EU headscarf ban ruling sparks faith group backlash

[ChidlomDweller]

35 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Why people do take a scarf as an offense? 

Because it's not just a piece of clothing but has strong symbolic value.

 

Even so, that's beside the point.  If you do something that you know causes offence to a lot of people, you should at least think about whether it's appropriate to continue doing so.  Also maybe ask yourself if you are doing enough to integrate yourself, or if you are simply there to build a parallel society for yourself and your descendants.

 

I know Thai people are offended if I point the sole of my foot to them.  I can say (A) "that's their problem", or (B) take into account how that will be received and not do it.  I take the minor inconvenience sometimes and choose for B.

[ChidlomDweller]

And to add to that, it didn't bother me before 9/11 and that whole terrorism started.  It still doesn't bother me too much if I see older women because I assume that's how they grew up and they don't feel comfortable without it.  But if I see young, 3rd generation women still wearing a headscarf, I see someone with no intention to integrate herself.  Especially if their mother didn't wear one, and they made a conscious decision to start wearing one.  You can't just separate an action from what it communicates to the world.  At a minimum, it's unhelpful and divisive.  

[7by7]

8 hours ago, ChidlomDweller said:

So this women...  If you knowingly do something that plenty of people take offence to, especially in these tense times.  If you prominently display a symbol that you know many people will interpret (rightly or wrongly) as a statement of support for extremism, is that laudable?  Is she helping things make worse or better?  It's like those shitty women wearing burkinis on the beach in Nice, days after the terrorist attack.  Not in good taste.

 

IMO she's actively stirring the pot by starting to wear a niqab.  My Iranian friend complained about this recently, a minority of bad ones stirring the pot and painting other ones by association.  We're actually agreeing on that, the majority are decent people just wanting to go about their lives.  But that woman you mention, in my viewpoint, is not one of the good ones.  

 

 

If you think that a woman, or man come to that, wearing Muslim dress supports terrorism, then you are very much mistaken. As has been shown many times, the overwhelming majority of Muslims, whatever they wear, do not.

 

Fortunately, the majority of British people do not share your opinion; do not judge someone because of how they dress.

 

There was a time when many people associated a shaven headed, tattooed man wearing a football shirt with violent hooliganism; thankfully those days have passed.

 

The UK is a free country. Our freedoms include freedom of religion, freedom to dress as we wish.

 

Why do you want to deprive us of those freedoms?

 

There are many oppressive regimes, including Muslim ones, around the world where people do not have the freedoms we enjoy; these regimes are, rightfully, criticised. Why do you want to impose such a regime upon us?

 

 

 

 

 

[ChidlomDweller]

Pretty much what I said earlier: demographic trends mean they'll be a majority in 2-3 generations.  If they haven't integrated by then, say really goodbye to our freedoms.  Then we (the generations after us) will have to conform to their strictures.  In my home town already more than 50% of births are to immigrant families.  Do you not care one bit if Europe becomes predominantly muslim.  Islam didn't spread in the Indian subcontinent or Indonesia overnight either.  Maybe it took a century.  For humanity, that's just a blink.  And mind you, I think at one point Christianity was just as bad, and I'm no fan of the Christian right, but that's not a current issue in Europe.  All religions, once powerful enough, start to impose themselves.

[7by7]

2 hours ago, ChidlomDweller said:

Pretty much what I said earlier: demographic trends mean they'll be a majority in 2-3 generations..........

 

Ah, the old "They breed like rats and are going to take over" argument. Now where have we heard that before?

 

2 hours ago, ChidlomDweller said:

If they haven't integrated by then, say really goodbye to our freedoms.  

The second generation integrate more than the first; the third more than the second, and so on. Most immigrants do integrate and do consider themselves to be British, do respect the freedoms we enjoy in this country, do want those freedoms for themselves and their families; whether they be Muslim or some other religion.

 

2 hours ago, ChidlomDweller said:

In my home town already more than 50% of births are to immigrant families.

Can you provide a link to the actual figures, or at least say where your home town is so they can be verified?

