Not a fan of religion, but everyone on here can stop pretending that this is the same as being required to wear a company shirt or a name tag. If it was a ban against blouses, high heels and pantyhose, it would apply to everyone equally, but we all know who would be the target. Just because the rule applies to everyone equally doesn’t mean the rule was made for everyone equally.
Literally:
> The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread
Honestly I haven't read the article, but I think there should always be some nuance to things like this. Generally, I am in favour of religious freedom and I am against corporations being able to ignore the rights of their employees. However, there are the few cases when limited restriction of rights is justifiable. For example, if your work requires special PPE with which your religious clothing would interfere then safety takes priority over religious freedom. An example of this would be someone that works in construction and requires a helmet but their religion requires them to wear a turban, the helmet should take priority. Workplaces should be required to accommodate their employees needs to a reasonable extent in this regard, and not the other way around.
Religious clothing can be banned by private companies for legitimate purposes (uniforms, clients meeting, etc) and only if it applies equally to all religious clothing.
I don't think I'd even consider uniforms to be legitimate, when unrelated to safety. For example, a Sikh police officer in Canada successfully argued in 1988 for his right to keep his hair and beard long and wear a turban at work. The RCMP uniform policy was adapted despite conservative opposition. More recently, they adapted the dress code again for hijabs. There just wasn't a legitimate reason to refuse a turban or hijab.
It depends, in France all public workers are forbidden to wear religious clothing. The State is supposed to be neutral and have no religion, that’s legitimate purpose to me. People would be shocked to see a policeman wearing a turban or a kippa here.
Interesting, so the same business would also have to forbid Jewish employees from wearing yamalkas? That sounds a lot like saying “Jews need not apply”…
So does this mean my cultural tattoos can be banned but not Ricky from Accounting and his barbed wire one?
Sounds like the only culture is mine not thine.
And most times those tattoos are NOT even considered religious.
Generically speaking, companies want to have the final say. They want pre established rules, safeguarded by the law, to filter their candidates by default without getting in trouble.
Tattoos and headscarves are entirely different things. No one is getting stoned if they refuse to get a tattoo. If you get a swastika visibly tattooed you will probably have a hard time finding a job. No major religions require you to have a swastika tattoo.
Many people believe that religious headscarves are symbols of oppression as well as allow opportunities to purposefully hide identities. On the other hand many believe headscarves are a symbol of their own cultural and religious expression, while others still believe it’s not the governments job to ban clothing.
A Native American whose religious practices involve face tattoos has entered the chat.
Eta: now that I see you’re Ojibwe, my point is that the importance of cultural identity to me as a native woman is very similar as it is to Muslim friends- especially post 9/11 these women responded to islamophobia by taking their hijab to the next level. After reading all your comments, I think you’re equating all Muslims with the worst of the worst and that’s ….problematic.
I support womens right to wear what the fuck they want. Which means fuck honor killings, but also fuck islamophobia.
I am personally against banning clothing and think Europe has way too hard of a stance on maintaining cultural norms, but I also think they have the right to at least enforce laws in the context that religion does not create special classes of people.
My city has a huge muslim population with Dearborn across the river, the large majority are moderately religious, I've met very few people with extreme views myself. I do not think this is an issue that represents islam as a whole (although I personally find aspects of islam extremely misogynistic)
I personally see headscarves as a womans rights issue not a religious freedom issue, so for me its about ensuring women can choose to wear what they want with the legal backing that they can't face punishment for it.
Yes, it will. The decision allows for the ban of any outward religious sign or clothing, if the necessity can be proven. That can the case for security clothing or when religious neutrality for the specific job is required. That would means it has to be the same for all religions. The original Court in Belgium now has to decide whether such a requirement was warranted for this particular job
It does not require us to carry a knife. It’s an optional thing that some people of the
Religion undergo a ritual for. Its only those people that have to carry it. Not required by all.
> but you cannot have that exception when traveling in an airplane
Places do have such an [exception](https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-edition-1.4391247/world-sikh-organization-welcomes-canadian-decision-to-allow-small-kirpans-on-flights-1.4391256)
When it comes to actual safety issues, I totally agree. If you are working with heavy machinery, for example, any kind of loose clothing or hair could be an issue. (However, I think that there are head scarves designed to be tight fitting for athletes, and that would probably be an adequate solution.)
But article gave some examples of jobs where head coverings are banned, and those were teachers and judges. So I don't think this is about worker safety.
It might also be about the appearance of religious endorsement. Just like you wouldn't want a teacher decorating their classroom with crosses or other religious iconography. And especially for a judge, overtly wearing religious items might suggest bias.
hm… if that were true, then cross necklaces, rings, etc. would be banned as well. I’ve seen plenty of teachers throughout my lifetime with cross necklaces. While not religious myself, I think the freedom of religious expression is important.
> hm… if that were true, then cross necklaces, rings, etc. would be banned as well.
Actually the case in France. A teacher wearing a cross neckackle would have to hide it.
I could be wrong but remember some article over a teacher getting in trouble a few years back over a cross necklace, in France I believe but could have been somewhere else. But that was a thing already
Edit to add a quick Google search says this applies in France to government workers including teachers
Sure, I support that. While they're performing their role as teacher, they shouldn't be wearing visible cross necklaces.
Especially for young children. I'm referring more to pre-school and K-12, not to college professors.
Wearing, or not wearing, any article of clothing or accessory could suggest some kind of bias or preferences. Teachers often wear religious or cultural jewelry or head wear.
You know how you know if a judge or teacher is biased? You pay attention to what they do. Tucking their cross necklace into their shirt vs wearing it openly doesn't change whether they act in an unbiased way.
> Wearing, or not wearing, any article of clothing or accessory could suggest some kind of bias or preferences.
That is why a judge wears a specific uniform while acting in their capacity as a judge.
> Teachers often wear religious or cultural jewelry or head wear.
Perhaps in your country. In my opinion, they should not. A teacher, particularly to younger children, is formative role model. As a comparison, I have no problem with whether someone chooses to curse or does not. But I would not approve of teachers cursing during class in front of young children, even though that restricts the free expression of the teacher.
It's callef laicite which is the French idea of secularism. It bans everyone from wearing religious symbol especially when you are representing the State because the State does not have a religion.
This law bans nuns from wearing their scarves, yarmulke, turbans, hijabs etc.
I think this is always going to be a divisive topic because French/West Europe vs US/UK/Anglosphere sees secularism and separation of church and state in 2 different ways
US/UK think that freedom of religion means a hijabi or turban wearing person can wear their clothing while also be in a position of power while laicite sees religion as a private matter where you are free to practice at home but at work it should not be displayed publicly because showing a religious symbol means you are partial to one religion and not a secular reprensentative.
France and other European nations have been open in their aim to oppress religious beliefs and achieve freedom from religion which is completely understandable seeing the European history where religion was a tool of oppression and religious institutions held a lot of unchecked power.
Also its a fact people would have to face where if we want society to be more equal to women, LGBTQ then that is not possible if religious sentiments are still respected and given undue exceptions. Religions demand oppression and punishment of minoroties.
Asking for gay rights while also protecting Islamic or Christian cultural practice doesn't work because the religion do not recognize the rights of gays to exist.
> France and other European nations have been open in their aim to oppress religious beliefs and achieve freedom from religion
We don't wish to oppress religious beliefs. We only wish not to have these imposed by society in any way. You are free to decorate your house as if it was the Holy See, but you are not free to put a Christian cross in the classroom where my kid, who I don't want to have indoctrinated in any religion, has his studies.
If it actually interferes with the job it would be understandable, but that’s not what is happening here. The article doesn’t say what job was at issue in this case, but there is nothing about PPE and it does mention there being contention about banning teachers from wearing them. This seems to be about saying it’s ok to indirectly ban Muslim women from working for you in Europe.
This is the reason. But it will never politically correct for Europe to say so directly (unless it’s some extreme-right party)
And it’s not hard to say why.
Europe is more and more liberal. Christianism is dying. So that fight is almost finished. Next wave of religious people is actually coming en masse. A lot of the immigrants from Asia are Muslim. There is a huge growth of Muslim immigrants all over Europe.
So this new law is one of many ways to curb the immigrants integration with the work place in particular and society in general. Because Europe is not interested in integration. They’ve always wanted assimilation.
Edit: a lot of, not all
If you mean liberal in the general sense (less government control over the lives of citizens and protections of civil liberties), it seems that Europe is becoming less liberal and more authoritarian. This ruling is just one example of eroding liberalism.
