EU headscarf ban ruling sparks faith group backlash

[webfact]

EU headscarf ban ruling sparks faith group backlash

By Alastair Macdonald

REUTERS

 

FILE PHOTO: A woman walks past a mannequin wearing an hijab headscarf at a market in the Brussels district of Molenbeek, Belgium, August 14, 2016. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir/File Photo

 

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Companies may ban staff from wearing Islamic headscarves and other visible religious symbols under certain conditions, the European Union's top court ruled on Tuesday, setting off a storm of complaint from rights groups and religious leaders.

 

In its first ruling on an issue that has become highly charged across Europe, the Court of Justice (ECJ) found a Belgian firm which had a rule that employees who dealt with customers should not wear visible religious or political symbols may not have discriminated against a Muslim receptionist it dismissed for wearing a headscarf.

 

The judgment on that and a French case came on the eve of a Dutch election in which Muslim immigration is a key issue and weeks before a similarly charged presidential vote in France, where headscarves are banned in public service jobs.

 

French conservative candidate Francois Fillon hailed the ECJ ruling as "an immense relief" to companies and workers that would contribute to "social peace".

 

But a group backing the fired employees said the ruling may shut many Muslim women out of the workforce. European rabbis said the Court had added to rising incidences of hate crime to send a message that "faith communities are no longer welcome".

 

The judges in Luxembourg concluded the dismissals of the two women may, depending on the view of national courts, have breached EU laws against religious discrimination.

 

They determined that the case of the French engineer Asma Bougnaoui, fired by software company Micropole after a customer complaint, may well have been discriminatory.

 

Reactions, however, focused on the findings that services firm G4S in Belgium was entitled to dismiss receptionist Samira Achbita in 2006 if, in pursuit of legitimate business interests, it fairly applied a broad dress code for all customer-facing staff to project an image of political and religious neutrality.

 

"BACKDOOR TO PREJUDICE"

 

The Open Society Justice Initiative, a group backed by the philanthropist George Soros, said the ruling "weakens the guarantee of equality" offered by EU laws: "In places where national law is weak, this ruling will exclude many Muslim women from the workplace," policy office Maryam Hmadoun said.

 

Amnesty International welcomed the ruling on the French case that "employers are not at liberty to pander to the prejudices of their clients". But, it said, bans on religious symbols to show neutrality opened "a backdoor to precisely such prejudice".

 

The president of the Conference of European Rabbis, Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, complained: "This decision sends a signal to all religious groups in Europe". National court cases across Europe have included questions on the wearing of Christian crosses, Sikh turbans and Jewish skullcaps.

 

In the Belgian case, the ECJ said: "An internal rule of an undertaking which prohibits the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign does not constitute direct discrimination."

 

It was for Belgian judges to determine whether Achbita may have been a victim of indirect discrimination if the rule put people of a particular faith at a disadvantage.

 

But the rule could still be justified if it was "genuinely pursued in a consistent and systematic manner" to project an "image of neutrality".

 

(Additional reporting by Waverly Colville in Brussels and Sudip Kar-Gupta in Paris; Editing by Catherine Evans and Pritha Sarkar)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-03-15

[phantomfiddler]

Why not just ban all religious articles that have an area of over 1 square inch. That way a person can wear a small cross on their chain, which a lot of people tend to do. Hardly offensive, except maybe to to the muslims who seem to want everything their way !

[jak2002003]

Good.  All religious costumes and symbols that are 'in your face' should have no place in the workplace.  That includes ALL religions as well as political symbols.  The workplace is for working, not spreading your religion or political views.

 

If some people get upset about that, then they can just not go to work and rely on their God or Gods to provided for them if they are so religious and really believe what they are doing is going to please their God and get them rewards.

 

 

[Saradoc1972]

I am all in favour of that ruling. The headscarf itself is not all that important to me, but it should be kept out of schools (I don't mind the teachers, but it would give a lot of Arab girls a good excuse), and people have been sued over not employing scarfy-girls, including hairdressers. This ends here and now, somebody has to put the boot down on Muslim encroachments.

[kamahele]

I'm not a fan of religious symbols in the work place but a simple head covering for modesty isn't a symbol. What about conservative Jewish women who wear wigs or men who cover their hair with hats or yarmulkes and Sikhs who wear turbans and Mennonites who wear head coverings? 

[Grouse]

20 minutes ago, kamahele said:

I'm not a fan of religious symbols in the work place but a simple head covering for modesty isn't a symbol. What about conservative Jewish women who wear wigs or men who cover their hair with hats or yarmulkes and Sikhs who wear turbans and Mennonites who wear head coverings? 

Modesty my ar*e; it's just stick religion in your face.

 

Any suggestions for an atheist symbol? 

[i claudius]

Much better if Muslims just go to nice muslim countrys where they can do as they please and just let us get on just the way we used to and stop complaining all the time .

[ballpoint]

An anonymous woman, frustrated by the ban.