 

Most published statistics on births to migrants in the UK define them on the basis of births to immigrant mothers. So births to a British father and immigrant mother are classed as immigrant births.

 

That, of course, includes a British/Thai couple we know who have two children; and all other British Thai, British/whatever nationality couples where the father is British.

 

Plus, of course, the figures on immigrant births include all immigrants, regardless of their country of origin and religion.

 

2 hours ago, ChidlomDweller said:

Do you not care one bit if Europe becomes predominantly muslim.

Several European countries have had a majority Muslim population for centuries. Their populations enjoy many, if not all, of the same freedoms as the rest of us in Europe.

 

Of course, only a know nothing would deny that some, especially among the ex Soviet bloc countries, are dictatorships; but they are political dictatorships, not religious ones.

 

I do care about Europe remaining free and democratic. The vast majority of European Muslims also care about that.

 

But it is only the tiny minority who are extremists and terrorists who get the publicity.

 

2 hours ago, ChidlomDweller said:

I'm no fan of the Christian right, but that's not a current issue in Europe

Actually; it is. There is a rise in attacks by the Christian right in both Europe and the USA; and their targets are not just Muslims and Jews but include other Christians who happen to have a different skin colour and anyone else they consider inferior.

 

Focus on Islamist terror plots overlooks threat from far right – report

 

Right-Wing Extremists Are a bigger Threat to America than ISIS

 

I do not care what religion a terrorist is; I don't care what their aims are. Terrorists are criminal scum who wish to impose their views by means of murder and violence. Islamic terrorists do not have the support of the vast majority of Muslims any more than Christian terrorists have the support of the vast majority of Christians.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, ChidlomDweller said:

Because it's not just a piece of clothing but has strong symbolic value.

 

Even so, that's beside the point.  If you do something that you know causes offence to a lot of people, you should at least think about whether it's appropriate to continue doing so.  Also maybe ask yourself if you are doing enough to integrate yourself, or if you are simply there to build a parallel society for yourself and your descendants.

 

I know Thai people are offended if I point the sole of my foot to them.  I can say (A) "that's their problem", or (B) take into account how that will be received and not do it.  I take the minor inconvenience sometimes and choose for B.

Every day I interact with the ladies with scarfs. I do buy alcohol, when it's not legal to do so. 

 

I make jokes with these girls; and they do the same.

 

Edited March 18, 2017 by Guest

[ChidlomDweller]

11 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

Ah, the old "They breed like rats and are going to take over" argument. Now where have we heard that before?

 

The second generation integrate more than the first; the third more than the second, and so on. Most immigrants do integrate and do consider themselves to be British, do respect the freedoms we enjoy in this country, do want those freedoms for themselves and their families; whether they be Muslim or some other religion.

 

Can you provide a link to the actual figures, or at least say where your home town is so they can be verified?

 

Most published statistics on births to migrants in the UK define them on the basis of births to immigrant mothers. So births to a British father and immigrant mother are classed as immigrant births.

 

That, of course, includes a British/Thai couple we know who have two children; and all other British Thai, British/whatever nationality couples where the father is British.

 

Plus, of course, the figures on immigrant births include all immigrants, regardless of their country of origin and religion.

 

Several European countries have had a majority Muslim population for centuries. Their populations enjoy many, if not all, of the same freedoms as the rest of us in Europe.

 

Of course, only a know nothing would deny that some, especially among the ex Soviet bloc countries, are dictatorships; but they are political dictatorships, not religious ones.

 

I do care about Europe remaining free and democratic. The vast majority of European Muslims also care about that.

 

But it is only the tiny minority who are extremists and terrorists who get the publicity.

 

Actually; it is. There is a rise in attacks by the Christian right in both Europe and the USA; and their targets are not just Muslims and Jews but include other Christians who happen to have a different skin colour and anyone else they consider inferior.

 

Focus on Islamist terror plots overlooks threat from far right – report

 

Right-Wing Extremists Are a bigger Threat to America than ISIS

 

I do not care what religion a terrorist is; I don't care what their aims are. Terrorists are criminal scum who wish to impose their views by means of murder and violence. Islamic terrorists do not have the support of the vast majority of Muslims any more than Christian terrorists have the support of the vast majority of Christians.