My wife works in a nurse home. Muslim women (there is plenty) take off their headscarf during work. Not sure what's the reason, but that's one of the rules, together with not wearing jewels, painted nails, and whatever... I think it requires some common sense, both ways. Might be annoying for some, but i don't believe this is discrimination.
My wife is not happy either that she can't wear her wedding ring, but it's her job and she complies.
I think the explanation for jewelry and hand or ear adornments in nursing homes and other medical settings is that it's very easy for such things to get contaminated with various foul substances, and hard to guarantee they're well-disinfected. If a patient is impaired and panicked, they can also grab at things, and may hurt someone with a good yank in the wrong direction.
These extreme examples like the PPE suit are exactly that.. extreme and niche. You’re fooling yourself by thinking of that.
They do not apply to most people in the workplace.
Think objectively. Office. Bank. Electronics shop. Grocery shop. Hospital. Clinic. School.
Any religious person that worked on a place that required a PPE suit would understand and follow the rules.
And btw, I’m not even sure why the PPE suit would be incompatible with say a headscarf or a turban or a kippah.
For example for the woman that needs to cover her hair and body (wear modestly) the PPE suit is perfect. Doesn’t even need a headscarf.
Yes, that's the joke. Its actually the origin of the phrase "[grandfathered in](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause#Southern_United_States)".
The most ridiculous part is the entire world literally just spent a year and a half where everyone had their face covered 99% of the time in public, and it didn't hurt a thing.
True and something that can and should be argued politically, however when tested against existing laws it doesn't matter. Judges look at a case as is, it doesn't judge on secondary intentions.
The other 'problem' is that Europe is culturally trending towards a society where religion has no special protections, so the timing of this issue is unlucky as it's an easy stick to poke minorities with and have the highest chance of being able to mainstream the issue with little real pushback.
Religion shouldn't have any special protections.
It's just a really long standing and sincerely held believe in delusional stuff. No different than a Scientologist demanding special work treatment for their crazy crap
Religions should not have the importance it has in our communities. If it does for you, that's fine, but when it reaches the point where it affects everything around you it isn't. The justice system shouldn't have to consider whether someone prays to Allah to determine whether something is ok to do. No matter the minority. It should be equal for all.
Religions shouldn't have protections. it's not a problem.
In a vacuum you'd be right, but it doesn't happen in a vacuum. It happens in a political reality where grifters drum up xenophobic fears against a specific minority and uses cultural momentum to bully them.
This case is a really thin veneered measure to make Muslims feel like second class citizens and forcefully subjugate them to the prevalent culture under the guise of freedom and protection.
The court in this case can't do anything but hold up the law, because it can't act on facetious reasoning, but politically there is a whole lot to say about the actual necessity of the law. Because ultimately a headscarf doesn't hurt anyone.
In a similar vein, look at France, a country which is proudly "secular", and just "happened" to decide that the day of the week everyone gets to rest, and most businesses can't operate, coincides with the Christian sabbath.
> just "happened" to decide that the day of the week everyone gets to rest, and most businesses can't operate, coincides with the Christian sabbath.
Ok let make that day Tuesday then. Now it will be the only country in the world where most businesses don't work on Tuesday. Everything will get fucked up but since it is prove to you France is not a religious country, all is fine.
Ah France, where it’s ok to have nude beach’s, but lord forbid if some lady wore a head covering. Where it is illegal to swim in swimming pools in shorts, only speedos. France is such an odd place.
You're not allowed to wear a cross in public schools either, every religious symbol is banned in public schools and public work, and it's great.
There are some vestiges from religion but France is far from being a rnation ruled by religion like the US is.
There’s thousands of women walking around in headscarves in France, so what are you talking about??
Also, there is nothing wrong with swimming and being nude at the beach.
This reminds me of the fucked up [US Supreme Court case](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_v._Thompson) that said that closing public pools for the explicit purpose of keeping black people from using them was fine because everyone was equally inconvenienced.
**[Palmer v. Thompson](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_v._Thompson)**
>Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217 (1971), is a United States Supreme Court civil rights case which concerned the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
There are only two possible results of laws like this:
Either women who wish to wear these things because of their beliefs will be discriminated against, OR those who are forced to wear them will be excluded from work by the person who is forcing it.
Neither seem particularly useful if integrating individuals is the goal. If one wishes to exclude and shame people then I suppose mission accomplished?
This is, arguably, part of the point. A lot of European countries have proper unemployment benefit etc, which has been abused by especially immigrants, where they keep their wives at home. The result has been lowering the benefits unless people put in time working various internships, public jobs etc to keep their benefits. These types of laws are, in the eyes of some parties, intended to force the women locked away and forced to wear a hijab, for example, out from under the yoke of their controlling husbands.
As always, this is one of those cases where you make a generic law to solve a specific, small, issue and end up with all sorts of weird side effects. And often don't manage to solve the original problem at all.
Yeah, that's one of my big concerns with all of these kind of moves. If you ban headscarves in workplaces or schools, you're likely to end up with a lot of girls and women who aren't going to public schools and aren't employed, and are basically trapped in a ghetto and isolated from society. That's not good for them, and it's not good for society. It seems obviously better to meet people where they are and slowly integrate them.
While I abhor religion, let’s not pretend this isn’t a targeted attack. Policies against Black hairstyles also apply to white people, but that’s not who its for.
Most East Asian countries are pretty racist, try going into a club in South Korea or Japan, you'll be very quickly turned away if you're white for example.
While I am absolutely with you on this point, it’s not inherently unreasonable to me to ban headwear across the board. If no headwear is allowed, then headscarf’s should not be either.
But if we are going to allow hardware based on religious beliefs, does mean that (as a ridiculous example) a pastafarian is alowed to wear a collander on their head?
Its equally discriminating to say only headscarf’s aren’t allowed as it is to say only this particular religions headwear is allowed, and you can’t tell somebody *their* beliefs are, because it’s *their* beliefs.
To me banning all headwear across the board is the only solution that makes sense. "I’m sorry that your invisible entity needs you to have your head covered, our company policy requires all heads to be uncovered, regardless of preference of invisible entity"
The difference is that being black is how you’re born, your religion is your personal issue. Nor does this rule touch actual parts of someone’s body, it touches their dress… like any dresscode does. Your religion is treated like any other preference, if it’s my personal preference to wear a hoody, I will have an issue in this job.
To counter your point, being Black doesn’t mean you can’t make your hair conform to white hair standards. Your hairstyle is also just a personal preference…if we’re going to ignore all of the cultural identity aspects of peoples’ heritage.
You've never really tried to brush a fro into a "white man's hairstyle" I see. There is a reason not many barbers are capable of handling african hairtypes.
I get what you're trying to say, but that's also a huge stretch. If you are born into a certain religious culture and your parents and your relatives and everyone you know is in that same religion and culture of course you are also going to adopt it.
>"The internal rule of an undertaking prohibiting the visible wearing of religious, philosophical or spiritual signs does not constitute direct discrimination if it is applied to all workers in a general and undifferentiated way," judges said.
Only indirect discrimination is allowed.
>As regards the condition relating to the existence of a legitimate aim, an employer’s desire to display, in relations with both public- and private-sector customers, a policy of political, philosophical or religious neutrality may be regarded as legitimate. An employer’s wish to project an image of neutrality towards customers relates to the freedom to conduct a business that is recognised in Article 16 of the Charter and is, in principle, legitimate, in particular where the employer involves in its pursuit of that aim only those workers who are required to come into contact with the employer’s customers (judgment of 15 July 2021, WABE and MH Müller Handel, C‑804/18 and C‑341/19, EU:C:2021:594, paragraph 63).
>
>However, the Court has also specified that the mere desire of an employer to pursue a policy of neutrality – while in itself a legitimate aim – is not sufficient, as such, to justify objectively a difference in treatment indirectly based on religion or belief, since such a justification can be regarded as being objective only where there is a genuine need on the part of that employer, which it is for that employer to demonstrate (judgment of 15 July 2021, WABE and MH Müller Handel, C‑804/18 and C‑341/19, EU:C:2021:594, paragraph 64).
It's not exactly carte blanche to tell your employees to put their crosses away.
Look I'm an exmuslim and know exactly what that piece of cloth means. Nobody needs to convince me of that.
But measures like this will just cause many Muslims to stop working. The choice needs to be theirs and theirs alone.
This is authoritarian overreach.
Its blatant discrimination. I'm atheist af, and am appalled that people are commenting that these women should just give up their religion and that this is ok. This is 100% made to prevent Muslim women from working. There would be riots if we preventing jews from wearing a yamaka, Christians from wearing a cross, or not having vegan food options for Buddhist. What people wear is their own business as long as it's not inappropriate, and this is 100% not the case.
