Hairdresser on trial for refusing hijab-wearing client in Norway

[Baerboxer]

43 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Maybe they want to lead a simple, peaceful life in a modern and progressive democracy?

 

I'm sure many do. But many also want to insist that the modern and progressive democracy adopts their ideological, sociological and legislative norms and culture. And a portion of those are prepared to use violent conflict to bring that about.

 

Those who don't support that remain largely silent and so get labelled the same by their inaction and silence.

[Usernames]

1 hour ago, ddavidovsky said:

I still can't get my head around the idea that there are Muslims living in Scandinavia at all.

No colonial legacy, no geographic proximity, no cultural affinity, a completely different climate to what they are used to, and a society that clearly doesn't like them or want them (the last point being the most significant). Why are they even there?

 

Because Scandinavian political leaders want to preen around like everybody's moral superiors and virtue signal to the rest of the world.

[Clamhua]

Doesn't that also apply to the Burmese and the Cambodians in Thailand?

[RuamRudy]

4 minutes ago, Usernames said:

 

Because Scandinavian political leaders want to preen around like everybody's moral superiors and virtue signal to the rest of the world.

 

Or maybe they were pursuing a model that, after a fashion, worked - until the Coalition of the Willing took a challenging but potentially manageable situation and turned it into a global clusterf*$k.

[Odin Norway]

5 hours ago, Prbkk said:

1 hour ago, Galactus said:

a discriminating hair dresser and her racist action. 

does she refuse, nuns, sikhs, jews etc too as they also wear religious symbols too or her actions are specific for muslim people?

and you know such actions create more division, more misunderstanding between groups. and radicals born and bombs follow.

 

 

really? those immigrants worked/works in factories, mines, cleaned the toilets and did all nonsense jobs Scandinavians or europeans does not want to do and now they dont belong there?

dont be funny. let all those migrants leave now, who will clean the toilets and do s...ty jobs, you? are you volunteer for that? be honest!

basically european economies collapse if they leave.

European economy raised on the shoulders of those migrants and you have no chance to complain now. if europe had long sighted politicians and less greedy factory owners 50 - 60 years ago calling those migrants in as cheap workers, there should be no problems now.

go blame them.

Hey.Where do you come from.Not from scandinavia thats for sure.We dont have mines anymore, and the newest people in Norway;Sweden and Denmark know the system so they dont do any of the jobs you are refering to.Our new countrymen up here cost much more then they give back.To see them leave  would be a big win.No loss at all.Sweden is close to colapsing already.Denmark woke up first.Hope Norway also wake up soon.90 % of all the crimes in Norway now is from our new arrivals.Thats why I dont live there anymore.Only work there.

 

Edited September 9, 2016 by Odin Norway

[Scott]

It's always sad when someone goes in to obtain a service and is not served because of a discriminatory action.   This, however, is more a symptom of what happens when very large numbers of people are allowed to resettle in a country.  

 

I have worked with refugees and one of the things that is quickly learned is that the numbers must be manageable to the resettlement country and services must be provided to help them to assimilate. 

 

Larger influxes from the same areas tend to result in a re-establishment of the culture, language and behavior of the home country.   In some cases, this is acceptable (a lot of Chinatowns are an example), in other cases, it results in ghettos of crime, drugs and now hotbeds of radicalization.  

 

In manageable numbers both sides can experience the culture of the other in a positive manner.   You can get a culturally enriched environment.   In unmanageable situations, you get divisions and conflict.  

 

I am pretty pro-refugees and resettlement is the only viable option for most true, political refugees.   The massive influx of people into Europe, which I believe was done for humanitarian reasons, has probably been more detrimental than anything I have witnessed over the years.  Refugees around the world are viewed very skeptically because of the current situation.

 

 

 

 

 

[Odin Norway]

33 minutes ago, Rancid said:

Hmm, more likely the welfare system pays better. Also bear in mind a while ago there were pamphlets being distributed to immigrant groups pointing out how tasty looking the local women were.

 

Weird how the Scandinavians are so completely PC, empowered women and emasculated men. Didn't the term berserker come from there, what happened?

You are absolutely right.We were Vikings but thats 100s of years ago.To bad the muslims havent changed the same in the same time.

[Scott]

Quite a number of years ago, several countries in Europe took very few refugees for resettlement.   They preferred to provide quality services to a small number and limit the total that they took.   For example, Sweden and Norway (I think) would take refugees with medical conditions requiring longer term care.   They also took refugees who had experienced trauma.  

