Great news: Employers are allowed to ban burquas!

[Raelbo]

I am not sure I agree entirely with this judgement as it pertains to burquas and headscarfs because I am not comfortable with defining a burqua as a purely "religious sign". While it is certainly associated with Islam, it is also a piece of clothing. Wearing a burqua simply means the woman is dressing conservatively/modestly in a way which makes her feel comfortable.

Maybe another way of putting this: Given the cultural background of many conservative Muslim women, they would feel the same way going out in public not wearing a headscarf as many western women would feel going out in public not wearing a shirt.

This could really set a pretty bad precedent to be honest. If a Christian woman buttons up her top all the way to the top, or wears longer dresses than her colleagues because she is more conservative than them, should the company be allowed to dictate that she wear more revealing clothing?

What about men and facial hair?

[Dadwen]

Very interesting. So they are free to practice their religion, but not if someone says no? Seems "Free" doesn't really mean "Free".

Would you want a snake handler that is a day care worker Practicing on company time.... ?

- - - Updated - - -

What about men and facial hair?

Like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yo...earance_policy

[Independent voter]

Not in the US, it's a violation of her First Amendment Constitutional rights. Also Muslims are pretty tame compared to some of the crazies we have running around here.

[Flarelaine]

I'll admit, I am not too familiar with European laws.

In the U.S. we have Freedom of Religion in our Constitution. Does Europe have such a law?

What we have is the European Convention on Human Rights. Most countries on the continent are signatories. They may deck it out further with bells and whistles, but this is what applies throughout Europe.

- - - Updated - - -

This one, in my own town, is one of my favorites: http://tchorski.morkitu.org/14/brugge-377.JPG

Second largest brick building in the world, partially gothic, partially baroque.

Nice one! On my bucket list, actually. Especially since I saw In Bruges.

[Raelbo]

Like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yo...earance_policy

Even there they were and are prepared to make exceptions "for religious reasons".

I get the intent of this ruling: People should not be using the workplace to make religious, philosophical or political statements. But there is a difference between actively trying to actively display your religion to other people and simply having a religious standard of presenting yourself in public.

It just seems to me that the objective here should be find a reasonable compromise between allowing people to dress in a way which is comfortable for them (given their religious convictions) while preventing people from being religiously/politically/philosophically provocative.

If people want to take offense at someone for simply being Christian/Hindu/Jewish/Muslim etc that is on the person taking the offence.

- - - Updated - - -

it serves the same function, marking a woman as a lesser being.

I don't think that Muslim people see it that way. If the woman in question is happy to wear it, I don't think it is our place to judge them for doing so. Part of freedom of choice includes the right to choose to 'submit' to cultural norms.

Where I do take exception is when individuals are forced or pressured (under the threat of punishment) by their society to comply.

You see, to me, telling a woman she may not wear a headscarf is just as bad as telling her she must. It should be her choice.

[Deleted]

This is great news. Finally something good is happening.

I am not allowed to come dressed as Jason where I work. They would ask me why I am disguising my face.

[Raelbo]

I am not allowed to come dressed as Jason where I work.

Why on earth would you want to come to work dressed up like Jason? Seems like a silly comparison to me.

They would ask me why I am disguising my face.

I am sure it is possible to find a compromise between wearing something on their head without disguising their face. So really that seems like a silly reason to ban all headscarfs.

[Deleted]

Why on earth would you want to come to work dressed up like Jason? Seems like a silly comparison to me.



I am sure it is possible to find a compromise between wearing something on their head without disguising their face. So really that seems like a silly reason to ban all headscarfs.

Exactly hit the nail on the head. Why would anyone come dressed as Jason or in a Burqa?

I would feel threatened by both. People who are disguised they have an aura of threat around them. Very scary if you ask me.

[Mehrunes]

You actually proved my point. You can deny a person who doesn't follow the dress code, it doesn't have to do with religion.
Passing a law to single out religious people is the unjust treatment of different categories of people on the ground of religion, which is by definitely discrimination.

So if other groups of people can already be denied, how is it discrimination that this "law" doesn't cover them? Including them would be a redundant thing to do. And this isn't even a law. It's a ruling. That clarifies the existing law in regards to religion.

I am not sure I agree entirely with this judgement as it pertains to burquas and headscarfs because I am not comfortable with defining a burqua as a purely "religious sign". While it is certainly associated with Islam, it is also a piece of clothing. Wearing a burqua simply means the woman is dressing conservatively/modestly in a way which makes her feel comfortable.

Maybe another way of putting this: Given the cultural background of many conservative Muslim women, they would feel the same way going out in public not wearing a headscarf as many western women would feel going out in public not wearing a shirt.

This could really set a pretty bad precedent to be honest. If a Christian woman buttons up her top all the way to the top, or wears longer dresses than her colleagues because she is more conservative than them, should the company be allowed to dictate that she wear more revealing clothing?

What about men and facial hair?