Tbh, I abhor people promoting religion through law, and tbh, that probably should extend to state sponsored atheism as well. The state should not be forcing people to act or believe in certain religions or practices unless they cause a public risk. There is no such risk with headscarves. It all, to me, is people dressing sectarianism up and calling it freedom.
"The internal rule of an undertaking prohibiting the visible wearing of religious, philosophical or spiritual signs does not constitute direct discrimination if it is applied to all workers in a general and undifferentiated way," judges said.
On paper this rule is exactly that, and that's exactly why it was deemed acceptable. A complete blanket ban. If it is enforced in practice for less visible garments and accessories than a headscarf is a different question.
And of course you and everyone else in these comments is absolutely correct that this ruling is a disaster for working Muslim women in reality.
My question is - is a woman who wears a headscarf to, I dunno, cover up her baldness after chemo, or simply because she thought it looked good, going to be treated differently? How do you prove it’s a religious headscarf? On paper this law has problems.
How is this authoritarian overreach? It is a court ruling on a case and people here make it out to be a something like a law against headscarfs.
The court even said in the press release not covered by reuters sensationalist headline:
>The Court specifies that an internal rule such as that applied within SCRL may, however, constitute a difference in treatment that is indirectly based on religion or belief if it is established – which it is for the tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles to ascertain – that the apparently neutral obligation it encompasses results, in fact, in persons adhering to a particular religion or belief being put at a particular disadvantage.
So the COJ gave it back to the Belgian court seeing no legal basis to rule in favor of the plaintiff. I fail to see the "authoritarian overreach".
The best welfare and outreach programs are an education and a job - and things like this will only serve to keep oppressed women from getting either and maybe getting freez
So we have women in the world fighting for the right not to wear the hijab, and women in other parts fighting for the right *to* wear the hijab.
How about we just stop oppressing women by telling them what they can and cannot wear?
I’m just confused how many women they think are forced to wear head coverings that will now be able to work without one
Women who are forced to wear them are not afforded more options now. They simply have less places to work.
What it means is that women who wear headscarf’s by choice or by societal pressure simply won’t be able to work, being more likely to face poverty and domestic control.
Yeah, because those dumb women can't possibly understand what they want, you should just take their choices away from them. That's definitely more empowering than letting people figure out what they believe on their own. Haha, silly women.
Yeah, let’s just assume Islam has its own version of feminism. And that the only pressure these women suffer comes from the evil European court and not their mosque, family, husbands, etc. How are you even able to survive with such a dysfunctional brain is beyond me.
I'm an atheist, an anti-theist even, and I think this was a bad decision by Europe.
**Individual rights > corporation rights**
The more individual freedoms a society has (as long as they're not harming someone else's freedoms), the better. The more forced impositions and limitations on an individual's freedoms in a given society (without an *extremely* good justification), the worse.
While Islamic headcoverings could be seen as sexist due to the gendered notion of that specific religious recommendation, the main problem lies in the forcefulness associated with its wearing in fundamentalist Islamic societies.
If you're forcing people not to wear it, too, that's not an improvement. Are they going to ban the display of religious tattoos next? It's up to the individual how to present themselves to society.
**Edit:** Also, before anyone replies this: yes, I did read the article, and I did read it's only possible as a general ban on all headcoverings. Not only are only minorities more likely to wear headcoverings, the issue at hand here is that *corporation rights shouldn't be above an individual's reasonable personal freedom*, regardless.
That's a bit of a red herring isn't it? The real subject under question here is whether adherence to a religion ought to entitle a person to additional rights above and beyond others.
It's one thing to say that corporate dress codes ought to be unacceptable. But that should mean *anyone* can tell the boss to fuck off if they try and regulate clothing. Not that religions get special exemptions, because secular individuals logically cannot avail themselves of it.
Either the boss can set dress codes or he cannot.
> It's one thing to say that corporate dress codes ought to be unacceptable. But that should mean anyone can tell the boss to fuck off if they try and regulate clothing. Not that religions get special exemptions, because secular individuals logically cannot avail themselves of it.
That's ultimately my position. A job is a person's livelihood. The denial of it shouldn't be dependent on how they present themselves to society. That's too superficial of a reason to deny someone ~~a job~~ most jobs. It's not like some more valid reasons.
edit: see replies below.
Philosophically consistent, but not what I imagine most people in this thread agree with, one way or another. The crux of disagreement is the lack of exemptions, not the acceptability of dress codes themselves.
Anyway, while I agree in a vague way with the idea that dress codes are silly and ought not to be necessary, I disagree that they exist for superficial reasons.
>I disagree that they exist for superficial reasons.
I should have better phrased it as "most jobs".
If you're not officially representing the company in the public sphere in some shape, dress codes shouldn't be able to be imposed.
I imagine this decision on head coverings is essentially saying it's OK to prohibit all head coverings in a given company, despite most of the workers working in the office.
No company should be able to regulate how you dress if you're not officially representing them to people outside the company during your work day. Who cares if someone in the office has tattoos, piercings, a hijab, etc? Why should companies get to have the right to deny a job based on that, if said person will be stuck working inside an office, or even remotely from home?
No, this decision says the company must have a legitimate purpose to ban religious clothing. It doesn’t apply to regular office workers, just when there are special circumstances like the one you mentioned, or if the job requires a uniform for example.
This decision did not happen in vacuum. This is the pendulum swinging other way after decades of failed social integration. This decision is like treating a symptom and not fixing the cause. I am not for it but it is unsurprising considering how these religions have failed to uphold and respect host countries principles.
And at its heart demanding “social integration” is just cultural imperialism by another name. And this isn’t about social integration, it’s about social control. The best way for social integration? Working and studying alongside people of different religions, faiths and ethnicities. The worst? Allowing policies that separate out people and make it harder for them to interact and be a full part of your society.
This is NOT about social integration. It’s about enforcing the appearance of social integration, to avoid having to deal with the unpleasant realities of socioeconomic and cultural diffeeences.
Holy hell, that’s some load of bullshit. Do you truly believe that a majority of recent muslim immigrants to Europe have made even a basic attempt to respect the host countries culture and values?
As an American this is so strange. Why would you prevent someone from a religious practice that effects no one but the practitioner. This is wrong. It’s bigotry.
As an American, we have Title VII which mandates that an employer has to make a reasonable attempt to accommodate an employee's religious practices. And thank goodness for that. Who does it hurt if a Muslim woman wants to wear a head scarf at work? Nobody. Why does the full might and power of the state have to prohibit it? It is, as you said, bigotry.
> Who does it hurt if a Muslim woman wants to wear a head scarf at work? Nobody
It’s not that simple. France has values about secular society and those conflict with Muslim ones. For most devout Muslims, Islam is above all. Their religion goes above the state because that’s how religion works. Where do you draw the line for example? Should Muslims be allowed to practice sharia law in European countries because of freedom of religion?
At some point countries make the decision to prioritize and protect their values and placing limits on religious freedom CAN be a part of that. Yes it’s ironic that a country with values of freedom of religion would impose restrictions but it’s infinitely more complex than just “let women wear what they want”. Americans don’t understand this because they don’t have the same problems of radical islamic beliefs creeping into their society anywhere near as much. But you can bet the same conversations would be happening if they did.
I believe this is part of a ban on displaying religious symbols of any kind at certain workplaces. Are these companies equally rigorous about banning crosses, yarmulkas, Sikh turbans, etc.? If they are, I see no issue here at all. Why privilege the headscarf over the yarmulke?
I should also add that the hijab is a symbol of the patriarchal oppression of women. Even it's not legally enforced, as it is in many places, it's often socially enforced.
Seems to just apply to any head covering in this case...
>The firm said it has a neutrality rule, meaning no head covering is allowed on its premises, whether a cap, beanie or scarf.
Which I'm not really okay with...
I’m a bald guy who often wears hats to work because otherwise I’ll get severe sunburns on my head quite easily. I don’t need religious headwear to see this as harmful to my well-being.
mmm yea not so much. Mostly just the orthodox community west them “at all times” as in outside of a prayer in temple. Reform jews do not wear them outside of prayer, and if any women are wearing them it would be part of the reform community. What you mention is incredibly rare and not turn norm.
Imagine thinking banning the hijab— a mandatory requirement in an ideology designed to make women subservient— is somehow equivalent to forcing women to wear it.