 

At that time, that seemed to work quite well for them and for people who would otherwise have been very hard to find a country to accept them.

 

 

[Odin Norway]

2 minutes ago, Scott said:

It's always sad when someone goes in to obtain a service and is not served because of a discriminatory action.   This, however, is more a symptom of what happens when very large numbers of people are allowed to resettle in a country.  

 

I have worked with refugees and one of the things that is quickly learned is that the numbers must be manageable to the resettlement country and services must be provided to help them to assimilate. 

 

Larger influxes from the same areas tend to result in a re-establishment of the culture, language and behavior of the home country.   In some cases, this is acceptable (a lot of Chinatowns are an example), in other cases, it results in ghettos of crime, drugs and now hotbeds of radicalization.  

 

In manageable numbers both sides can experience the culture of the other in a positive manner.   You can get a culturally enriched environment.   In unmanageable situations, you get divisions and conflict.  

 

I am pretty pro-refugees and resettlement is the only viable option for most true, political refugees.   The massive influx of people into Europe, which I believe was done for humanitarian reasons, has probably been more detrimental than anything I have witnessed over the years.  Refugees around the world are viewed very skeptically because of the current situation.

 

 

 

 

 

You are spot on.

It is not the people itself the scandinaviens cant handle.Its the religion.We are civilised and for many others cold,but also fair.Treat us with respect and you will get the same back.Sharia can not mix with anything.

[Usernames]

Just now, Odin Norway said:

You are spot on.

It is not the people itself the scandinaviens cant handle.Its the religion.We are civilised and for many others cold,but also fair.Treat us with respect and you will get the same back.Sharia can not mix with anything.

 

Sorry, but you can never change them, and they will eventually massacre you.

[Odin Norway]

1 minute ago, Usernames said:

 

Sorry, but you can never change them, and they will eventually massacre you.

Thats what will happen yes. When they gets many they wil take over everything.

[GarryP]

2 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

I still can't get my head around the idea that there are Muslims living in Scandinavia at all.

No colonial legacy, no geographic proximity, no cultural affinity, a completely different climate to what they are used to, and a society that clearly doesn't like them or want them (the last point being the most significant). Why are they even there?

We for starters the clothing is definitely weather appropriate. 

[alofthailand]

11 hours ago, Prbkk said:

Silly cow. Frightened because someone wants a haircut, for which she was going to pay ( and take off the hijab for the procedure). Pathetic, moronic white trash who deserves to go broke.

 

White trash? A disgraceful racist comment-shameful.Where are the moderators?

[thaihome]

23 minutes ago, Scott said:

It's always sad when someone goes in to obtain a service and is not served because of a discriminatory action.   This, however, is more a symptom of what happens when very large numbers of people are allowed to resettle in a country.  

 

I have worked with refugees and one of the things that is quickly learned is that the numbers must be manageable to the resettlement country and services must be provided to help them to assimilate. 

 

Larger influxes from the same areas tend to result in a re-establishment of the culture, language and behavior of the home country.   In some cases, this is acceptable (a lot of Chinatowns are an example), in other cases, it results in ghettos of crime, drugs and now hotbeds of radicalization.  

 

In manageable numbers both sides can experience the culture of the other in a positive manner.   You can get a culturally enriched environment.   In unmanageable situations, you get divisions and conflict.  

 

I am pretty pro-refugees and resettlement is the only viable option for most true, political refugees.   The massive influx of people into Europe, which I believe was done for humanitarian reasons, has probably been more detrimental than anything I have witnessed over the years.  Refugees around the world are viewed very skeptically because of the current situation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You mean like the massive ghettos in major US cities during the 19th and early 20th centuries holding the huge influx of Irish, eastern Europeans, and Italians that were a recipient of exactly the same xenophobic rethoric seen here that they would never assimilate. 

 

The same racist rethoric seen in 1960's in the southern US that having to serve a black at a white only lunch counter was a sign of the deterioration of American culture.

 

TH 

[ddavidovsky]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Maybe they want to lead a simple, peaceful life in a modern and progressive democracy?

 

Then maybe they should work hard towards that end in their own countries?

[Kinnock]

1 hour ago, Khon Kaen Dave said:

Right,but doesnt this also apply to the black slaves of America ,way back.

 

I don't think so.  Refusing to serve someone because of their skin color is abhorrent and racist.  But if someone chooses to wear a uniform that is linked to violence, intolerance and the oppression of women, then it's not unreasonable to choose not to offer them a service.