 

Seriously, how will they handle women wearing a normal scarf?  Will they start banning them all, or just check whether they're muslim or not and make them remove it if they are?

Edited March 15, 2017 by ballpoint

[NoBrainer]

30 minutes ago, i claudius said:

Much better if Muslims just go to nice muslim countrys where they can do as they please and just let us get on just the way we used to and stop f---ing complaining all the time .

 

Only one problem, there are no "Nice Muslim Countries" 555   They have already destroyed them all.

 

The best solution might be to just not hire any muslims, period. If the economic incentives are not there

it may slow down the invasion a bit.

 

Unfortunately it is too late for this world. At the rate they reproduce, we are only 3 or 4 generations away

from Total Dominance, and they know it. Even the Chinese & Indians won't be spared.

 

 

 

 

[hugh2121]

So, what's wrong with being prejudiced against muslims?

[NoBrainer]

12 minutes ago, hugh2121 said:

So, what's wrong with being prejudiced against muslims?

 

Nothing.

 

Everybody has the right to their own opinion, and to like and dislike whoever they want.

 

It's called free though & free speech, the latter of which, many so-called Politically Correct countries are trying to take away.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

Good.  All religious costumes and symbols that are 'in your face' should have no place in the workplace.  That includes ALL religions as well as political symbols.  The workplace is for working, not spreading your religion or political views.

 

If some people get upset about that, then they can just not go to work and rely on their God or Gods to provided for them if they are so religious and really believe what they are doing is going to please their God and get them rewards.

 

 

This whole issue is just BS anyway. There is no such thing as "Islamic" headscarfs. Headscarfs and other head coverings worn by Islamic women are cultural, not religious. There is no requirement in the Koran to wear a head covering. Many Muslim women do not wear hair coverings.

The only way to ban head coverings would be on security issues, if applicable.

Of course, full or partial face covering should be banned in public, for security reasons, but not just Muslims wear headscarves- Christian women do in some countries, and I believe Jewish women also.

[AhFarangJa]

2 hours ago, i claudius said:

Much better if Muslims just go to nice muslim countrys where they can do as they please and just let us get on just the way we used to and stop f---ing complaining all the time .

Fully agree with you on that, except for a couple of points.....

1 - Nice muslim country is an oxymoron, there isn't one.

2 - In their countries they cannot do as they please, especially women, so they all come to the west, then try to turn it into the s**thole they came from.......

[Rigby40]

Multiculturalism, the greatest myth of them all.

[Itsnottheplaceitwas]

"Amnesty International" who pays in to this bunch 

& 99% of the staff are head scarf wearers ! 

 

If if they wanna come to our countries to get out of the Sh...t hole they came from abide by our rules & laws

or simply go back and enjoy your own archaic 

?

stoning 

hands chopped off 

enjoy ?

 

 Coz I don't want you in Bkk or UK 

Youve taken over areas of BKK just like you have in all countries I am surprised the Thais have allowed it ?

 

come on Mrs May get a move on 

before some other dumb Arse EU laws ruin what's left ! ?

[whatawonderfulday]

6 hours ago, phantomfiddler said:

Why not just ban all religious articles that have an area of over 1 square inch. That way a person can wear a small cross on their chain, which a lot of people tend to do. Hardly offensive, except maybe to to the muslims who seem to want everything their way !

Exactly, and if the Muslims don't like having to conform to European principles then they can always go to Saudi or the likes.  Problem was the PC correct leeches have been allowed to get such a foot hold in most countries religions such as Muslim consider they have so much freedom that they should be able to do what they want, when they want, and wear what they want. Some of my best friends are Muslims and they also consider that the more strict aspects of their religion should never have been exported outside of their respective homelands in order to show respect to their adopted countries.

[7by7]

7 hours ago, i claudius said:

Much better if Muslims just go to nice muslim countrys where they can do as they please and just let us get on just the way we used to and stop f---ing complaining all the time .

It isn't just Muslims; from the OP

 

10 hours ago, webfact said:

European rabbis said the Court had added to rising incidences of hate crime to send a message that "faith communities are no longer welcome".

 

From reading many posts in other parts of this forum, Thais could be very justified in saying "Much better if Farang just go to nice Farang countrys (sic) where they can do as they please and just let us get on just the way we used to and stop complaining all the time."

[Baerboxer]

6 hours ago, Grouse said:

Modesty my ar*e; it's just stick religion in your face.

 

Any suggestions for an atheist symbol? 

 

How about a stuffed Grouse sitting on the shoulder like a parrot? That would be a good symbol for atheists Grousey.

 

Roll on the glorious12th  

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

Any suggestions for an atheist symbol? 

Yesterday a woman asked me what is my religion. I didn't know the word for science in Thai, so after an moment I said to her "Albert Einstein". She understood immediately :)

 

Maybe not perfect for pure atheists, but this will do fine for me. 