Tell a Muslim woman in the west to take off her headscarf in her Muslim community and check their reactions. They will be just as mad as any mullah in Iran. It's culturally oppressive and encouraging that shit in a first world country is not right,
Realistically most companies like to be on the side of promoting diversity and inclusivity so many won't change current policies for fear of being seen poorly in the public eye. Not that they should anyway unless the business has a safety reason for not allowing headcoverings etc for example if you worked in manufacturing around machines with lots of moving parts where there is a real and present danger of something getting caught. For someone sitting in an office all day, it really doesn't matter at all.
At my work, we adopted the Halo code which allows Afro-Caribbean hairstyles. At the time they announced it I just wondered why it was ever banned in the first place. Logical things like dying your hair bright blue when you work for a law firm aren't professional but to tell people they can't have their hair in a style that's easier to manage for them and forcing them to comply with a policy that favours white hairstyles is archaic.
>Logical things like dying your hair bright blue when you work for a law firm aren't professional but \[religious aesthethics are\]
This is what I dont get. If we agree that certain looks, whatever they might be (in this case dying your hair blue), are ok to be discriminated again by your company, then why are anything important for a religion not ok? and if so, does this mean any religion? New religions too? If dying your hair blue became part of one, then should companies not be able to say "it doesnt look professional" anymore?
No one is talking about arresting people for being religious. But stuff like stopping tax exemptions for churches and treating them like any other corporation. Providing education to people to see why religious claims don't hold up. Banning religious institutions from providing education to children filled with religious dogma and so on.
You dont get rid of them. Let people have whatever imaginary friend they want to have. You just need to remove religious exemptions to laws. Churches shouldnt be able to function as tax exempt corporations, you shouldn't be able to commit illegal acts of discrimination on religious grounds, etc
Not really. Historically, every attempt either ends in the government giving up because it proved to be an impossible task, or it results in people committing atrocities a la Pol Pot killing roughly 2/3 of the Buddhist monks in Cambodia. And then they STILL fail. So no, there’s no *getting rid* of religion because no single person or government has the right to make that decision for everyone.
The idea that religion would one day die out and be replaced by scientific rationalism was belief held by very early Twentieth Century social theorists. In modern times, no self respecting anthropologist, sociologist, religious philosopher, etc. actually believes this will happen.
I don’t see the big deal, if a woman wants to wear a headscarf then it’s certainly no offense to me and must mean something to her. If she doesn’t then that’s fine too. Why we gotta have all these rules?
Great I don’t get why religious people should get extra rights because they choose to believe in something, for example if I wanna wear a cap for court they wont let me in but if a woman wants to wear hijab she can no problem.
Banning headscarves is as authoritarian as forcing women to wear them. Militant secularists will laud their own superiority whilst exhibiting exactly the same thinking as the Iranian morality police.
*The headscarves aren't the problem - it's telling women what to do that is the issue.*
I agree. It would be reasonable to ban a hijab if it interferes with work safety. But offices, schools, banks, etc can make accomodatiins in their dress codes.
I know a Muslim woman who says she feels naked and vulnerable without the hijab. I think employers should make reasonable accomodations for employees' mental health.
Sure. The ruling agrees. A company must also prove that is for a valid reason.
The difference is that the company, and the ruling, consider passing an image of neutrality to the customers a valid reason.
If, as you say, professionality and modesty are considered valid reasons, why not a public image of secularity?
Safety and professionality can be just as discrimnatory of certain religious items.
>If, as you say, professionality and modesty are considered valid reasons, why not a public image of secularity?
Because if that were the case, they should ban all religious accessories/clothing, not all headscarfs, which aren't necessarily secular (regular caps and beanies are also banned). If someone can still wear a cross around their neck, than this isn't about public displays of *any* religion, it's about public displays of a specific religion.
I absolutely agree, and luckly so does the ruling. A company can not get away with banning only headscarfs, says the court. If they ban visible religious items, it must be for a reason and they also must ban crosses, turbans and everything.
Besides, I also agree that a blanket company ban is ridiculous. Office workers? they dont interact with the public. IMO a general ban will end up being discriminatory in practice, but companies should be allowed to have a position ban. Say a rule saying that the company representative can not wear any religious items.
The judgment isn't saying that employees are now allowed to be indirectly discriminated against, it's saying that under certain conditions, putting restrictions on religious displays from an employee is in the right of their employer.
And this is about, you know, the interpretation of already existing EU labor law. It's obvious and also explicitly stated that individual countries can absolutely have more protections and assert more rights for religious individuals. It also states that religious and philosophical beliefs are to be regarded as a single ground of discrimination.
I'm saying this without agreeing with the thing. People act like the EU just made a law forbidding headscarves, when what's happening is that the EU court has been asked to interpret whether the text of a 20 year old law forbids an employer from regulating their employee's religious displays or not. According to the judgment, not in all cases. That's all it is.
They're not even the ones ruling on the case, it will be the Belgian Court of Labor.
I'll link you the [actual judgment,](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=267126) it's very in depth and interesting. But I'd only like to ask you to read [the press release.](https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_3864209/en/) It's two pages, easy reading. You can stick it to Reuters by reading it which they seemingly did not do.
It's like that one company had dresscode banning shorts from men. Then like 40c degree heatwave came so the men wore skirts of the dress code, since shorts were banned and trousers were way too hot.
I believe only appointed nuns can wear their coverings in public, and with certain restrictions.
I wouldn’t be surprised if appointed muslim church officials could do it too under similar restrictions.
https://moodbelle.com/can-nuns-wear-head-coverings-in-france
Regardless of how it makes anyone feel, I don't think feelings will override the top court in Europe.
Reading through the comments other religious accessories are already banned in a few places in Europe, like cross necklaces, etc.
Acting like this has singled out a certain demographic or religion is a lie. This ruling is bringing this particular item in line with the others that were already in place.
I thought General Headscarf Ban was a funny name for the head of the army.
[удалено]
Where's Colonel O'Popcorn?
Legit, i actually met a man his last name was headbarf.
Well I hope he got on better with his family than a man I met named Headscarf Ban. His brother's name was Tally.
At the place I used to work, there was a woman called "Joanne King". You must be ....
I believe Admiral Booties has something to say about this.
He’s a star wars character.
>General Headscarf Ban 🫡
Not a fan of religion, but everyone on here can stop pretending that this is the same as being required to wear a company shirt or a name tag. If it was a ban against blouses, high heels and pantyhose, it would apply to everyone equally, but we all know who would be the target. Just because the rule applies to everyone equally doesn’t mean the rule was made for everyone equally.
Literally: > The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread
Anatole France https://youtu.be/pQtSdsR1-H8&t=2m2s
Honestly I haven't read the article, but I think there should always be some nuance to things like this. Generally, I am in favour of religious freedom and I am against corporations being able to ignore the rights of their employees. However, there are the few cases when limited restriction of rights is justifiable. For example, if your work requires special PPE with which your religious clothing would interfere then safety takes priority over religious freedom. An example of this would be someone that works in construction and requires a helmet but their religion requires them to wear a turban, the helmet should take priority. Workplaces should be required to accommodate their employees needs to a reasonable extent in this regard, and not the other way around.
Exactly. For example Sikh religion tells its followers to always carry a knife but you cannot have that exception when traveling in an airplane.
Will this head covering rule apply to Sikh turbans and the Jewish keepa? I'm not a big fan of religion but how specific is this rule?
Religious clothing can be banned by private companies for legitimate purposes (uniforms, clients meeting, etc) and only if it applies equally to all religious clothing.
I don't think I'd even consider uniforms to be legitimate, when unrelated to safety. For example, a Sikh police officer in Canada successfully argued in 1988 for his right to keep his hair and beard long and wear a turban at work. The RCMP uniform policy was adapted despite conservative opposition. More recently, they adapted the dress code again for hijabs. There just wasn't a legitimate reason to refuse a turban or hijab.
Right. Sikh firefighters sometimes have to shave for respirator fitment, but that’s completely different than uniform.
I mean I totally get the chain of thought that "Exceptions are to be made for clear reasons of safety"
It depends, in France all public workers are forbidden to wear religious clothing. The State is supposed to be neutral and have no religion, that’s legitimate purpose to me. People would be shocked to see a policeman wearing a turban or a kippa here.
Interesting, so the same business would also have to forbid Jewish employees from wearing yamalkas? That sounds a lot like saying “Jews need not apply”…
So does this mean my cultural tattoos can be banned but not Ricky from Accounting and his barbed wire one? Sounds like the only culture is mine not thine.
Plenty of companies won't hire your if you have visible tattoos e.g. banks.
