Dunnes settle with woman over wearing a Hijab

Ush1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

wearing the Hijab is a requirement for a Muslim women. Some choose to ignore it though.

Equality isn't about treating everyone the same, it is about treating them equally, which is slightly different. In this case, the banning of headwear meant that it indirectly discriminated against her, because her religious beliefs are that she should wear a Hijab.

But do you not see any problems with that?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What is the aim?

Who knows? Surely the aim of working in a Chinese restaurant is cooking or serving Chinese food? I reckon I could give it a shot being an Irish bloke!:pac:

Boombastic

irishconvert wrote: »

Let me first state I am not a scholar, or expert. However my understanding is that the hand cannot be cut if the person steals because they need the item, for example someone steals a loaf of bread because they have no money to pay for food. If someone steals just because they want something someone else has, then their hand would be cut off. Example would be the guy who breaks into your house to steal your laptop, the bankers who stole billions from the Irish people.

My understanding on the hardship question is that if there is genuine hardship which threathens one's life then they can go as far as to deny they are Muslim. But I don't think this case comes close to that situation.

You might not be a scholar, but you have the inside track!!


If this lady then was promoted to manager, would she be required by her religion to cut off the hands of any shoplifters she caught?

Fratton Fred

Ush1 wrote: »

But do you not see any problems with that?

No, No I don't. We are all different and we need to allow for that. Equality is about giving everyone an equal opportunity and equal access to jobs, education and services. You can't do that if you treat everyone the same.

Someone in a wheelchair should have the ability to do a job as easily as anyone else, so employers are obliged to provide disabled access. That isn't giving them an advantage, or discriminating against everyone else, it is about removing the barriers.

The same applies here. The uniform/headscarf policy is a potential barrier to employment, so a slight change removes that barrier and bingo, a Muslim woman and a non Muslim woman are now competing on an even playing field.

Most employers would do this anyway, because they want the best employees and building unnecessary barriers could prevent this, that is why I am amazed someone at Dunnes didn't sort this out quicker. They have made an absolute mess of the situation.

Ush1 wrote: »

Who knows? Surely the aim of working in a Chinese restaurant is cooking or serving Chinese food? I reckon I could give it a shot being an Irish bloke!:pac:

It was a bad example they gave in that brochure tbh.

irishconvert

Boombastic wrote: »

You might not be a scholar, but you have the inside track!!


If this lady then was promoted to manager, would she be required by her religion to cut off the hands of any shoplifters she caught?

Lol, no! Is that a serious question?

Boombastic

irishconvert wrote: »

Lol, no! Is that a serious question?

But why not? It is a serious question. If it says it in the Qur'an, then why wouldn't this also be required?

TwoShedsJackson

Boombastic wrote: »

But why not? It is a serious question. If it says it in the Qur'an, then why wouldn't this also be required?

She would never be required to do this because, like many patriarchal medieval religions, women are subservient to men in all things. If she became manager she would have to have a chaperone appointed to cut the hands off for her.

Kirby

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, No I don't. We are all different and we need to allow for that. Equality is about giving everyone an equal opportunity and equal access to jobs, education and services. You can't do that if you treat everyone the same.

Someone in a wheelchair should have the ability to do a job as easily as anyone else, so employers are obliged to provide disabled access. That isn't giving them an advantage, or discriminating against everyone else, it is about removing the barriers.

The same applies here. The uniform/headscarf policy is a potential barrier to employment, so a slight change removes that barrier and bingo, a Muslim woman and a non Muslim woman are now competing on an even playing field.

Most employers would do this anyway, because they want the best employees and building unnecessary barriers could prevent this, that is why I am amazed someone at Dunnes didn't sort this out quicker. They have made an absolute mess of the situation.

It was a bad example they gave in that brochure tbh.

People throw around that word alot but I'm not sure they truly grasp what it means.

I believe in equal treatment. But I don't believe in special treatment and I think some people get confused between the two.

The store had a policy they all agreed to when they took the job. She wanted an exception made for her. That makes her different from the rest of the staff. That's not equality. Thats preferential treatment.

