc.

I could never understand how midwives, doctors and nurses were allowed to wear hijabs particularly for security reasons but also for health and safety seeing as wearing long sleeves under a tunic isn't permitted in hospitals

Pinch Flat

I wear a Tam-o-Shanter to work. Anyone says anything, I'm suing.

Stheno

Stheno wrote: »

I don't actually, I'm atheist, and dislike having any religion causing people to dress or adorn themselves in a way that causes their identity to be suborned by the religious iconograghy they wear, or how they dress.

I'd happily see all religious related dress forbidden

I'm an atheist, but i have no problems with people wearing religious clothing.
Each to their own i guess.

The Backwards Man

Stheno wrote: »

I don't actually, I'm atheist, and dislike having any religion causing people to dress or adorn themselves in a way that causes their identity to be suborned by the religious iconograghy they wear, or how they dress.

I'd happily see all religious related dress forbidden

I wouldn't agree with that tbh. I'd be against both theists and atheists judging a coworker on their beliefs alone. Atheists have has little right to push their preferences on who I employ as devout Christians, Muslims, Scientologists or whomever else.

I'm a takeyouasifindyouist, as everyone with any sense should be

Mountainsandh

I'm a fallen Christian, certainly going to a non-existent hell

I don't mind religious or political accessories, if they're discreet, but I do think ostentatious religious or political dress is unsuited to many work environments. For people who deal with customers, teachers, civil servants, etc... I think it is more professional to dress and accessorize in a more neutral fashion. A little pendant or a tiny lapel would be ok in my book. Not something that screams of "look at me, I'm A or B".

LaChatteGitane

Stheno wrote: »

I don't actually, I'm atheist, and dislike having any religion causing people to dress or adorn themselves in a way that causes their identity to be suborned by the religious iconograghy they wear, or how they dress.

I'd happily see all religious related dress forbidden

I am also atheist and I don't give a toss about what people wear. I respect their right to wear clothing that reflects whatever religion they are practicing.
That's tolerance for ye. :pac:

joe40

My understanding is that the ruling means that an employer can enforce their dress code. A person saying that a particular item should be exempt from the dress code because it has religious significance is not a valid reason. It is not the same as employers banning religious clothing/items

Pseudorandom

DrumSteve wrote: »

EU trying to keep all the right wingers onside with this one.

I do agree to a certain extent though, if I rock up to work wearing a balaclava I'd be told to get out.

So many people support this ruling in the name of women's rights and all it can possibly do is reduce the likelihood of Muslim women being able to integrate into society. I think it's sad.

Junkyard Tom

Pseudorandom wrote: »

So many people support this ruling in the name of women's rights and all it can possibly do is reduce the likelihood of Muslim women being able to integrate into society. I think it's sad.

I reckon most employers will not enforce the ruling with anything other than common sense. I couldn't give a damn if a Muslim wearing a Hijab, or Jew wearing his Yarmulke, was serving me my pork chops, sausages, black pudding, ham, bacon etc.

Pseudorandom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I reckon most employers will not enforce the ruling with anything other than common sense. I couldn't give a damn if a Muslim wearing a Hijab, or Jew wearing his Yarmulke, was serving me my pork chops, sausages, black pudding, ham, bacon etc.

No but like a lot of laws ostensibly brought in to protect women I think it's going to have a generally negative effect. Like how rules about making wearing niqab (the full face veil with the eyes exposed) illegal tended to hurt the people it was meant to protect.

In that women who were married to strict muslim husbands who wanted them to wear the niqab weren't liberated by laws restricting the niqab, it just effectively meant that they weren't allowed to leave their home.

Junkyard Tom

Pseudorandom wrote: »

In that women who were married to strict muslim husbands who wanted them to wear the niqab weren't liberated by laws restricting the niqab, it just effectively meant that they weren't allowed to leave their home.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Mountainsandh

Pseudorandom wrote: »

So many people support this ruling in the name of women's rights and all it can possibly do is reduce the likelihood of Muslim women being able to integrate into society. I think it's sad.

No, what would reduce their likelihood of being able to integrate into society is how extreme their religious adherence is, in the context of apolitical or non-religious employment opportunities.

It's a choice women have to make.

I hate uniforms of any kind. If I apply for a job in McDonald's, it's my own tough shít, I'll just have to go with it.
If I decide not to apply, well then, it's my choice.
It's not McDonald's responsibility to ensure I can work there.