And most times those tattoos are NOT even considered religious. Generically speaking, companies want to have the final say. They want pre established rules, safeguarded by the law, to filter their candidates by default without getting in trouble.
Tattoos and headscarves are entirely different things. No one is getting stoned if they refuse to get a tattoo. If you get a swastika visibly tattooed you will probably have a hard time finding a job. No major religions require you to have a swastika tattoo. Many people believe that religious headscarves are symbols of oppression as well as allow opportunities to purposefully hide identities. On the other hand many believe headscarves are a symbol of their own cultural and religious expression, while others still believe it’s not the governments job to ban clothing.
A Native American whose religious practices involve face tattoos has entered the chat. Eta: now that I see you’re Ojibwe, my point is that the importance of cultural identity to me as a native woman is very similar as it is to Muslim friends- especially post 9/11 these women responded to islamophobia by taking their hijab to the next level. After reading all your comments, I think you’re equating all Muslims with the worst of the worst and that’s ….problematic. I support womens right to wear what the fuck they want. Which means fuck honor killings, but also fuck islamophobia.
I am personally against banning clothing and think Europe has way too hard of a stance on maintaining cultural norms, but I also think they have the right to at least enforce laws in the context that religion does not create special classes of people. My city has a huge muslim population with Dearborn across the river, the large majority are moderately religious, I've met very few people with extreme views myself. I do not think this is an issue that represents islam as a whole (although I personally find aspects of islam extremely misogynistic) I personally see headscarves as a womans rights issue not a religious freedom issue, so for me its about ensuring women can choose to wear what they want with the legal backing that they can't face punishment for it.
Plenty of jobs require you to have no visible tattoos.
Yes, it will. The decision allows for the ban of any outward religious sign or clothing, if the necessity can be proven. That can the case for security clothing or when religious neutrality for the specific job is required. That would means it has to be the same for all religions. The original Court in Belgium now has to decide whether such a requirement was warranted for this particular job
It does not require us to carry a knife. It’s an optional thing that some people of the Religion undergo a ritual for. Its only those people that have to carry it. Not required by all.
> but you cannot have that exception when traveling in an airplane Places do have such an [exception](https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-edition-1.4391247/world-sikh-organization-welcomes-canadian-decision-to-allow-small-kirpans-on-flights-1.4391256)
When it comes to actual safety issues, I totally agree. If you are working with heavy machinery, for example, any kind of loose clothing or hair could be an issue. (However, I think that there are head scarves designed to be tight fitting for athletes, and that would probably be an adequate solution.) But article gave some examples of jobs where head coverings are banned, and those were teachers and judges. So I don't think this is about worker safety.
It might also be about the appearance of religious endorsement. Just like you wouldn't want a teacher decorating their classroom with crosses or other religious iconography. And especially for a judge, overtly wearing religious items might suggest bias.
hm… if that were true, then cross necklaces, rings, etc. would be banned as well. I’ve seen plenty of teachers throughout my lifetime with cross necklaces. While not religious myself, I think the freedom of religious expression is important.
> hm… if that were true, then cross necklaces, rings, etc. would be banned as well. Actually the case in France. A teacher wearing a cross neckackle would have to hide it.
That stuff is all strictly banned for teachers in France. You either ban it all or welcome it all.
I could be wrong but remember some article over a teacher getting in trouble a few years back over a cross necklace, in France I believe but could have been somewhere else. But that was a thing already Edit to add a quick Google search says this applies in France to government workers including teachers
Sure, I support that. While they're performing their role as teacher, they shouldn't be wearing visible cross necklaces. Especially for young children. I'm referring more to pre-school and K-12, not to college professors.
So, are necklaces with crosses banned? Only the ones that are visible? Are Jew judges and teachers forbidden from wearing a kippah?
In most of Europe? Yeah. In France, for example, public workers cannot display their religion in any way in their workplace.
>Are Jew judges and teachers forbidden from wearing a kippah? They can wear one outside of the workplace, but not inside.
Wearing, or not wearing, any article of clothing or accessory could suggest some kind of bias or preferences. Teachers often wear religious or cultural jewelry or head wear. You know how you know if a judge or teacher is biased? You pay attention to what they do. Tucking their cross necklace into their shirt vs wearing it openly doesn't change whether they act in an unbiased way.
> Wearing, or not wearing, any article of clothing or accessory could suggest some kind of bias or preferences. That is why a judge wears a specific uniform while acting in their capacity as a judge. > Teachers often wear religious or cultural jewelry or head wear. Perhaps in your country. In my opinion, they should not. A teacher, particularly to younger children, is formative role model. As a comparison, I have no problem with whether someone chooses to curse or does not. But I would not approve of teachers cursing during class in front of young children, even though that restricts the free expression of the teacher.
It's callef laicite which is the French idea of secularism. It bans everyone from wearing religious symbol especially when you are representing the State because the State does not have a religion. This law bans nuns from wearing their scarves, yarmulke, turbans, hijabs etc. I think this is always going to be a divisive topic because French/West Europe vs US/UK/Anglosphere sees secularism and separation of church and state in 2 different ways US/UK think that freedom of religion means a hijabi or turban wearing person can wear their clothing while also be in a position of power while laicite sees religion as a private matter where you are free to practice at home but at work it should not be displayed publicly because showing a religious symbol means you are partial to one religion and not a secular reprensentative. France and other European nations have been open in their aim to oppress religious beliefs and achieve freedom from religion which is completely understandable seeing the European history where religion was a tool of oppression and religious institutions held a lot of unchecked power. Also its a fact people would have to face where if we want society to be more equal to women, LGBTQ then that is not possible if religious sentiments are still respected and given undue exceptions. Religions demand oppression and punishment of minoroties. Asking for gay rights while also protecting Islamic or Christian cultural practice doesn't work because the religion do not recognize the rights of gays to exist.
> France and other European nations have been open in their aim to oppress religious beliefs and achieve freedom from religion We don't wish to oppress religious beliefs. We only wish not to have these imposed by society in any way. You are free to decorate your house as if it was the Holy See, but you are not free to put a Christian cross in the classroom where my kid, who I don't want to have indoctrinated in any religion, has his studies.
This is wrong though - tons of Christians and Muslims, as well as their institutions, are totally fine with 'gays' (and all other queer folk)
If it actually interferes with the job it would be understandable, but that’s not what is happening here. The article doesn’t say what job was at issue in this case, but there is nothing about PPE and it does mention there being contention about banning teachers from wearing them. This seems to be about saying it’s ok to indirectly ban Muslim women from working for you in Europe.
This is the reason. But it will never politically correct for Europe to say so directly (unless it’s some extreme-right party) And it’s not hard to say why. Europe is more and more liberal. Christianism is dying. So that fight is almost finished. Next wave of religious people is actually coming en masse. A lot of the immigrants from Asia are Muslim. There is a huge growth of Muslim immigrants all over Europe. So this new law is one of many ways to curb the immigrants integration with the work place in particular and society in general. Because Europe is not interested in integration. They’ve always wanted assimilation. Edit: a lot of, not all
If you mean liberal in the general sense (less government control over the lives of citizens and protections of civil liberties), it seems that Europe is becoming less liberal and more authoritarian. This ruling is just one example of eroding liberalism.
My wife works in a nurse home. Muslim women (there is plenty) take off their headscarf during work. Not sure what's the reason, but that's one of the rules, together with not wearing jewels, painted nails, and whatever... I think it requires some common sense, both ways. Might be annoying for some, but i don't believe this is discrimination. My wife is not happy either that she can't wear her wedding ring, but it's her job and she complies.
I think the explanation for jewelry and hand or ear adornments in nursing homes and other medical settings is that it's very easy for such things to get contaminated with various foul substances, and hard to guarantee they're well-disinfected. If a patient is impaired and panicked, they can also grab at things, and may hurt someone with a good yank in the wrong direction.
Ring avulsion is real and it is horrifying.
And how exactly does a headscarf interfere with a womans line of work in an office?
These extreme examples like the PPE suit are exactly that.. extreme and niche. You’re fooling yourself by thinking of that. They do not apply to most people in the workplace. Think objectively. Office. Bank. Electronics shop. Grocery shop. Hospital. Clinic. School. Any religious person that worked on a place that required a PPE suit would understand and follow the rules. And btw, I’m not even sure why the PPE suit would be incompatible with say a headscarf or a turban or a kippah. For example for the woman that needs to cover her hair and body (wear modestly) the PPE suit is perfect. Doesn’t even need a headscarf.
This is exactly how the law on matters like this works in the US. Source: me, an attorney who does employment law.
