No hijabs need apply.

JupiterKid

I think the ECJ made the right decision. It should be at the employer's discretion what types of dress and clothing are appropriate. I'd say for 80% or more employers, religious garb wouldn't be an issue but in cases where practicality and hygiene are of import, the wearing of proper attire is paramount.

If this drives Islamic communities towards radicalism and terrorism, it isn't the ECJ's nor employers' fault. It is becoming clear to me that Europe has welcomed immigrants, but many immigrants refuse to integrate with European societies. What are we to do? Cater to their every demand and whim? Introduce Sharia Law? Boundaries need to be set. No religious group can hold Europe to ransom.

Stheno

The ruling will also potentially affect Christians Sikhs and Jew's as it has to be applied across the board.

suicide_circus

JupiterKid wrote: »

I think the ECJ made the right decision. It should be at the employer's discretion what types of dress and clothing are appropriate. I'd say for 80% or more employers, religious garb wouldn't be an issue but in cases where practicality and hygiene are of import, the wearing of proper attire is paramount.

If this drives Islamic communities towards radicalism and terrorism, it isn't the ECJ's nor employers' fault. It is becoming clear to me that Europe has welcomed immigrants, but many immigrants refuse to integrate with European societies. What are we to do? Cater to their every demand and whim? Introduce Sharia Law? Boundaries need to be set. No religious group can hold Europe to ransom.

The fact is Christianity had to have reformations and ecumenical changes (vatican 2) bringing it more in line with the enlightenment and softening it's cough so to speak. Islam styles itself as the last, final and unalterable revelation of God. Even if there was public will to do so (which there dosnt seem to be), there is no scope within the theology to modernise. This unavoidably puts Islam at odds with "European Values". The RCC saw the writing on the wall in the 60s and made some changes and this pope looks like he'd be amenable to making further updates.

Dravokivich

So why is it discrimination when a bakery refuses to sell a cake?

suicide_circus wrote: »

The fact is Christianity had to have reformations and ecumenical changes (vatican 2) bringing it more in line with the enlightenment and softening it's cough so to speak. Islam styles itself as the last, final and unalterable revelation of God. Even if there was public will to do so (which there dosnt seem to be), there is no scope within the theology to modernise. This unavoidably puts Islam at odds with "European Values". The RCC saw the writing on the wall in the 60s and made some changes and this pope looks like he'd be amenable to making further updates.

The Catholic Church had to do that in an effort to keep themselves somewhat popular. No other reason.

Samaris

It does hit Muslim women the most as their religious/cultural garb is a lot more...more than anyone else's I can think of offhand. I don't really object to wearing a crucifix or a kippah in a workplace, the less obtrusive it is the better (okay, the kippahs are noticeable). And yes, picking on the Muslim women alone would be a bit of a dick move so everyone suffers from it. So be it, it's a fairly minor sacrifice (admittedly says she with no particular use for wearing religious imagery so may be underestimating how big the sacrifice actually is to those affected).

Overall, covering their faces is part of their culture. Well, having faces exposed for communication is part of our culture. It is considered polite. In this country, I'm more onside with "you're welcome here, just abide by those cultural norms of ours that allow our society to work".

"O you believe, obey God and obey the messenger and also those in charge among you" is an Islamic ayat that is commonly interpreted to indicate that citizens obey the laws and rules of the country they're living in (amongst other things). It follows in Christianity too - render until Caeser what is Caeser's (pay your damn taxes, even if you don't like the Romans) Judaism - very used to having to get along quietly in other lands - has Dinei DMalchuta Dina-the law of the land. All of them have limits (obey the law of the land so long as it does not conflict with the law of God - including Christianity; "We must obey God rather than men" (Paul, Acts 5;29).

Not wearing religious imagery rarely conflicts with the actual Word of God, although it does conflict with traditions around the various religions - which are, ultimately, the words of men. (I may have to make an exception for the kippah, but I don't recall seeing anything that makes wearing it actively the Word of God rather than a tradition. Can anyone correct me on that?)

suicide_circus

Dravokivich wrote: »

So why is it discrimination when a bakery refuses to sell a cake?