The reason why it focuses on religious aspects is because non-religious clothing is already subject to dress code while it was unclear if religious one did. That burqas can be worn for cultural reasons is inconsequential for that. And given how they can be used as religious clothing, it could be used as a reason to disobey the dress code even if one doesn't wear it for religious reasons. It's not like an employer can know the reason and any inquiries in that vein made by an employer is likely to be against labor law. As for your precedent, let's take Hooters for example. Are Christian women that intend to work there exempt from the skimpy outfit?

Not in the US, it's a violation of her First Amendment Constitutional rights. Also Muslims are pretty tame compared to some of the crazies we have running around here.

Good thing the thread is about European Union then.

[Krigaren]

it serves the same function, marking a woman as a lesser being.

how anyone could submit in that way is beyond me. i'd kill people before i'd put one on.

In many instances I agree with you, but on this...



Granted, what nuns and a few other religious women wear is a uniform for a certain occupation, but the idea is still the same. The concept of females being required to wear head scarves due to religious norms - which all stem from patriarchy, granted - isn't new. Yet I don't see people up in arms over a nun's coif, or an amish woman's head scarf, or a Hindu woman's ghoonghat.

There comes a time when people have to accept that religious garb is worn partly because of choice, and part of religious traditions. Men wear or do similar things (hats, growing out beards, turbans, etc). Headscarves aren't necessarily a "symbol of oppression" (insofar as religion is generally oppressive). As long as it doesn't interfere with a person's job, there shouldn't be a ruling allowing employers to ban it just because some bigots are uncomfortable with certain ones.

Burqas though? I see those directly interfering with many jobs. Not all, but many. Based on that, I agree with the ruling that employers should be able to have a choice whether to ban them. But I don't agree that they should be banned just because they make people uncomfortable.

[Deleted]

I'll admit, I am not too familiar with European laws.

In the U.S. we have Freedom of Religion in our Constitution. Does Europe have such a law?

Well even in your country freedom of religion has its limits i hope.
I mean they dont throw females anymore in volcanos over there right?
And when is something a religion and stops being a cult, because basicly you have a rule that protects cults for doing there twisted things.

[Underverse]

In many instances I agree with you, but on this...



Granted, what nuns and a few other religious women wear is a uniform for a certain occupation, but the idea is still the same. The concept of females being required to cover up due to religious norms - which all stem from patriarchy, granted - isn't new. Yet I don't see people up in arms over a nun's coif, or an amish woman's head scarf, or a Hindu woman's ghoonghat.

There comes a time when people have to accept that religious garb is worn partly because of choice, and part of religious traditions. Men wear or do similar things (hats, growing out beards, turbans, etc). It's not necessarily a "symbol of oppression" (insofar as religion is generally oppressive), and as long as it doesn't interfere with a person's job, there shouldn't be a ruling allowing employers to ban it just because.

I think it's in part because no one really sees any of these other headscarfs daily in Western societies. Most people probably didn't even know they existed.

[HumbleDuck]

So if other groups of people can already be denied, how is it discrimination that this "law" doesn't cover them? Including them would be a redundant thing to do. And this isn't even a law. It's a ruling. That clarifies the existing law in regards to religion.

Because when you go out of your way to "clarify" the rules on one specific category of people, it's discrimination against that group of people. I think it was pretty clear in my post.

[Acidbaron]

It's not a ban for burqa's its' a ban for ALL RELIGIOUS AND PHILOSOPHICAL signs in the work place, also the employer needs to ban it based on maintaining that neutrality if the employer aim to ban it based on complaints from clientele, they are still liable to discrimination law suits.

[Underverse]

I was pretty aware of at least 8. Also have no problem with any of them and wouldn't think twice about it if I saw them.

I'm fine with them as long as people don't feel obligated to wear them because of their religion. As a fashion statement - totally. But otherwise it's really just a method of social control and subculture identification, neither of which are particularly good things in my opinion.

[Mehrunes]

Because when you go out of your way to "clarify" the rules on one specific category of people, it's discrimination against that group of people. I think it was pretty clear in my post.

Except the rules were clear for others. In case of religion it was not. You're championing redundancy again. And exhibiting ignorance of the legal system. The case was about religion. Why the hell would the ECJ clarify on things that weren't relevant to the case? No one "went out of their way" here. Clarification was required because the case couldn't have been solved without it.

[Underverse]

Because when you go out of your way to "clarify" the rules on one specific category of people, it's discrimination against that group of people. I think it was pretty clear in my post.

The ECJ's ruling was prompted by the case of a receptionist fired for wearing a headscarf to work at the security company G4S in Belgium.

I think this is why they made that clarification.

[Mehrunes]

I think this is why they made that clarification.

Ermahgerd, discrimination! ECJ went out of its way to single out religious people!!1!

[urasim]

I don't agree with a ban on any clothing. Unless it's a danger to the wearer or others it should be allowed.

[Moratori]

I don't agree with a ban on any clothing. Unless it's a danger to the wearer or others it should be allowed.

No, it should be up to the employer to decide what people can or should wear when working for them.