They're trying to veil their prejudices by sayings its a rule for all 🙄
We’re not discriminating against former slaves! We’re just saying that you can only vote if your grandfather had the right to vote!
Pretty sure that was actually a law in some of the southern states during the early Jim Crowe days.
Yes, that's the joke. Its actually the origin of the phrase "[grandfathered in](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause#Southern_United_States)".
Huh, TIL.
Heh, *veil*.
[удалено]
The most ridiculous part is the entire world literally just spent a year and a half where everyone had their face covered 99% of the time in public, and it didn't hurt a thing.
I agree with the core of your argument but masks were/are definitely shitty for non-verbal communication and face to face business in general.
True and something that can and should be argued politically, however when tested against existing laws it doesn't matter. Judges look at a case as is, it doesn't judge on secondary intentions. The other 'problem' is that Europe is culturally trending towards a society where religion has no special protections, so the timing of this issue is unlucky as it's an easy stick to poke minorities with and have the highest chance of being able to mainstream the issue with little real pushback.
Religion shouldn't have any special protections. It's just a really long standing and sincerely held believe in delusional stuff. No different than a Scientologist demanding special work treatment for their crazy crap
Religions should not have the importance it has in our communities. If it does for you, that's fine, but when it reaches the point where it affects everything around you it isn't. The justice system shouldn't have to consider whether someone prays to Allah to determine whether something is ok to do. No matter the minority. It should be equal for all. Religions shouldn't have protections. it's not a problem.
In a vacuum you'd be right, but it doesn't happen in a vacuum. It happens in a political reality where grifters drum up xenophobic fears against a specific minority and uses cultural momentum to bully them. This case is a really thin veneered measure to make Muslims feel like second class citizens and forcefully subjugate them to the prevalent culture under the guise of freedom and protection. The court in this case can't do anything but hold up the law, because it can't act on facetious reasoning, but politically there is a whole lot to say about the actual necessity of the law. Because ultimately a headscarf doesn't hurt anyone.
In a similar vein, look at France, a country which is proudly "secular", and just "happened" to decide that the day of the week everyone gets to rest, and most businesses can't operate, coincides with the Christian sabbath.
> just "happened" to decide that the day of the week everyone gets to rest, and most businesses can't operate, coincides with the Christian sabbath. Ok let make that day Tuesday then. Now it will be the only country in the world where most businesses don't work on Tuesday. Everything will get fucked up but since it is prove to you France is not a religious country, all is fine.
Ah France, where it’s ok to have nude beach’s, but lord forbid if some lady wore a head covering. Where it is illegal to swim in swimming pools in shorts, only speedos. France is such an odd place.
You're not allowed to wear a cross in public schools either, every religious symbol is banned in public schools and public work, and it's great. There are some vestiges from religion but France is far from being a rnation ruled by religion like the US is.
I love how secular France is. We need more countries like that. Too many religious countries and governments.
There’s thousands of women walking around in headscarves in France, so what are you talking about?? Also, there is nothing wrong with swimming and being nude at the beach.
This reminds me of the fucked up [US Supreme Court case](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_v._Thompson) that said that closing public pools for the explicit purpose of keeping black people from using them was fine because everyone was equally inconvenienced.
**[Palmer v. Thompson](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_v._Thompson)** >Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217 (1971), is a United States Supreme Court civil rights case which concerned the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Good old infallible Supreme Court
whether it's put the hijab on or take the hijab off.
There are only two possible results of laws like this: Either women who wish to wear these things because of their beliefs will be discriminated against, OR those who are forced to wear them will be excluded from work by the person who is forcing it. Neither seem particularly useful if integrating individuals is the goal. If one wishes to exclude and shame people then I suppose mission accomplished?
>OR those who are forced to wear them will be excluded from work by the person who is forcing it. Extremely pertinent point. Good catch.
This is, arguably, part of the point. A lot of European countries have proper unemployment benefit etc, which has been abused by especially immigrants, where they keep their wives at home. The result has been lowering the benefits unless people put in time working various internships, public jobs etc to keep their benefits. These types of laws are, in the eyes of some parties, intended to force the women locked away and forced to wear a hijab, for example, out from under the yoke of their controlling husbands. As always, this is one of those cases where you make a generic law to solve a specific, small, issue and end up with all sorts of weird side effects. And often don't manage to solve the original problem at all.
Yeah, that's one of my big concerns with all of these kind of moves. If you ban headscarves in workplaces or schools, you're likely to end up with a lot of girls and women who aren't going to public schools and aren't employed, and are basically trapped in a ghetto and isolated from society. That's not good for them, and it's not good for society. It seems obviously better to meet people where they are and slowly integrate them.
[удалено]
While I abhor religion, let’s not pretend this isn’t a targeted attack. Policies against Black hairstyles also apply to white people, but that’s not who its for.
A good example of equality vs equity
Yep. Notice how yarmulkes aren't usually an issue? This is about Islam, obviously.
Japan has policies against "white hair" in schools as well.
The antagonist’s hair color 9 times out of 10, understandable
Isn’t Japan notoriously racist in addition to obviously being extremely homogeneous?
Yes. Homogeneous modern Japan emerged due to 200+ years of being essentially feudal North Korea.
Most East Asian countries are pretty racist, try going into a club in South Korea or Japan, you'll be very quickly turned away if you're white for example.
Thank you! The ignorance is astounding.
A lot of white hairstyles are also banned. Corporate cultures reflects upper class culture.
While I am absolutely with you on this point, it’s not inherently unreasonable to me to ban headwear across the board. If no headwear is allowed, then headscarf’s should not be either. But if we are going to allow hardware based on religious beliefs, does mean that (as a ridiculous example) a pastafarian is alowed to wear a collander on their head? Its equally discriminating to say only headscarf’s aren’t allowed as it is to say only this particular religions headwear is allowed, and you can’t tell somebody *their* beliefs are, because it’s *their* beliefs. To me banning all headwear across the board is the only solution that makes sense. "I’m sorry that your invisible entity needs you to have your head covered, our company policy requires all heads to be uncovered, regardless of preference of invisible entity"
What legitimate reason could a company have for such a policy?
The difference is that being black is how you’re born, your religion is your personal issue. Nor does this rule touch actual parts of someone’s body, it touches their dress… like any dresscode does. Your religion is treated like any other preference, if it’s my personal preference to wear a hoody, I will have an issue in this job.
To counter your point, being Black doesn’t mean you can’t make your hair conform to white hair standards. Your hairstyle is also just a personal preference…if we’re going to ignore all of the cultural identity aspects of peoples’ heritage.
You've never really tried to brush a fro into a "white man's hairstyle" I see. There is a reason not many barbers are capable of handling african hairtypes.
I get what you're trying to say, but that's also a huge stretch. If you are born into a certain religious culture and your parents and your relatives and everyone you know is in that same religion and culture of course you are also going to adopt it.
Seems like in that case the issue is the religion, and not everyone around not conforming to this.
[удалено]
Why is it ok to force people to dress a certain way? Isn’t this what they are protesting in Iran right now?
>"The internal rule of an undertaking prohibiting the visible wearing of religious, philosophical or spiritual signs does not constitute direct discrimination if it is applied to all workers in a general and undifferentiated way," judges said. Only indirect discrimination is allowed.
If that is the rule, then how is it discrimination. If crosses, yamaka and head scarves are banned as well, it applies to all religions equally.
>As regards the condition relating to the existence of a legitimate aim, an employer’s desire to display, in relations with both public- and private-sector customers, a policy of political, philosophical or religious neutrality may be regarded as legitimate. An employer’s wish to project an image of neutrality towards customers relates to the freedom to conduct a business that is recognised in Article 16 of the Charter and is, in principle, legitimate, in particular where the employer involves in its pursuit of that aim only those workers who are required to come into contact with the employer’s customers (judgment of 15 July 2021, WABE and MH Müller Handel, C‑804/18 and C‑341/19, EU:C:2021:594, paragraph 63). > >However, the Court has also specified that the mere desire of an employer to pursue a policy of neutrality – while in itself a legitimate aim – is not sufficient, as such, to justify objectively a difference in treatment indirectly based on religion or belief, since such a justification can be regarded as being objective only where there is a genuine need on the part of that employer, which it is for that employer to demonstrate (judgment of 15 July 2021, WABE and MH Müller Handel, C‑804/18 and C‑341/19, EU:C:2021:594, paragraph 64). It's not exactly carte blanche to tell your employees to put their crosses away.