Telling her she couldn't work there because she was a Muslim would be discrimination. That's not what happened here. She was asked to wear the same uniform as everybody else. She was treated the same as everybody else....equal treatment. And she wanted allowances made for her.

How is that equality?

Ush1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, No I don't. We are all different and we need to allow for that. Equality is about giving everyone an equal opportunity and equal access to jobs, education and services. You can't do that if you treat everyone the same.

Someone in a wheelchair should have the ability to do a job as easily as anyone else, so employers are obliged to provide disabled access. That isn't giving them an advantage, or discriminating against everyone else, it is about removing the barriers.

I completely agree, but a disability is not chosen, religion is so the wheelchair is a bad example.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The same applies here. The uniform/headscarf policy is a potential barrier to employment, so a slight change removes that barrier and bingo, a Muslim woman and a non Muslim woman are now competing on an even playing field.

It's not the same at all though. She has chosen to wear a headscarf at all times. Anybody has the choice to believe anything, which if they were protected by the law obviously wouldn't work. Religions are made up things, they should have no place for dictating business conditions.

The headscarf wasn't imposed upon her, gender, ethnicity and disabilities are though.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Most employers would do this anyway, because they want the best employees and building unnecessary barriers could prevent this, that is why I am amazed someone at Dunnes didn't sort this out quicker. They have made an absolute mess of the situation.

May be true but the point is that religion should not be able to dictate such things.

It was a bad example they gave in that brochure tbh.

The whole thing is quite vague.

irishconvert

Boombastic wrote: »

But why not? It is a serious question. If it says it in the Qur'an, then why wouldn't this also be required?

If someone steals from your shop, are you required to lock them up in a jail in your shed?

Rascasse

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Someone in a wheelchair should have the ability to do a job as easily as anyone else, so employers are obliged to provide disabled access. That isn't giving them an advantage, or discriminating against everyone else, it is about removing the barriers.

The same applies here. The uniform/headscarf policy is a potential barrier to employment, so a slight change removes that barrier and bingo, a Muslim woman and a non Muslim woman are now competing on an even playing field.

A wheelchair and a headscarf are completely different cases. I'm sure a wheelchair user wishes he had the choice whether or not to use his chair each morning.

The fact is the headscarf is completely cultural. For example in Bosnia there are very few woman wearing headscarves. In Jordan and Turkey a few more. But in Jerusalem I'd say most. These are all personal observations.

The headscarf also speaks to something much more worrying about Islam, the cultures in Islamic countries and attitudes to women. I find it very disappointing to see the growth of headscarf wearers in Dublin and extremely disheartened on the few occasion I saw burqas being worn in London. Do we blindly accept this part of this culture like a good liberal western society? Or can we question it? Decide if it is right that in progressive western democracies, where women's rights were hard fought (and are still being fought for), that some women are being forced (explicitly or implicitly) to cover up parts of their bodies as required by men? And can we do it without being branded Islamophobes or racists?

smash

irishconvert wrote: »

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts from sin and not show of their adornment except only that which is apparent, and draw their headcovers over their necks and bosoms and not reveal their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women (i.e., their sisters in Islam), or their female slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants free of physical desires, or small children who have no sense of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah altogether, O you Believers, in order that you may attain success.[An-Nur, 24:31]

What a load of pants.

irishconvert wrote: »

Adornment is a translation of an Arabic word which means hair.

No it's not

_Kaiser_

Thanks to Fred above...

What is discrimination?
Discrimination is defined as less favourable treatment. A person is said to be discriminated against if he or she is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation

Seems pretty obvious so. She is in fact asking/expecting to be treated more favourably than her colleagues by being allowed to dress as she likes, while her colleagues are expected to adhere to the rules and terms of the contract they all voluntarily signed - her included! - at the start.

If anything her colleagues have a case for discrimination as a result of this, not her!

Boombastic

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

She would never be required to do this because, like many patriarchal medieval religions, women are subservient to men in all things. If she became manager she would have to have a chaperone appointed to cut the hands off for her.

Would dunnes be expected to pay for the chaperone, would you reckon?

irishconvert wrote: »

If someone steals from your shop, are you required to lock them up in a jail in your shed?