The Catholic Church had to do that in an effort to keep themselves somewhat popular. No other reason.

Isn't that what I said? Vatican II was an effort to keep themselves relevant. Their hand was forced by falling church attendance and the change in social attitudes. The softening of Catholic doctrine in the end probably hastened the slide of church attendance in the end. Islam's strength is that it refuses to modernise and is indeed, according to its own doctrine, incapable of doing so. It provides its adherents with ancient certainty in an ever changing world. This is a problem obviously as it cannot update from its medieval roots leading to inevitable clashes with secular western values. The fact that Islam is basically a Christian heresy, just as Christianity is basically a Judaic heresy dosnt dissuade it's followers whose numbers are increasing faster than any other faith.

Winterlong

end of the road wrote: »

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.

I commend your faith in the European justice system and wish I had it. . As the European court judges are appointed by politicians I think there is a political bias there. Not as bad as the US admittedly.

RandomName2

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Personally I'm appalled that I mightn't be able to wear my colander (known as "the siv") to work - a defining aspect of pastafarianism.

Thought we'd seen the back of this after the infamous RSA discrimination case here. I may have to give up on employment if I'm not free to practice this inherent aspect of my faith (though some pastafarians may choose not don the colander to work, they are acting counter to scripture and should be ashamed of themselves). Ultimately those like me may be faced with no alternative other than to support the use of flour based IEDs by disgruntled members of our community.

topper75

Pinch Flat wrote: »

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

Aye! Just like ould Rab hisself would want, peace be upon him.

Dravokivich

suicide_circus wrote: »

Isn't that what I said? Vatican II was an effort to keep themselves relevant. Their hand was forced by falling church attendance and the change in social attitudes. The softening of Catholic doctrine in the end probably hastened the slide of church attendance in the end. Islam's strength is that it refuses to modernise and is indeed, according to its own doctrine, incapable of doing so. It provides its adherents with ancient certainty in an ever changing world. This is a problem obviously as it cannot update from its medieval roots leading to inevitable clashes with secular western values. The fact that Islam is basically a Christian heresy, just as Christianity is basically a Judaic heresy dosnt dissuade it's followers whose numbers are increasing faster than any other faith.

Your comment sounded like they were progressive. They aren't. They just want to appear popular.

Mitch Connor

I think it is a disgrace - whether a person wishes to wear a hijab or not should be a personal decision. Whether someone is wearing one or not has absolutely no impact on their ability to do a job or provide a service, my interaction with them as a customer (for example) is not impacted at all.

I do think people should not be allowed to turn cash counters into "no meat/beer" lines - you take a sales job you sell whatever the company sells - but making it a law that a company can tell you not to wear a religious symbol? Nah, don't agree.

eviltwin

When did we become so intolerant?

Muslim women have always worn hijabs and its only in the last few years its become an issue. I don't understand it. Its obviously reactionary, nothing practical in it at all, its saying "you're Muslim but I don't want to have a constant reminder that you are Muslim".

I don't have an issue with it. My son's first teacher was a Muslim lady who wore a hijab, his school friends and their mums wear them, I was served in a shop a few weeks ago by a girl who was wearing one.....it has zero impact on their ability to do their job.

Same goes for other religious symbols and clothing.

challengemaster

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I think it is a disgrace - whether a person wishes to wear a hijab or not should be a personal decision. Whether someone is wearing one or not has absolutely no impact on their ability to do a job or provide a service, my interaction with them as a customer (for example) is not impacted at all.

I do think people should not be allowed to turn cash counters into "no meat/beer" lines - you take a sales job you sell whatever the company sells - but making it a law that a company can tell you not to wear a religious symbol? Nah, don't agree.

It is a personal decision, but at work you represent the company, not yourself. So I think it's perfectly fair for them to say "Leave your political, philosophical or religious crap at home". Customers go to places to obtain goods or services, not be subjected to the beliefs or world views of the cashier.

Widdershins

eviltwin wrote: »

When did we become so intolerant?