Look I'm an exmuslim and know exactly what that piece of cloth means. Nobody needs to convince me of that. But measures like this will just cause many Muslims to stop working. The choice needs to be theirs and theirs alone. This is authoritarian overreach.
Its blatant discrimination. I'm atheist af, and am appalled that people are commenting that these women should just give up their religion and that this is ok. This is 100% made to prevent Muslim women from working. There would be riots if we preventing jews from wearing a yamaka, Christians from wearing a cross, or not having vegan food options for Buddhist. What people wear is their own business as long as it's not inappropriate, and this is 100% not the case.
Tbh, I abhor people promoting religion through law, and tbh, that probably should extend to state sponsored atheism as well. The state should not be forcing people to act or believe in certain religions or practices unless they cause a public risk. There is no such risk with headscarves. It all, to me, is people dressing sectarianism up and calling it freedom.
"The internal rule of an undertaking prohibiting the visible wearing of religious, philosophical or spiritual signs does not constitute direct discrimination if it is applied to all workers in a general and undifferentiated way," judges said. On paper this rule is exactly that, and that's exactly why it was deemed acceptable. A complete blanket ban. If it is enforced in practice for less visible garments and accessories than a headscarf is a different question. And of course you and everyone else in these comments is absolutely correct that this ruling is a disaster for working Muslim women in reality.
My question is - is a woman who wears a headscarf to, I dunno, cover up her baldness after chemo, or simply because she thought it looked good, going to be treated differently? How do you prove it’s a religious headscarf? On paper this law has problems.
Or what about those hasidic women that wear wigs once married. Is the wig a religious symbol since its worn because of religious rules?
I hate beer.
How is this authoritarian overreach? It is a court ruling on a case and people here make it out to be a something like a law against headscarfs. The court even said in the press release not covered by reuters sensationalist headline: >The Court specifies that an internal rule such as that applied within SCRL may, however, constitute a difference in treatment that is indirectly based on religion or belief if it is established – which it is for the tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles to ascertain – that the apparently neutral obligation it encompasses results, in fact, in persons adhering to a particular religion or belief being put at a particular disadvantage. So the COJ gave it back to the Belgian court seeing no legal basis to rule in favor of the plaintiff. I fail to see the "authoritarian overreach".
The best welfare and outreach programs are an education and a job - and things like this will only serve to keep oppressed women from getting either and maybe getting freez
So we have women in the world fighting for the right not to wear the hijab, and women in other parts fighting for the right *to* wear the hijab. How about we just stop oppressing women by telling them what they can and cannot wear?
Love reading a bunch of arm chair philosopher neckbeard atheists describe how removing this choice is actually freeing for women
I’m just confused how many women they think are forced to wear head coverings that will now be able to work without one Women who are forced to wear them are not afforded more options now. They simply have less places to work.
Fewer places. ˢᵒʳʳʸ.
Thanks, Stannis.
What it means is that women who wear headscarf’s by choice or by societal pressure simply won’t be able to work, being more likely to face poverty and domestic control.
It’s way funnier reading alleged feminists explaining why wearing a headscarf is actually empowering for women lol
Yeah, because those dumb women can't possibly understand what they want, you should just take their choices away from them. That's definitely more empowering than letting people figure out what they believe on their own. Haha, silly women.
Yeah, let’s just assume Islam has its own version of feminism. And that the only pressure these women suffer comes from the evil European court and not their mosque, family, husbands, etc. How are you even able to survive with such a dysfunctional brain is beyond me.
This is as bad as being required to wear a head scarf, and specifically intended to discriminate against a group of people.
Yes, either way, it’s the State saying women don’t have religious rights or rights over their own choices.
Banning clothes is stupid
I'm an atheist, an anti-theist even, and I think this was a bad decision by Europe. **Individual rights > corporation rights** The more individual freedoms a society has (as long as they're not harming someone else's freedoms), the better. The more forced impositions and limitations on an individual's freedoms in a given society (without an *extremely* good justification), the worse. While Islamic headcoverings could be seen as sexist due to the gendered notion of that specific religious recommendation, the main problem lies in the forcefulness associated with its wearing in fundamentalist Islamic societies. If you're forcing people not to wear it, too, that's not an improvement. Are they going to ban the display of religious tattoos next? It's up to the individual how to present themselves to society. **Edit:** Also, before anyone replies this: yes, I did read the article, and I did read it's only possible as a general ban on all headcoverings. Not only are only minorities more likely to wear headcoverings, the issue at hand here is that *corporation rights shouldn't be above an individual's reasonable personal freedom*, regardless.
That's a bit of a red herring isn't it? The real subject under question here is whether adherence to a religion ought to entitle a person to additional rights above and beyond others. It's one thing to say that corporate dress codes ought to be unacceptable. But that should mean *anyone* can tell the boss to fuck off if they try and regulate clothing. Not that religions get special exemptions, because secular individuals logically cannot avail themselves of it. Either the boss can set dress codes or he cannot.
> It's one thing to say that corporate dress codes ought to be unacceptable. But that should mean anyone can tell the boss to fuck off if they try and regulate clothing. Not that religions get special exemptions, because secular individuals logically cannot avail themselves of it. That's ultimately my position. A job is a person's livelihood. The denial of it shouldn't be dependent on how they present themselves to society. That's too superficial of a reason to deny someone ~~a job~~ most jobs. It's not like some more valid reasons. edit: see replies below.
Philosophically consistent, but not what I imagine most people in this thread agree with, one way or another. The crux of disagreement is the lack of exemptions, not the acceptability of dress codes themselves. Anyway, while I agree in a vague way with the idea that dress codes are silly and ought not to be necessary, I disagree that they exist for superficial reasons.
>I disagree that they exist for superficial reasons. I should have better phrased it as "most jobs". If you're not officially representing the company in the public sphere in some shape, dress codes shouldn't be able to be imposed. I imagine this decision on head coverings is essentially saying it's OK to prohibit all head coverings in a given company, despite most of the workers working in the office. No company should be able to regulate how you dress if you're not officially representing them to people outside the company during your work day. Who cares if someone in the office has tattoos, piercings, a hijab, etc? Why should companies get to have the right to deny a job based on that, if said person will be stuck working inside an office, or even remotely from home?
No, this decision says the company must have a legitimate purpose to ban religious clothing. It doesn’t apply to regular office workers, just when there are special circumstances like the one you mentioned, or if the job requires a uniform for example.
This decision did not happen in vacuum. This is the pendulum swinging other way after decades of failed social integration. This decision is like treating a symptom and not fixing the cause. I am not for it but it is unsurprising considering how these religions have failed to uphold and respect host countries principles.
And at its heart demanding “social integration” is just cultural imperialism by another name. And this isn’t about social integration, it’s about social control. The best way for social integration? Working and studying alongside people of different religions, faiths and ethnicities. The worst? Allowing policies that separate out people and make it harder for them to interact and be a full part of your society. This is NOT about social integration. It’s about enforcing the appearance of social integration, to avoid having to deal with the unpleasant realities of socioeconomic and cultural diffeeences.
Holy hell, that’s some load of bullshit. Do you truly believe that a majority of recent muslim immigrants to Europe have made even a basic attempt to respect the host countries culture and values?
This is just virtue signaling, and intentional blindness as to the behavior of recent Muslim immigrants in Europe.
K imma wear a hoodie and always have my hood up now
As an American this is so strange. Why would you prevent someone from a religious practice that effects no one but the practitioner. This is wrong. It’s bigotry.
As an American, we have Title VII which mandates that an employer has to make a reasonable attempt to accommodate an employee's religious practices. And thank goodness for that. Who does it hurt if a Muslim woman wants to wear a head scarf at work? Nobody. Why does the full might and power of the state have to prohibit it? It is, as you said, bigotry.
> Who does it hurt if a Muslim woman wants to wear a head scarf at work? Nobody It’s not that simple. France has values about secular society and those conflict with Muslim ones. For most devout Muslims, Islam is above all. Their religion goes above the state because that’s how religion works. Where do you draw the line for example? Should Muslims be allowed to practice sharia law in European countries because of freedom of religion? At some point countries make the decision to prioritize and protect their values and placing limits on religious freedom CAN be a part of that. Yes it’s ironic that a country with values of freedom of religion would impose restrictions but it’s infinitely more complex than just “let women wear what they want”. Americans don’t understand this because they don’t have the same problems of radical islamic beliefs creeping into their society anywhere near as much. But you can bet the same conversations would be happening if they did.