I'll just answer this, the rest is fluff and deflection not worthy of my time, especially after your first point if you're going to go that low.

 

I saw a similar headline more recently bit this is the first I saw in a google search, and good enough.  I was born in Antwerp.

 

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20100208_053

[ChidlomDweller]

Not a bad read if you have access:

 

https://www.ft.com/content/39a0867a-0974-11e7-ac5a-903b21361b43

 

Former leftie (student Marxist, founder of Prospect magazine) arguing the legitimacy of national identity, which seems to have become a dirty word in some circles.

[ChidlomDweller]

10 hours ago, oilinki said:

Every day I interact with the ladies with scarfs. I do buy alcohol, when it's not legal to do so. 

 

I make jokes with these girls; and they do the same.

 

I totally believe that.  They're a small minority except in the south so they don't impose themselves.  Meanwhile in "moderate" Indonesia the Jakarta governor was recently sued for blasphemy and in equally tolerant Malaysia you have khalwat raids.  Stuff like that makes me distrust Islam.  I'm weird like that.

Edited March 19, 2017 by ChidlomDweller

[Neurath]

I think this ruling simply says that there is no religious defense against being removed from a position in the workplace due to one's headgear/dress. So you can justifiably be asked to remove the headgear and if you don't you can be sacked. Of course there are medical defenses against being so removed from the workplace. Example: Bandages are holding in my brain or fixing on my face transplant.

 

Under this ruling any business can allow employees to wear whatever headgear or religious symbols they like.

 

Personally I couldn't give a toss what sort of headgear someone wears. Don't give a stuff about what god they worship or religion they follow for that matter. Certainly couldn't give a flying F as to whether a community 'integrates' or not. We're The Borg after all. But I do give a stuff that every community follows and respects the laws of the country and, should they want the laws changed, use the democratic mechanisms at hand to effect that change.

 

The only piece of headgear that should steadfastly and incontrovertibly banned - for any reason other than documented medical - is the male toupee. It's an abomination and standing rebuke to all conceivable civilized norms.

[Neurath]

On 15/03/2017 at 11:36 PM, 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. 

Fish on back of car foisting beliefs on someone else? Struth, what about posting on a public forum :)

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, Neurath said:

I think this ruling simply says that there is no religious defense against being removed from a position in the workplace due to one's headgear/dress. So you can justifiably be asked to remove the headgear and if you don't you can be sacked. Of course there are medical defenses against being so removed from the workplace. Example: Bandages are holding in my brain or fixing on my face transplant.

 

Under this ruling any business can allow employees to wear whatever headgear or religious symbols they like.

 

Personally I couldn't give a toss what sort of headgear someone wears. Don't give a stuff about what god they worship or religion they follow for that matter. Certainly couldn't give a flying F as to whether a community 'integrates' or not. We're The Borg after all. But I do give a stuff that every community follows and respects the laws of the country and, should they want the laws changed, use the democratic mechanisms at hand to effect that change.

 

The only piece of headgear that should steadfastly and incontrovertibly banned - for any reason other than documented medical - is the male toupee. It's an abomination and standing rebuke to all conceivable civilized norms.

The ruling provides little guidance to employees and the reliance of political and religious neutrality.

A muslim who refused to shave his beard on religious grounds could be lawfully dismissed, whilst being unlawful for any other employee who simply refused to remove their beard 

[7by7]

9 hours ago, ChidlomDweller said:

I'll just answer this, the rest is fluff and deflection not worthy of my time, especially after your first point if you're going to go that low.

Typical response from a certain group when presented with arguments they cannot counter.

 

9 hours ago, ChidlomDweller said:

I saw a similar headline more recently bit this is the first I saw in a google search, and good enough.  I was born in Antwerp.