Muslim women have always worn hijabs and its only in the last few years its become an issue. I don't understand it. Its obviously reactionary, nothing practical in it at all, its saying "you're Muslim but I don't want to have a constant reminder that you are Muslim".

I don't have an issue with it. My son's first teacher was a Muslim lady who wore a hijab, his school friends and their mums wear them, I was served in a shop a few weeks ago by a girl who was wearing one.....it has zero impact on their ability to do their job.

Same goes for other religious symbols and clothing.

They haven't always worn hijab and it's not necessary that they do so. There used to be a far more relaxed attitude to it, even ten years ago in the UK, maybe a loose headscarf, maybe nothing for a lot of women I would see. The more modesty garb is involved the more orthodox and regressive the belief. Ask an Iranian woman. There is a movement called My Stealthy Freedom by Iranian women who want to be free of the pressure to wear hijab. Why should people ''tolerate'' intolerance anyway.
Why do people think Muslim men don't have to wear hijab?
I agree with this ruling as it's to be applied to all religious garb and it is appropriate in a number of situations for security and hygiene reasons.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The poor divils. Well, why is the unemployment rate so high? I'd wager that the issue isn't with France, but with the other party.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I think it is a disgrace - whether a person wishes to wear a hijab or not should be a personal decision. Whether someone is wearing one or not has absolutely no impact on their ability to do a job or provide a service, my interaction with them as a customer (for example) is not impacted at all.

I do think people should not be allowed to turn cash counters into "no meat/beer" lines - you take a sales job you sell whatever the company sells - but making it a law that a company can tell you not to wear a religious symbol? Nah, don't agree.

If that's the case, people should be able to go to work with spaghetti or traffic cone on their heads, or wearing a balaclava or deep sea diving suit.

Burqa's have no place in modern society, or any other religious garb that covers one from head to toe.

Widdershins

Widdershins wrote: »

They haven't always worn hijab and it's not necessary that they do so. There used to be a far more relaxed attitude to it, even ten years ago in the UK, maybe a loose headscarf, maybe nothing for a lot of women I would see. The more modesty garb is involved the more orthodox and regressive the belief. Ask an Iranian woman. There is a movement called My Stealthy Freedom by Iranian women who want to be free of the pressure to wear hijab. Why should people ''tolerate'' intolerance anyway.
Why do people think Muslim men don't have to wear hijab?
I agree with this ruling as it's to be applied to all religious garb and it is appropriate in a number of situations for security and hygiene reasons.

Widdershins, my dentist wears the Hijbab, there is nothing wrong with her hygiene She wears a mask, like all dentists when doing procedures. Everything she uses is pre sterislised for treatment.

Widdershins

The fact that an Irish man commented to say Irish women could learn from the modesty of a religion is deeply disturbing. There is a middle ground between dressing and acting like you're a stripper and covering your hair, face or full body up. And you wouldn't be allowed to work dressed like a stripper in most jobs, either.

Widdershins

Jake1 wrote: »

Widdershins, my dentist wears the Hijbab, there is nothing wrong with her hygiene She wears a mask, like all dentists when doing procedures. Everything she uses is pre sterislised for treatment.

Yes and the employers who feel in their particular worklpace a hijab should not be worn can now make that call without a backlash. Is there anything wrong with that? The point is not to argue the suitability for each profession.

LaChatteGitane

Widdershins wrote: »

The fact that an Irish man commented to say Irish women could learn from the modesty of a religion is deeply disturbing. There is a middle ground between dressing and acting like you're a stripper and covering your hair, face or full body up. And you wouldn't be allowed to work dressed like a stripper in most jobs, either.

A hijab doesn't cover the face.

Widdershins

LaChatteGitane wrote: »

A hijab doesn't cover the face.

Yes, I know, I was referring to modesty garb in general, of which hijab is one item.That's why I said ''or''!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FTA69

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's a fact. I used to teach English to a class of Muslim women and nearly all of them bar one or two wore the hijab; a couple also wore the niqab. If I had said "no religious symbology" in my class then I'd have been sitting in an empty classroom; the women wouldn't have learned any English whatsoever and the whole purpose of empowering women would have been defeated from the onset.