BalcombeSt4

Stheno wrote: »

I don't actually, I'm atheist, and dislike having any religion causing people to dress or adorn themselves in a way that causes their identity to be suborned by the religious iconograghy they wear, or how they dress.

I'd happily see all religious related dress forbidden

Well I do and I'm also an atheist and believe people should be allowed wear what they want to work as long as it doesn't hinder their performance.

Mountainsandh

Pseudorandom wrote: »

No but like a lot of laws ostensibly brought in to protect women I think it's going to have a generally negative effect. Like how rules about making wearing niqab (the full face veil with the eyes exposed) illegal tended to hurt the people it was meant to protect.

In that women who were married to strict muslim husbands who wanted them to wear the niqab weren't liberated by laws restricting the niqab, it just effectively meant that they weren't allowed to leave their home.

I don't think these laws were intended to protect women in oppressive marriages ?
I don't think the subject of OP is intended to protect women in that manner either ?

BalcombeSt4

Pseudorandom wrote: »

So many people support this ruling in the name of women's rights and all it can possibly do is reduce the likelihood of Muslim women being able to integrate into society. I think it's sad.

Well thats what they say its in the name of but its really in the name of so called liberals making themselves feel better right.

Junkyard Tom

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Well thats what they say its in the name of but its really in the name of so called liberals making themselves feel better right.

Such rules are anything but liberal. Also, the idea that a ruling like the one in the OP will cause Muslim women to suddenly run home to their Husbands and say 'Hah! Not wearing dis shit any more init bruv, laters. I is off to join the pole-dancing club'' is just silly.

Tokyo

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I reckon most employers will not enforce the ruling with anything other than common sense. I couldn't give a damn if a Muslim wearing a Hijab, or Jew wearing his Yarmulke, was serving me my pork chops, sausages, black pudding, ham, bacon etc.

I would hope so, but as with many of these situations, an underlying element of xenophobia often applies.

The only argument that seems reasonable for banning the hijab is the security rationale - if a person can't go into a bank or an airport with their face covered, I can accept that. Other than that though, I believe that a company (or a government) needs a good reason for dictating what you can or can not wear, particulalrly if that attire was acceptable up until now.

Ostensibly it's a ruling that singles out the most vulnerable members of an unpopular religion, and no good will come from that.

fatknacker

FORD_7710 wrote: »

it could be no harm for irish women to learn some modesty from other religions

Only if fattyholed Irish men observe Ramadan every few months too.

Mountainsandh

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Such rules are anything but liberal. Also, the idea that a ruling like the one in the OP will cause Muslim women to suddenly run home to their Husbands and say 'Hah! Not wearing dis shit any more init bruv, laters. I is off to join the pole-dancing club'' is just silly.

I thought I had missed a link so I re-read OP, but no.
I have no idea where you get this notion that the law is in any manner designed to have an impact on a woman's personal life and choices.

It validates a company's right to decide on their dress code without fear of being branded discriminatory.

How is that telling a woman to change her ways ?
She is perfectly free to choose jobs that allow her to dress as she pleases.

Junkyard Tom

FORD_7710 wrote: »

it could be no harm for irish women to learn some modesty from other religions

I'd go further and say they could learn some modesty from other times like the Stone Age.

Junkyard Tom

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I have no idea where you get this notion that the law is in any manner designed to have an impact on a woman's personal life and choices.

My second sentence is tongue-in-cheek. There are people who will try to make the argument that laws banning religious garb will help liberate women from religious radical-conservatism when the actual effect is likely to be the opposite.

FORD_7710

COP ON YOUR JUNKYARD TOM,

suicide_circus

This is about workplace dress codes not religion. Once you clock off you can do what you like. Storm in a tea cup.

Tokyo

suicide_circus wrote: »

This is about workplace dress codes not religion. Once you clock off you can do what you like. Storm in a tea cup.

Read again. It very much is about religion.

“An internal rule of an undertaking which prohibits the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign does not constitute direct discrimination,” the court said in a statement.

[Source].

Manfred Weber, head of the centre-right European People's Party, the biggest in the European Parliament, welcomed the ECJ's ruling as a victory for European values.

"Important ruling by the European Court of Justice: employers have the right to ban the Islamic veil at work. European values must apply in public life," Weber said in a tweet.

[Source]

^^^^ This is the motivation, regardless of the packaging.