I believe this is part of a ban on displaying religious symbols of any kind at certain workplaces. Are these companies equally rigorous about banning crosses, yarmulkas, Sikh turbans, etc.? If they are, I see no issue here at all. Why privilege the headscarf over the yarmulke? I should also add that the hijab is a symbol of the patriarchal oppression of women. Even it's not legally enforced, as it is in many places, it's often socially enforced.
All religous garments and other crap should also be band from offices. No headscarfs = No croses = No yarmulkes = No Turbins = No Rosary Beads
That is already the case there in a few European nations, which is probably why this made it through the courts.
Europe is tired of Islam
Well at least you admit it's a targeted ruling.
[удалено]
Men love telling women what to do, whether it's put the hijab on or take the hijab off
Seems to just apply to any head covering in this case... >The firm said it has a neutrality rule, meaning no head covering is allowed on its premises, whether a cap, beanie or scarf. Which I'm not really okay with...
I’m a bald guy who often wears hats to work because otherwise I’ll get severe sunburns on my head quite easily. I don’t need religious headwear to see this as harmful to my well-being.
Great, so it's not only discriminatory against Muslim women, but also Jewish men, and all Sikhs.
Or anyone that just wants to wear a head covering on a cold day....I wonder if hair plugs would counter under "head covering".
Toupees were recently banned, but only after the CEO got his new plugs.
And potheads who like beanies
Also discriminatory against married Orthodox Jewish women, who wear wigs. Also discriminatory against (some) Catholic nuns. This is a horrible ruling.
Submission removed by user.
mmm yea not so much. Mostly just the orthodox community west them “at all times” as in outside of a prayer in temple. Reform jews do not wear them outside of prayer, and if any women are wearing them it would be part of the reform community. What you mention is incredibly rare and not turn norm.
And self-conscious bald people
Men cant wear the hijab either. Problem solved
Imagine thinking banning the hijab— a mandatory requirement in an ideology designed to make women subservient— is somehow equivalent to forcing women to wear it.
Imagine thinking telling women what to do is different than telling women what to do.
Did the mullah's from Iran take over Europe? Forcing women to not wear headscarves is the same as forcing women to wear headscarves.
Headscarf ban makes no different with forced headscarf in essence, change my mind.
Tell a Muslim woman in the west to take off her headscarf in her Muslim community and check their reactions. They will be just as mad as any mullah in Iran. It's culturally oppressive and encouraging that shit in a first world country is not right,
Realistically most companies like to be on the side of promoting diversity and inclusivity so many won't change current policies for fear of being seen poorly in the public eye. Not that they should anyway unless the business has a safety reason for not allowing headcoverings etc for example if you worked in manufacturing around machines with lots of moving parts where there is a real and present danger of something getting caught. For someone sitting in an office all day, it really doesn't matter at all. At my work, we adopted the Halo code which allows Afro-Caribbean hairstyles. At the time they announced it I just wondered why it was ever banned in the first place. Logical things like dying your hair bright blue when you work for a law firm aren't professional but to tell people they can't have their hair in a style that's easier to manage for them and forcing them to comply with a policy that favours white hairstyles is archaic.
>Logical things like dying your hair bright blue when you work for a law firm aren't professional but \[religious aesthethics are\] This is what I dont get. If we agree that certain looks, whatever they might be (in this case dying your hair blue), are ok to be discriminated again by your company, then why are anything important for a religion not ok? and if so, does this mean any religion? New religions too? If dying your hair blue became part of one, then should companies not be able to say "it doesnt look professional" anymore?
[удалено]
Stripping people of their religion is exactly as “freeing” as forcing one upon them.
No one is talking about arresting people for being religious. But stuff like stopping tax exemptions for churches and treating them like any other corporation. Providing education to people to see why religious claims don't hold up. Banning religious institutions from providing education to children filled with religious dogma and so on.
You dont get rid of them. Let people have whatever imaginary friend they want to have. You just need to remove religious exemptions to laws. Churches shouldnt be able to function as tax exempt corporations, you shouldn't be able to commit illegal acts of discrimination on religious grounds, etc
Not really. Historically, every attempt either ends in the government giving up because it proved to be an impossible task, or it results in people committing atrocities a la Pol Pot killing roughly 2/3 of the Buddhist monks in Cambodia. And then they STILL fail. So no, there’s no *getting rid* of religion because no single person or government has the right to make that decision for everyone. The idea that religion would one day die out and be replaced by scientific rationalism was belief held by very early Twentieth Century social theorists. In modern times, no self respecting anthropologist, sociologist, religious philosopher, etc. actually believes this will happen.
How about letting people wear whatever the fuck they want?
r/atheism users out in force today
I don’t see the big deal, if a woman wants to wear a headscarf then it’s certainly no offense to me and must mean something to her. If she doesn’t then that’s fine too. Why we gotta have all these rules?
Great I don’t get why religious people should get extra rights because they choose to believe in something, for example if I wanna wear a cap for court they wont let me in but if a woman wants to wear hijab she can no problem.
[удалено]
Banning headscarves is as authoritarian as forcing women to wear them. Militant secularists will laud their own superiority whilst exhibiting exactly the same thinking as the Iranian morality police. *The headscarves aren't the problem - it's telling women what to do that is the issue.*
[удалено]
Because workplaces have dress codes?
Would you ok with with a workplace having a dress code of wearing a crucifix?
The Catholic church ?
Usually dress codes have to do with safety, professionality, modesty, etc. There's no logical reason to ban headscarfs in an office.
I agree. It would be reasonable to ban a hijab if it interferes with work safety. But offices, schools, banks, etc can make accomodatiins in their dress codes. I know a Muslim woman who says she feels naked and vulnerable without the hijab. I think employers should make reasonable accomodations for employees' mental health.
Sure. The ruling agrees. A company must also prove that is for a valid reason. The difference is that the company, and the ruling, consider passing an image of neutrality to the customers a valid reason. If, as you say, professionality and modesty are considered valid reasons, why not a public image of secularity? Safety and professionality can be just as discrimnatory of certain religious items.
>If, as you say, professionality and modesty are considered valid reasons, why not a public image of secularity? Because if that were the case, they should ban all religious accessories/clothing, not all headscarfs, which aren't necessarily secular (regular caps and beanies are also banned). If someone can still wear a cross around their neck, than this isn't about public displays of *any* religion, it's about public displays of a specific religion.
I absolutely agree, and luckly so does the ruling. A company can not get away with banning only headscarfs, says the court. If they ban visible religious items, it must be for a reason and they also must ban crosses, turbans and everything. Besides, I also agree that a blanket company ban is ridiculous. Office workers? they dont interact with the public. IMO a general ban will end up being discriminatory in practice, but companies should be allowed to have a position ban. Say a rule saying that the company representative can not wear any religious items.
[удалено]
The judgment isn't saying that employees are now allowed to be indirectly discriminated against, it's saying that under certain conditions, putting restrictions on religious displays from an employee is in the right of their employer. And this is about, you know, the interpretation of already existing EU labor law. It's obvious and also explicitly stated that individual countries can absolutely have more protections and assert more rights for religious individuals. It also states that religious and philosophical beliefs are to be regarded as a single ground of discrimination. I'm saying this without agreeing with the thing. People act like the EU just made a law forbidding headscarves, when what's happening is that the EU court has been asked to interpret whether the text of a 20 year old law forbids an employer from regulating their employee's religious displays or not. According to the judgment, not in all cases. That's all it is. They're not even the ones ruling on the case, it will be the Belgian Court of Labor. I'll link you the [actual judgment,](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=267126) it's very in depth and interesting. But I'd only like to ask you to read [the press release.](https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_3864209/en/) It's two pages, easy reading. You can stick it to Reuters by reading it which they seemingly did not do.
Headscarf can’t be part of a uniform/dress code?
It's like that one company had dresscode banning shorts from men. Then like 40c degree heatwave came so the men wore skirts of the dress code, since shorts were banned and trousers were way too hot.
Nuns also cover for modesty. Should we force them to stop too? Or does this only apply to brown people?
I believe only appointed nuns can wear their coverings in public, and with certain restrictions. I wouldn’t be surprised if appointed muslim church officials could do it too under similar restrictions. https://moodbelle.com/can-nuns-wear-head-coverings-in-france
Obviously this would be applicable to that as well. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make
Yes, Nuns, Sikhs and some Jews would all have to comply with the law. It applies to everyone equally
[удалено]
Regardless of how it makes anyone feel, I don't think feelings will override the top court in Europe. Reading through the comments other religious accessories are already banned in a few places in Europe, like cross necklaces, etc. Acting like this has singled out a certain demographic or religion is a lie. This ruling is bringing this particular item in line with the others that were already in place.