[Grouse]

9 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

How about a stuffed Grouse sitting on the shoulder like a parrot? That would be a good symbol for atheists Grousey.

 

Roll on the glorious12th  

You'd really need a brace, one on each shoulder and that would look silly ?

[Baerboxer]

Just now, Grouse said:

You'd really need a brace, one on each shoulder and that would look silly ?

 

Making me feel hungry now Grousey!

 

Although your avatar photo looks suspiciously like a certain somewhat "famous" Grouse 

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Making me feel hungry now Grousey!

 

Although your avatar photo looks suspiciously like a certain somewhat "famous" Grouse 

Such perspicacity! Pure coincidence ?

[ChidlomDweller]

There already is an Atheism symbol of sorts: the flying spaghetti monster, for the mock religion Pastafarianism.

 

As for this headscarf ruling, GOOD.  It's not just a piece of clothing but a provocative symbol.  Try walking around a Muslim neighborhood in your own country with a Mohammed t-shirt and tell them it's just fashion, if you live long enough  Good luck to you!

Edited March 15, 2017 by ChidlomDweller

[7by7]

8 minutes ago, ChidlomDweller said:

As for this headscarf ruling, GOOD.  It's not just a piece of clothing but a provocative symbol

 Is a Jewish yarmulke a provocative symbol?

 

How about the wigs and scarves worn by orthodox Jewish women?

 

Christians wearing a cross?

 

Sikhs wearing a turban?

 

Hindus with dots on their foreheads?

 

The list goes on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ChidlomDweller]

It's provocative in this age of terrorism, and parallel communities being formed instead of being absorbed in melting pot fashion, bloody hell yes.  If nuns / sikhs / Jews, etc. start a widespread terror campaign they'd get the same nasty looks.

 

What do YOU think of Mohammed t-shirts?  Acceptable?

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, ChidlomDweller said:

There already is an Atheism symbol of sorts: the flying spaghetti monster, for the mock religion Pastafarianism.

 

As for this headscarf ruling, GOOD.  It's not just a piece of clothing but a provocative symbol.  Try walking around a Muslim neighborhood in your own country with a Mohammed t-shirt and tell them it's just fashion, if you live long enough  Good luck to you!

Pastafarism a mock religion? How dear you? It's as real religion as anything else. Pastafarism just needs a bit of time to be accepted as real religion. Fun fact: It's easy to do a Pastafarism hat from folio hat. :)

I'm not really against headscarfs. I see it more of a modesty dress than religious symbol. In my neighbourhood some women use it, some women use it sometimes, some I have never seen using the scarf.  It's up to the women and their family cultures, how they wish to be dressed.

If the headscarf is not been made an big issue, I predict it's use will fade away in time. Who knows, maybe it will become a fashion statement for all and then it will be replaced with something else, for all (muslim women included).  

When we allow ourselves think that the scarf is just a modesty clothing, it's not such a huge deal anymore?

[7by7]

14 minutes ago, ChidlomDweller said:

It's provocative in this age of terrorism, and parallel communities being formed instead of being absorbed in melting pot fashion, bloody hell yes.  If nuns / sikhs / Jews, etc. start a widespread terror campaign they'd get the same nasty looks.

 

So are you saying that the innocent majority of Muslims, who are as against the terrorists as the rest of us,  should be punished merely because the terrorists claim to be acting in the name of their religion?

 

The aim of the terrorists is exactly that; to divide communities, to make all Muslims the object of mistrust and worse.

 

So if you really do believe that; if you really do treat all Muslims with 'nasty looks' or worse;  then you are doing the terrorists work for them!

 

 

Edited March 15, 2017 by 7by7

[Grouse]

30 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Is a Jewish yarmulke a provocative symbol?

 

How about the wigs and scarves worn by orthodox Jewish women?

 

Christians wearing a cross?

 

Sikhs wearing a turban?

 

Hindus with dots on their foreheads?

 

The list goes on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yep! I don't wish to know what your beliefs are. Why should you foist them on me? I particularly dislike that fish symbol on the back of cars. 

[ChidlomDweller]

16 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

So are you saying that the innocent majority of Muslims, who are as against the terrorists as the rest of us,  should be punished merely because the terrorists claim to be acting in the name of their religion?

 

The aim of the terrorists is exactly that; to divide communities, to make all Muslims the object of mistrust and worse.

 

So if you really do believe that; if you really do treat all Muslims with 'nasty looks' or worse;  then you are doing the terrorists work for them!

 

 

You didn't answer my question and notably left it out of my quoted post.   So what do you think about t-shirts featuring a Mohammed cartoon?  Clothing or provocative symbol?

 

I'll answer your question if you answer mine first.

[ChidlomDweller]

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Yep! I don't wish to know what your beliefs are. Why should you foist them on me? I particularly dislike that fish symbol on the back of cars. 

The quote comes to mind: "Religions are like penises.  You can enjoy them, be very proud of them, but keep them out of my face!"