The law states they be put in jail, not my religion

Fratton Fred

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Thanks to Fred above...



Seems pretty obvious so. She is in fact asking/expecting to be treated more favourably than her colleagues by being allowed to dress as she likes, while her colleagues are expected to adhere to the rules and terms of the contract they all voluntarily signed - her included! - at the start.

If anything her colleagues have a case for discrimination as a result of this, not her!

You're cherry picking. I've explained how the act works, I've quoted the equality authority's explanation of the act, the citizens information explanation of the act, yet still people don't get it.

Grayson

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Thanks to Fred above...



Seems pretty obvious so. She is in fact asking/expecting to be treated more favourably than her colleagues by being allowed to dress as she likes, while her colleagues are expected to adhere to the rules and terms of the contract they all voluntarily signed - her included! - at the start.

If anything her colleagues have a case for discrimination as a result of this, not her!

So you mean that her collegues aren't being treated favourably in having to follow a dress code that was written up by westerners, for westerners.

Penn wrote: »

Her religion was not a factor in their decision. The hijab was a factor, and the decision to wear the hijab was hers.

Because her being muslim has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with her wearing a hijab. It's just like all those non muslim women who wear hijabs.

I take it you believe that people should never be allowed to go to funerals then? they are religious services and it is "their decision".

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Indirect discrimination happens where a worker or group
of workers or job applicants are treated less favourably
as a result of requirements that they might find hard to
satisfy. For example, if a job advert stated that applicants
had to be Chinese, that condition would put people of
other races and nationalities at a disadvantage.
However, it requires the employer to prove that the condition
is necessary for the job in question, to be unlawful. In
the example given, it might be considered a reasonable
condition if the job is in a Chinese restaurant.

A Muslim woman would have trouble complying with the Dunnes uniform policy unless she can wear a head scarf. In order for Dunnes to stop her wearing a headscarf, they would have to show that not wearing one is a necessity for the job.

Is not wearing a headscarf a necessity for stacking shelves or operating a check out? I would be amazed if it were.

Dunnes were in breach of the Equality act.

Great reply.

Can anyone actually give me any reason why the headscarf would prevent the woman from doing her job? Or why Dunnes shouldn't make minor changes to their rules?

I bet everyone who's saying it's the womans own fault and she shouldn't have applied if she knew the rules are all in favour of that indian woman dying during her pregnancy. I mean, the rules were laid out. No abortions in ireland. If she expected to be able to avail of all nessecary treatment, she should have stayed at home or not have gotten pregnant. It's her own fault really.

Botyh rules are stupid. One resulted in a woman being let go. the other resulted in one dying. But they both originated in the same type of close minded bigotted brain.

RossyG

Equality laws should be about making sure people aren't discriminated against due to biological reasons they have no control over: ethnicity; sexuality; gender.

Cultural things shouldn't be protected at all. The only reason this woman felt she needed a headscarf was because she was following a fashion. Religion shouldn't be seen as special. It's an ideology, no different to a political party. It was invented by man, as were all traditions.

If the law had any sense, she'd have no more right to wear a headscarf than wear a Fianna Fail rosette or Karl Marx t-shirt.

pablomakaveli

RossyG wrote: »

Equality laws should be about making sure people aren't discriminated against due to biological reasons they have no control over: ethnicity; sexuality; gender.

Cultural things shouldn't be protected at all. The only reason this woman felt she needed a headscarf was because she was following a fashion. Religion shouldn't be seen as special. It's an ideology, no different to a political party. It was invented by man, as were all traditions.

If the law had any sense, she'd have no more right to wear a headscarf than wear a Fianna Fail rosette or Karl Marx t-shirt.

Was about to come on here to make this point funnily enough. It is wrong to discriminate over factors that people have no control over. Age, race, gender and disability are covered by this. However religion is a choice that you have control over.

You choose to follow this religious ideology and you choose to live by its rules. Therefore if these rules you choose to live by give you problems in your day to day life then its your problem not everyone elses. Companies and other people shouldnt be forced to accomodate something that you have chosen to do. Religion should be a private matter not something to be brought into the workplace or any public lace for that matter.