As you said above, this has little to do with enforcing across-the-board secularism at work and in school and everything to do with populist measures to stick it to the Muslims.

The_Valeyard

Grand, stop people from wearing those save the 8th/ repeal the 8th badges in work.

seachto7

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Grand, stop people from wearing those save the 8th/ repeal the 8th badges in work.

When they were handing out the Yes badges for the referendum a few years back, I refused to take them. Not that I didn’t support it, but it’s my business what way I’ll vote, I don’t need to tell everyone on the street. Same as I don’t go around in a run up to an election with part political badges on.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

eviltwin wrote: »

When did we become so intolerant?

Muslim women have always worn hijabs and its only in the last few years its become an issue. I don't understand it. Its obviously reactionary, nothing practical in it at all, its saying "you're Muslim but I don't want to have a constant reminder that you are Muslim".

I don't have an issue with it. My son's first teacher was a Muslim lady who wore a hijab, his school friends and their mums wear them, I was served in a shop a few weeks ago by a girl who was wearing one.....it has zero impact on their ability to do their job.

Same goes for other religious symbols and clothing.

A lot of people who oppose the Burka (and similar dress) are fine with the hijab. Some mix them up.

The issue isn't with ones ability to do a job. I believe it's more about conformity.

FTA69 wrote: »

That's a fact. I used to teach English to a class of Muslim women and nearly all of them bar one or two wore the hijab; a couple also wore the niqab. If I had said "no religious symbology" in my class then I'd have been sitting in an empty classroom; the women wouldn't have learned any English whatsoever and the whole purpose of empowering women would have been defeated from the onset.

As you said above, this has little to do with enforcing across-the-board secularism at work and in school and everything to do with populist measures to stick it to the Muslims.

It's strange that you need to conform to their ways in order for them to integrate. I totally disagree with this. If these women are subjected to more misery due to this rule, it's for them to oppose these ridiculous, stone age rules about dress code, not nanny state rules.

Can you point out where it's noting to do with enforcing across the board and everything to do with sticking it to the muslims? This is what the OP states: "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", however, he/she has turned it into an anti "hijab" thing with the biased thread title.

Personally, I would have preferred a total ban on clothes completely covering ones face in public. With exceptions to PPE or the likes.

JupiterKid

I have no problem at all with the hijab but it should be at the employer's discretion whether it is appropriate to be worn or not - and the same goes for the garb of other religions.

However, there has been a disquieting growth in the use of the niquab and the burka in Europe and that is problematic in my book. Covering the face completely is a security issue and also is a major clash with our Western values. We should be asking why so many Muslim woman are turning to this oppressive garb - is it a sign of deintegration/radicalisation? This is worrying if so.

GerryDerpy

Intolerance of retarded ideas can only be a good thing can't it? Well I suppose it can contribute to raising the anger of the retarded.

If one young Muslim girl is made rethink about why she wears the hijab then the ban is worth it.

Tokyo

GerryDerpy wrote: »

Intolerance of retarded ideas can only be a good thing can't it? Well I suppose it can contribute to raising the anger of the retarded.

If one young Muslim girl is made rethink about why she wears the hijab then the ban is worth it.

It doesn't change the fact that forbidding them isn't less oppressive than requiring them though.

GerryDerpy

mike_ie wrote: »

It doesn't change the fact that forbidding them isn't less oppressive than requiring them though.

Umm is it like that though?

Hey girl, you're not allowed do stupid thing like put stupid thing on head. It is nonsense. Equals less stupidity.

Hey girl, you must be stupid and put stupid thing on head. Equals more stupidity.

joe40

Right I'm going to show my lack of knowledge here. Two questions: what exactly is a "hijab" is it just the head scarve as opposed to the full face covering.
Secondly is it Muslim women's choice to wear this and more importantly what sort of pressure would be put upon a young Muslim woman that did not wish to wear a hijab.
Surely we in Ireland have enough experience of the problems which occur when a religion has too much power in a society. Nothing like dogmatic rules to keep people subservient, and stifle debate.