 

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20100208_053

Having translated that into English, I see it says research shows that 56.4% of children aged 0 to 9 in Antwerp are immigrants; with 20.1% being from North Africa, 8.5% from Turkey; 28.6% in total. It doesn't say where the remainder come from nor where they or any of their parents were born.

 

It also does not say when their families came to Belgium. Remember that in the 1960s and 70s the Belgian government used to actively encourage immigration from North Africa and Turkey in order to fill labour shortages. Obviously these immigrants settled where the work is; mainly the larger cities. They will have had children, and now those children are having children. Did the research used for the article count these children, i.e. third, possibly even fourth, generation as immigrants? It doesn't say.

 

The latest figures I can find (2012) say that 25% of the population of Belgium are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. Every source I can find agrees with this one that the majority of immigrants living in Belgium come from other EU states; most of them from Italy, France and the Netherlands.

 

9 hours ago, ChidlomDweller said:

Not a bad read if you have access:

 

https://www.ft.com/content/39a0867a-0974-11e7-ac5a-903b21361b43

 

Former leftie (student Marxist, founder of Prospect magazine) arguing the legitimacy of national identity, which seems to have become a dirty word in some circles.

I don't have access to the FT.

 

But I don't consider national identity to be a dirty word, and do not know of anyone who does.

 

Most British Muslims consider their national identity to be British. Even the Daily Mail agrees with that! 

 

Muslims more likely to consider themselves British than their white counterparts

 

I have been unable to locate similar research, if any, carried out in Belgium.
 

[sirineou]

Will this include all religious head wear or just Muslim?

[tomacht8]

Finally a good judgment.
It should not be a problem to leave out religious headgear at school and at work.
A high European court has thus decided.
This judgment does not harm anyone, either personally or financially.
Rather the opposite.
Get to know other people without a predisposed religious focus.
This judgment will certainly facilitate the co-existence of people at work and at school without prejudices.


 

[7by7]

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

Will this include all religious head wear or just Muslim?

The ECJ hasn't banned the wearing of hijabs or any other religious symbol at work. What the ruling actually says is that employers are not breaking any anti discrimination laws if they impose a ban on visible religious or political symbols on all their employees; regardless of the employees religion or politics and the symbol concerned.

 

The ruling doesn't just effect Muslim women: from The Independent

Quote

European rabbis said the court had worsened rising hate crime by sending a message that “faith communities are no longer welcome”.

The president of the Conference of European Rabbis, Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, said: “This decision sends a signal to all religious groups in Europe.” 

The United Sikhs advocacy group said the “disturbing” ruling allowed employers to override fundamental human rights.

From The Telegraph: Church of England attacks 'troubling' European court ruling which says employers can ban workers from wearing Christian crosses

[sirineou]

12 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

The ECJ hasn't banned the wearing of hijabs or any other religious symbol at work. What the ruling actually says is that employers are not breaking any anti discrimination laws if they impose a ban on visible religious or political symbols on all their employees; regardless of the employees religion or politics and the symbol concerned.

 

The ruling doesn't just effect Muslim women: from The Independent

From The Telegraph: Church of England attacks 'troubling' European court ruling which says employers can ban workers from wearing Christian crosses

Personally  as an atheist I dont have any use for religious symbols, especial at the work place,

but I dont support the discrimination of any group regardless how misguided such group might, be as long as it can be shown that said behavior is harming others   

.If indeed that's the case and the policy is enforced universally then  I don't see a problem.

[simple1]

3 hours ago, sirineou said:

Personally  as an atheist I dont have any use for religious symbols, especial at the work place,

but I dont support the discrimination of any group regardless how misguided such group might, be as long as it can be shown that said behavior is harming others   

.If indeed that's the case and the policy is enforced universally then  I don't see a problem.

Don't you think the whole episode is rather pathetic as the root cause for the ruling was some people complaining about a member of a company wearing a hijab; not a full face covering.

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

Don't you think the whole episode is rather pathetic as the root cause for the ruling was some people complaining about a member of a company wearing a hijab; not a full face covering.

 as I said if the policy against religious symbols is applied evenly among all religions, then, IMO, it would not be discrimination based on religion preference but rather a business decision.  But if Muslims are prevented of wearing a hijab but Christians can wear a cross then there would be a problem.