 

It's a shame that 'human rights' only works one way.

[RuamRudy]

4 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

Then maybe they should work hard towards that end in their own countries?

 

In principle I agree with you, but look at the despotic puppets that the west has propped up in all these countries over the years - those who seek the simple life are hardly likely to succeed in fomenting change. 

[FredNL]

The sad thing is that only half of the story was published.

The other half that the muslim "b#tch" demanded that all men would leave the salon. The salon was serving men and women, not women only and would lose male customers!!! 

 

A Muslim woman [named Malika Bayan'] walked into a hair salon for men and women and immediately demanded that she be served without men around so that she can remove her headscarf. Unfortunately for her, she quickly realized that she brought her entitlement to the wrong hairdresser.

 

 

http://www.snopes.com/muslim-woman-demanded-men-leave-salon-so-she-could-get-her-hair-styled/

Edited September 9, 2016 by FredNL

[thaihome]

9 minutes ago, Kinnock said:

 

I don't think so.  Refusing to serve someone because of their skin color is abhorrent and racist.  But if someone chooses to wear a uniform that is linked to violence, intolerance and the oppression of women, then it's not unreasonable to choose not to offer them a service.

 

It's a shame that 'human rights' only works one way.

 

One of the worst politically motivated mass murders in the western world was committed in Norway by a white guy wearing a black shirt. Does this hairdresser run away screaming every time she sees a white guy in a black shirt?

 

Wearing a hijab is not a uniform "linked to violence, intolerance, and the oppression of women" any more then wearing a black shirt is linked to killing teenagers. 

TH 

[RuamRudy]

5 minutes ago, FredNL said:

The sad thing is that only half of the story was published.

The other half that the muslim "b#tch" demanded that all men would leave the salon. The salon was serving men and women, not women only and would lose male customers!!! 

 

I think you will find that was covered earlier in the thread - the Muslim woman did not make any such request.

[Scott]

43 minutes ago, thaihome said:

 

You mean like the massive ghettos in major US cities during the 19th and early 20th centuries holding the huge influx of Irish, eastern Europeans, and Italians that were a recipient of exactly the same xenophobic rethoric seen here that they would never assimilate. 

 

The same racist rethoric seen in 1960's in the southern US that having to serve a black at a white only lunch counter was a sign of the deterioration of American culture.

 

TH 

Well, in part yes and in part no.   The very large influx was an object lesson on what happens when massive numbers of people are allowed in.   They, however, were not refugees, for the most part.   The country was vast and there was ample room for the ghettos to survive.   There was also plenty of work for them to do.   They participated in that ethereal quest for the American Dream.   It was doable then and many achieved it.   The cultural differences were also not as distant as some of the groups coming now, so change was possible.

 

Those fleeing persecution need the protection of resettlement.   It's largely be ruined by the number who have arrived for other reasons.  

 

 

[Odin Norway]

22 minutes ago, FredNL said:

The sad thing is that only half of the story was published.

The other half that the muslim "b#tch" demanded that all men would leave the salon. The salon was serving men and women, not women only and would lose male customers!!! 

 

A Muslim woman [named Malika Bayan'] walked into a hair salon for men and women and immediately demanded that she be served without men around so that she can remove her headscarf. Unfortunately for her, she quickly realized that she brought her entitlement to the wrong hairdresser.

 

 

http://www.snopes.com/muslim-woman-demanded-men-leave-salon-so-she-could-get-her-hair-styled/

Thank you FredNL. I didnt know that,and I have read the story in the Norwegian newspapers.But I guess If you read it on the internet it must be true.

I am all the way on the hairdressers side in the first place.

[thaihome]

7 minutes ago, Scott said:

Well, in part yes and in part no.   The very large influx was an object lesson on what happens when massive numbers of people are allowed in.   They, however, were not refugees, for the most part.   The country was vast and there was ample room for the ghettos to survive.   There was also plenty of work for them to do.   They participated in that ethereal quest for the American Dream.   It was doable then and many achieved it.   The cultural differences were also not as distant as some of the groups coming now, so change was possible.

 

Those fleeing persecution need the protection of resettlement.   It's largely be ruined by the number who have arrived for other reasons.  

 

 

 

Most of them were indeed refugees escaping both political and economic oppression and in many cases attempts at what is now known as "ethnic cleansing " in Ireland and Eastern Europe and Russia. The cultural differences were huge,  maybe greater then what is seen today, especially since the majority were catholic or Jews arriving in an almost purely white Anglo Saxon US culture at the time.  They endured  prejudices for a very long time, right up to the election of JFK as the first catholic president.  