TommyKnocker

GerryDerpy wrote: »

Umm is it like that though?

Hey girl, you're not allowed do stupid thing like put stupid thing on head. It is nonsense. Equals less stupidity.

Hey girl, you must be stupid and put stupid thing on head. Equals more stupidity.

Do you not get the fact that in both case someone is telling the girl what she is allowed to do? How about people being allowed to wear whatever they like as long as it is not interfering with anybody else.

Of course employers can have dress codes and should be able to enforce them. But these women appear to have been dismissed from their jobs. So I am assuming that they went for some sort of interview wearing Hijab and were hired and then at some point were told to remove their Hijabs. If the Hijab was such an issue how did they a) get an interview and b) get hired in the first place?

I cannot really think of any job where the wearing of Hijab or Niqab or Burqa for that matter would have any impact of the customer, client, patient etc. etc. Personally I would like to believe that it was that persons choice to wear said item of clothing and that they were not forced/coerced, but other than that I cannot think how it would impact me dealing with a person dressed in one of these items of clothing.

This case came about because two Muslin women were dismissed from their jobs for refusing to remove their Hijabs. I seriously believe that if this had of been 2 Jewish women dismissed for wearing hair scarves or Jewish men dismissed for wearing Yarmulke or a Sikh wearing a turban the ruling would have been much different.

I have spent time in France and I found it to be a fairly nationalist, racist, xenophobic country. I have heard French people I worked with hurl racist, xenophobic abuse at colored and Muslim people on the street with no provocation what so ever. With the way Muslims are portrayed in the media and after both France & Belgium having suffered attacks carried out by lunatics who professed or were adjudged to be Muslim I believe that this colored the judgement handed down by the ECJ.

Widdershins

I'd be more worried about the amount of women in domestic abuse situations prevented from going to work without their hijab. Instead of blaming about the ruling for 'causing' that situation.

Tokyo

joe40 wrote: »

Right I'm going to show my lack of knowledge here. Two questions: what exactly is a "hijab" is it just the head scarve as opposed to the full face covering.

A fundamental tenet of Islam is that both men and women dress "modestly" - for women, this means to make some attempt to cover the hair. The extent to which that modesty is executed varies from a basic headscarf to the full on head-to-toe burqa.

A hijab is effectively a headscarf - it doesn't cover the face. Depending on the culture, the style can vary, some hijabs resemble the headscarves of an older generation of Irish women, others look more like a nuns habit in the sense that they surround the head and under the chin. A quick google gives this image, which fits with my exposure to people I've met who wear a hijab.



(Incidentally, I'd consider the Afghani one above a niqab rather than hijab - not sure why it's included there.)

joe40 wrote: »

Secondly is it Muslim women's choice to wear this and more importantly what sort of pressure would be put upon a young Muslim woman that did not wish to wear a hijab.

The answer to that question can vary wildly, depending on the environment that Muslim woman happens to find herself in. It certainly has been used as a tool of oppression - it's a legal requirement in certain countries (Iran and Saudi Arabia, to name but two), but in countries where it's not enforced by law, or you're not going to get attacked for not wearing one, it's not as straightforward - many women choose to wear the hijab as a sign of faith, feminism, identity, or simply because they want to. As it happens, I work in a predominantly female Muslim workplace, and speaking to my colleagues today about this thread, they all say that it's about their own sense of self.

Maybe it's just my simplistic view of things, but, in my opinion, living in a country where you are being FORCED to wear a hijab is oppressive. But living in a country where you are FORBIDDEN to wear a hijab is equally as oppressive. Women jailed (or worse) in Afghanistan for not wearing a burqa are being oppressed, because they have no choice. Women in Europe do have a choice. Until you take it away, of course, which is what has just happened here.

TommyKnocker

joe40 wrote: »

Right I'm going to show my lack of knowledge here. Two questions: what exactly is a "hijab" is it just the head scarve as opposed to the full face covering.
Secondly is it Muslim women's choice to wear this and more importantly what sort of pressure would be put upon a young Muslim woman that did not wish to wear a hijab.
Surely we in Ireland have enough experience of the problems which occur when a religion has too much power in a society. Nothing like dogmatic rules to keep people subservient, and stifle debate.