Even is the policy is applied evenly among all religions, it might inoculate the company from a complain against discrimination among religions but not inoculate them against  discriminating against  religion in general.

A case can be made of discriminating between secularism  and religion.

Certainly not a simple issues as some would have as believe, Peoples sensibilities and ability to earn a living has to be considered .

And yes I do think it is pathetic that someone would complain because some one was wearing a hijab, unless the complainant demonstrated significant harm to him and his business.

[AhFarangJa]

On 3/15/2017 at 3:33 PM, Itsnottheplaceitwas said:

"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 ! ?

Sad to say but I fear it is already too late........

[ChidlomDweller]

16 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Typical response from a certain group when presented with arguments they cannot counter.

 

Having translated that into English, I see it says research shows that 56.4% of children aged 0 to 9 in Antwerp are immigrants; with 20.1% being from North Africa, 8.5% from Turkey; 28.6% in total. It doesn't say where the remainder come from nor where they or any of their parents were born.

 

It also does not say when their families came to Belgium. Remember that in the 1960s and 70s the Belgian government used to actively encourage immigration from North Africa and Turkey in order to fill labour shortages. Obviously these immigrants settled where the work is; mainly the larger cities. They will have had children, and now those children are having children. Did the research used for the article count these children, i.e. third, possibly even fourth, generation as immigrants? It doesn't say.

 

The latest figures I can find (2012) say that 25% of the population of Belgium are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. Every source I can find agrees with this one that the majority of immigrants living in Belgium come from other EU states; most of them from Italy, France and the Netherlands.

 

I don't have access to the FT.

 

But I don't consider national identity to be a dirty word, and do not know of anyone who does.

 

Most British Muslims consider their national identity to be British. Even the Daily Mail agrees with that! 

 

Muslims more likely to consider themselves British than their white counterparts

 

I have been unable to locate similar research, if any, carried out in Belgium.
 

Blah blah blah.  Each point easy to rebut but I have a life outside arguing on TV.  Bye.

[simple1]

4 minutes ago, ChidlomDweller said:

Blah blah blah.  Each point easy to rebut but I have a life outside arguing on TV.  Bye.

LOL

[ChidlomDweller]

It's true though.  His own links prove they already have a large demographic base.  My (realistic) fear is what will come of it in 50 years.  I don't want Europe to become a "moderate" Muslim continent.

[simple1]

22 minutes ago, ChidlomDweller said:

It's true though.  His own links prove they already have a large demographic base.  My (realistic) fear is what will come of it in 50 years.  I don't want Europe to become a "moderate" Muslim continent.

Those of the Islamic faith projections for Europe have been presented a number of times outside of the right wing nutcase websites. None of the projections come anywhere near your fear fuelled red line.

[jak2002003]

2 hours ago, ChidlomDweller said:

It's true though.  His own links prove they already have a large demographic base.  My (realistic) fear is what will come of it in 50 years.  I don't want Europe to become a "moderate" Muslim continent.

These days religion... any religion, should not be involved with politics, laws and voicing their opinions as to the way they think other people should live.

 

If people want a religion.. let them... but they should have no more rights than the average person on the street.  Religions should not have special rights status.  What they do in their own home is up to them... but any public demonstration, be it converting people, demonstrating about moral issues under the banner or their religion, and wearing the fancy dress costumes in work or schools should not be allowed.  This goes to any religion. 

 

Its time for people to ditch these fairy tails, which cause conflict, wars, violence, oppression, and stupidity to grow.  Think how much more advanced the human population would be if we used all that energy wasted on religion, and put it into science, technology, medicine and research about out planet and ourselves. 

[tomacht8]

I agree.
Religion should be privacy.
Everyone can believe in what he wants, as long as others are not bothered with it.
Unfortunately, many religions raise the absolutist claim to power.
My faith is the only true and true one.
With the result that religions prescribe what one has to believe and how to live.
And then it begins, that religions become a harassment and narrow the freedom from people,
who do not believe in the same thing.
And unfortunately these religious books are full of hate, murder, and manslaughter.
And also the dealings with other- or non-believers are regulated there.