 

Your explanation of the issues today is flawed by your lack of a historical perspective on immigration and how long it takes an immigrant wave to assimilate.  

 

TH 

 

 

[RuamRudy]

15 minutes ago, Odin Norway said:

Thank you FredNL. I didnt know that,and I have read the story in the Norwegian newspapers.But I guess If you read it on the internet it must be true.

I am all the way on the hairdressers side in the first place.

 

A perfect example of how dangerous innuendo is - a falsehood somehow gets accepted as fact. 

 

Snopes, the link included in the OP's post, is a highly respected, non-partisan fact finding site. It makes the following observation (text in bold included by me for clarity and emphasis):

 

"The claim that Bayan demanded male customers leave the establishment doesn't appear in any primary news accounts of the incident that we could find and seems to be an artifact of MadWorldNews' third-hand reporting, taken from a comment made by Hodne to Norwegian media in which she assumed that if she were to provide services to hijabi women, she would be forced to boot out her male clients to accommodate them."

 

So there is absolutely ZERO evidence to suggest that Mrs Bayan demanded that men leave the salon, and it is stated that Mrs Hodne made the assumption - and now her assumption is bastardised into fact attributed to Mrs Bayan, a woman who has been innocent all through this.

[Odin Norway]

3 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

I still can't get my head around the idea that there are Muslims living in Scandinavia at all.

No colonial legacy, no geographic proximity, no cultural affinity, a completely different climate to what they are used to, and a society that clearly doesn't like them or want them (the last point being the most significant). Why are they even there?

The wellfare-system is the only answer you need on that question.

Just go there and ask for it and go on a vication back to youre own country after and live like a king.They get more then the people that have been working and payd tax their hole life.

Im ashamed to be a Norwegian when we see how the system dont work at all.

[stevenl]

6 hours ago, otherstuff1957 said:

I read that the initial reason she turned the woman down is that the Hijabi wanted all male customers and employees to leave before taking off her headscarf.  If this is true (I only saw it mentioned in one article about this) then she was fully justified in turning her away.

 

Edited to add - OK, I double checked it and it's half true/half false:

http://www.snopes.com/muslim-woman-demanded-men-leave-salon-so-she-could-get-her-hair-styled/

Hmm, no, 100% false. The hair dresser claimed she would have to remove all men, not the client.

Edited September 9, 2016 by stevenl

[Jingthing]

A message from the King of Norway:

 

Quote

Norwegians are girls who love girls, boys who love boys, and girls and boys who love each other. Norwegians believe in God, Allah, everything and nothing. 

 

 

 

 

[Odin Norway]

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

A perfect example of how dangerous innuendo is - a falsehood somehow gets accepted as fact. 

 

Snopes, the link included in the OP's post, is a highly respected, non-partisan fact finding site. It makes the following observation (text in bold included by me for clarity and emphasis):

 

"The claim that Bayan demanded male customers leave the establishment doesn't appear in any primary news accounts of the incident that we could find and seems to be an artifact of MadWorldNews' third-hand reporting, taken from a comment made by Hodne to Norwegian media in which she assumed that if she were to provide services to hijabi women, she would be forced to boot out her male clients to accommodate them."

 

So there is absolutely ZERO evidence to suggest that Mrs Bayan demanded that men leave the salon, and it is stated that Mrs Hodne made the assumption - and now her assumption is bastardised into fact attributed to Mrs Bayan, a woman who has been innocent all through this.

I would also think I had to kick out the males as well.In my smal mind I thought thats why they wear that hiyab after all.So they dont expose themselfs to males.

Or maybe it is to protect themselfs from all the cctv cameras all over the place now.I guess they can choose.If a white person wear a hiyab it is to rob a bank or at least she is up to no good.

Do they take it of to ID themselfs.I have noe idea.

[tifino]

7 hours ago, Emster23 said:

I was wondering how can give a haircut if wearing a hijab.... I once replaced generator on my Sunbeam in the dark (just feel around "under the hood").... brings to mind those dolls Chinese doctors were purported to use with women patients who would indicate on doll where problem was.... maybe hairdresser should have told Ms Hijab "I'd like to cut your hair, but need to tell you some men will be coming in shortly".

 

well, first things first...

 

firstly I'd have brought out my first set of cutters for the first task:

 

a set of Pinker Shears

 

 

[halloween]

I have to ask, would there be the same fuss if she refused someone in a Nazi uniform?