1. Hijab is the scarf worn by Muslim women. There are different styles, but it usually covers the hair and wraps around the neck. See https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/33/85/4d/33854d05829b84d25bbf774e255ac1ec.jpg

The Niqab includes a covering of the nose and mouth and sometimes a mesh covers the eyes also. See https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/01/11/31/20/240_F_111312073_rufYmn7AVAwBoM5USpG9cEWy6dZNbphJ.jpg

A Burqa is the full length gown that covers the whole body, usually worn in the likes of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. See http://cdn.unilad.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/58976UNILAD-imageoptim-Women_in_burqa_with_their_children_in_Herat_Afghanistan.jpg

2. I believe that here in Ireland and in the west in general in most cases the Women chose to wear the covering as a sign of devotion to their God. However I am sure there are cases where the women are forced/coerced to cover, which I think is wrong. But IMHO telling a woman what she cannot wear is equally wrong.

Widdershins

Widdershins wrote: »

Yes and the employers who feel in their particular worklpace a hijab should not be worn can now make that call without a backlash. Is there anything wrong with that? The point is not to argue the suitability for each profession.

I agree with you on that point. I also think its up to each employer.
I was just pointing out that hygiene cant be used as a reason.

end of the road

JupiterKid wrote: »

I think the ECJ made the right decision. It should be at the employer's discretion what types of dress and clothing are appropriate. I'd say for 80% or more employers, religious garb wouldn't be an issue but in cases where practicality and hygiene are of import, the wearing of proper attire is paramount.

it always was at the employers discretion. i all ready clarified this earlier. the employers always could decide a dress code. what they couldn't do is have a dress code that banned islamic religious garments and symbols but not other religious garments and symbols. for some employers this could be left to their discretion but others couldn't be trusted, and in an ideal world a facility would exist to deal with that. in short, the ruling has changed nothing but simply clarified the existing law.

JupiterKid wrote: »

If this drives Islamic communities towards radicalism and terrorism, it isn't the ECJ's nor employers' fault. It is becoming clear to me that Europe has welcomed immigrants, but many immigrants refuse to integrate with European societies. What are we to do? Cater to their every demand and whim? Introduce Sharia Law? Boundaries need to be set. No religious group can hold Europe to ransom.

Boundaries have all ready been set. it is called the law. outside that, no other boundaries needed on this issue. oh and we could not say that the ruling, dispite only clarifying something that was all ready there, wouldn't give islamic extremists and radicals an excuse to radicalise more people.

Winterlong wrote: »

I commend your faith in the European justice system and wish I had it. . As the European court judges are appointed by politicians I think there is a political bias there. Not as bad as the US admittedly.

it's not about faith, but about evidence for me. the european court has been making many different rulings for and against things supported by both sides of the political spectrum for years. so on this particular issue, the far right think they have gotten some victory, that "ja muzzies" (forgive my terminology) can now be discriminated against by employers when they can't, whereas the left thought they would have got a victory on other rulings. i don't see why the courts would start making decisians just to please the far right now just because they are on the rise. the EU giving into them would be pointless as they want the EU to break up anyway.

Widdershins wrote: »

Yes and the employers who feel in their particular worklpace a hijab should not be worn can now make that call without a backlash.

only if they bann all religious garments and symbols. they cannot simply bann the wearing of a hijab.

GerryDerpy wrote: »

Intolerance of retarded ideas can only be a good thing can't it? Well I suppose it can contribute to raising the anger of the retarded.

If one young Muslim girl is made rethink about why she wears the hijab then the ban is worth it.

there is no "bann" . the ruling is clarification of an existing rule.
something that just "might" make only 1 person rethink about wearing something yet causes more issues for more people isn't "worth it"

challengemaster

Jake1 wrote: »

I agree with you on that point. I also think its up to each employer.
I was just pointing out that hygiene cant be used as a reason.