My God is my penis, but it is not necessary to show my God constantly in public and to bother others with it.
 

[7by7]

6 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

Everyone can believe in what he wants, as long as others are not bothered with it.

 

Indeed.

 

But why are you bothered by seeing a stranger in the street wearing a hijab, a burka, a yarmulke, a kippa a turban, a cross or anything else which is a sign of their faith?

 

How bothered are you when you see monks wearing their robes in the street in Thailand; something which must surely happen every day?

 

6 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

My God is my penis, but it is not necessary to show my God constantly in public and to bother others with it.

Most countries have laws forbidding the display of genitalia in public; but if you want to campaign against those laws; go ahead.

 

Of course, phallic symbols are widely available, and worn, in many countries.

[tomacht8]

19 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Indeed.

 

But why are you bothered by seeing a stranger in the street wearing a hijab, a burka, a yarmulke, a kippa a turban, a cross or anything else which is a sign of their faith?

 

How bothered are you when you see monks wearing their robes in the street in Thailand; something which must surely happen every day?

 

Most countries have laws forbidding the display of genitalia in public; but if you want to campaign against those laws; go ahead.

 

Of course, phallic symbols are widely available, and worn, in many countries.

If you quote, please do not just quote single sentences.
The answers to your questions, are sometimes in the second sentence.

Example:
Everyone can believe in what he wants, as long as others are not bothered with it.

 

 

Indeed.

But why are you bothered by seeing a stranger in the street wearing a hijab, a burka, a yarmulke, a kippa a turban, a cross or anything else which is a sign of their faith?

How bothered are you when you see monks wearing their robes in the street in Thailand; something which must surely happen every day?


Second sentence:
Unfortunately, many religions raise the absolutist claim to power.

Do vou not see it?
That many religions raise the absolutist claim to power.
My faith is the only true and true one.

And that caused many problems on this planet?
 

Edited March 20, 2017 by tomacht8

[7by7]

17 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

If you quote, please do not just quote single sentences.

The answers to your questions, are sometimes in the second sentence.

 

 I was, as is standard practice by many members, quoting the parts I was responding to. People do it to me all the time.

 

26 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

Example:
Everyone can believe in what he wants, as long as others are not bothered with it.

Err; I quoted that, and then asked you questions about it!

 

36 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

Indeed.

But why are you bothered by seeing a stranger in the street wearing a hijab, a burka, a yarmulke, a kippa a turban, a cross or anything else which is a sign of their faith?

How bothered are you when you see monks wearing their robes in the street in Thailand; something which must surely happen every day?

Ok, you want your whole post quoted; even the irrelevant parts; so I've quoted the above unattributed quote from my post.

 

27 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

Second sentence:
Unfortunately, many religions raise the absolutist claim to power.

Do vou not see it?
That many religions raise the absolutist claim to power.
My faith is the only true and true one.

And that caused many problems on this planet?

It was the fourth sentence in your post, actually!

 

I would say that it is not many, but all religions which claim they are the correct and only true one; if that is what you meant (if not, what did you mean?)

 

But how does this effect you?

 

How does what a stranger chooses to believe or wear effect you?

 

They do not force you to dress as they do; so why should you force them to dress the way you want them to?

 

Whilst some religions are proselytising; you are free to ignore them.

 

Yes, as anyone who has studied any history at all knows, in the past religion has been the cause of many wars and suffering.

 

As we all know, there are still those, who use their religion to justify their terrorism, murder and other atrocities today (not just Muslims) even though the leaders and majority of followers of that faith, whatever it is, condemn them for so doing.

 

But the world is changing for the better; becoming more tolerant of those who have a different set of beliefs, a different sexuality, a different ethnicity etc. We've a long way to go; true. Some countries are further, sometimes a lot further, down this road than others.

 

Why do you want to take steps backward on that road rather than forward?