In the case of a dentist, sure, in the case of other professions though I would disagree. For example, surgeons and surgical staff would need to be much more strict in what is allowed in operating theatres. Similarly I can't see them being allowed into any GMP facility or clean rooms. They simply aren't sterile and wearing a mask over that doesn't change it.

mcmoustache

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't think that this ruling compels anyone to ban it. To me, it looks like a judgement that removes some state interference, red tape and the threat of sanctions from the rights of businesses and job-creators to implement uniform dress-code policies.

There is still a requirement that such dress-code policies apply equally to employees of all faiths and don't unfairly target one - banning hijabs while allowing crosses would be a no-no, for example.

In all, I think that this takes some control of the issue out of the government's hands and and leaves it up to individual employers to decide for themselves what they'd like to do.

conorhal

mike_ie wrote: »

It doesn't change the fact that forbidding them isn't less oppressive than requiring them though.

What, like insisting a flat earther should have suffer a globe in their school texbook kind of opressive?


Gerrawwnoutadat

pilly

I really have no problem with women wearing a hijab in any situation. The burka is a different matter altogether and raises concerns about security but to me the hijab is no more than a headscarf.

What would people think if nuns were all of sudden told they couldn't wear their veils around the place?

Widdershins

pilly wrote: »

I really have no problem with women wearing a hijab in any situation. The burka is a different matter altogether and raises concerns about security but to me the hijab is no more than a headscarf.

What would people think if nuns were all of sudden told they couldn't wear their veils around the place?

The ruling would also apply to nuns if nuns worked in jobs apart from being nuns where it's part of the workplace dresscode!
Nuns clothing and Islamic dress are quite different.And the ruling applies to places of work only, not when they are around the place.

pilly

Widdershins wrote: »

The ruling would also apply to nuns if nuns worked in jobs apart from being nuns where it's part of the workplace dresscode!
Nuns clothing and Islamic dress are quite different.And the ruling applies to places of work only, not when they are around the place.

Plenty of nuns work in hospitals and wear the full uniform. What's quite different about their dress? I don't see any difference whatsoever. It's a religious way of dressing.

I would like to see a hospital bring in this ruling and insist that a nun couldn't wear the garb either.

scamalert

pilly wrote: »

I really have no problem with women wearing a hijab in any situation. The burka is a different matter altogether and raises concerns about security but to me the hijab is no more than a headscarf.

What would people think if nuns were all of sudden told they couldn't wear their veils around the place?

about time actually some laws being implemented for religion that shouldnt be tolerated in this day and age,you say you dont mind,yeah try to bring your woman to UAE or any muslim country with a bit of tit line showing see how understanding they are there,theres no reason EU should bend to accommodate any Muslim religious beliefs.

pilly

scamalert wrote: »

about time actually some laws being implemented for religion that shouldnt be tolerated in this day and age,you say you dont mind,yeah try to bring your woman to UAE or any muslim country with a bit of tit line showing see how understanding they are there,theres no reason EU should bend to accommodate any Muslim religious beliefs.

Don't know why everyone assumes I'm a man, must be the user name. I'm female and I'm been in some muslim countries and would certainly cover up out of respect, I've no problem with that. Women going around with more than tits hanging out in this country make me sick to be honest.

No-one is asking the EU to bend, in the case originally mentioned I think the company got away with murder to be honest. They didn't have a general policy of not allowing religious dress but brought it in after they fired the lady.

Okay, if a company had it in their policy before someone took a job but I don't think you can all of a sudden just decide to change the policy. Unless as I said it's a matter of security.

By your logic though, because they're intolerant then we should be?

jackofalltrades

I don't have any issues with the Hijab.
That said it should be up to employers to decide what the dress code is.
That shouldn't have to accommodate religious clothing if they don't want to.

TommyKnocker wrote: »

I cannot really think of any job where the wearing of Hijab or Niqab or Burqa for that matter would have any impact of the customer, client, patient etc. etc.

Really? You can't think of any job, especially ones involving confrontation or having to show empathy, that could be negatively impacted by covering ones face?

end of the road

scamalert wrote: »

about time actually some laws being implemented for religion that shouldnt be tolerated in this day and age

why shouldn't religious dress which doesn't effect you be tolerated in a democratic nation? do you dislike democracy?

scamalert wrote: »

you say you dont mind,yeah try to bring your woman to UAE or any muslim country with a bit of tit line showing see how understanding they are there

irrelevant, means jot and is no justification for anything. while these countries are wrong in how they treat people, us behaving the same way (which you are effectively suggesting we should) to avenge these countries is not workable and goes against democracy and the values we stand for. it would effectively mean we are no better then these countries and 2 wrongs don't make a right.

scamalert wrote: »

theres no reason EU should bend to accommodate any Muslim religious beliefs.

but they aren't "bending" to accommodate anything. in europe people have the freedom to practice religion, including (depending on the country) the wearing of religious dress. that is how a free democratic system works i'm sure you could go visit the UAE if you are unhappy with such a free democratic system, it sounds like it would be up your street tbh..

Widdershins

pilly wrote: »

Plenty of nuns work in hospitals and wear the full uniform. What's quite different about their dress? I don't see any difference whatsoever. It's a religious way of dressing. Are those nuns working as nurses of some kind or as actual nuns serving religious patients? If the latter what is the problem? Obviously they have to wear religious dress for religious work..

I would like to see a hospital bring in this ruling and insist that a nun couldn't wear the garb either.

Firstly, I wasn't aware of that. Maybe they shouldn't be doing so? Although considering it's the uniform of their lifelong vocation, is that not different in itself? Imo both are the outward signs of extreme cults but at least nuns signed up for it as a job. Are they nurses or carrying out actual religious work in their religious uniforms?

You really don't know the differences between Islamic womens garments and nuns garments?

One applies to women in general, the other to a religious order.
One can include full covering wit just a mesh in the face covering, to breath through.
I don't mean to be sarcastic or argumentative, but maybe you do? It's like a game of spot the difference in primary school!

As for it's just''religious dress''. I think that's a bit demeaning to the situation of abuse where women may not be able to leave the house to go to work if they aren't wearing hijab, and the enforcement of the wearing of this religious dress in strict cultures.

mahamageehad

I reckon this is a storm in a teacup. The ruling just gives the employers freedom to ban religious, ideological and political paraphernalia in the workplace if they want. They don't have to. Very few companies will bother, maybe some customer facing "uniformed" jobs at a push.

For the comments on telling a woman what not to wear, if a girl wants to wear a hijab, she just can't work in one of the few companies that enforce this. If you don't like the uniform, don't work there. I wouldn't like to have to wear knickers and nipple tassels at work so I don't work in a strip club. I don't go there and tell them they have to change to suit me. Similarly, I wouldn't be allowed do my office job if I turned up in that outfit!

pilly

Widdershins wrote: »

Firstly, I wasn't aware of that. Maybe they shouldn't be doing so? Although considering it's the uniform of their lifelong vocation, is that not different in itself? Imo both are the outward signs of extreme cults but at least nuns signed up for it as a job.

You really don't know the differences between Islamic womens garments and nuns garments?

One applies to women in general, the other to a religious order.
One can include full covering wit just a mesh in the face covering, to breath through.
I don't mean to be sarcastic or argumentative, but maybe you do? It's like a game of spot the difference in primary school!

I was comparing the nuns uniform to the hijab, not the more extreme covering you're talking about and no I don't see much difference between them, both are a sign of one's religious persuasion.

In fact I would be more bothered by the nun's uniform and frequently am, they also wear it when teaching children. To me it gives off an air of superiority too. Anyway, that's probably a different issue altogether.

My point really is, say for example a nun went to work in another country and was told she couldn't wear her uniform? There would be uproar!!

It's definitely a muslim bias that's going on here.

I'm honestly not trying to be sarcastic or argumentative here, I really do believe we need to live and let live more. I saw a muslim woman being interviewed about it last night and she said quite simply that it will drive muslim women out of the workforce and how is that going to help integration?