No hijabs need apply.

Mitch Connor

I think it is a disgrace - whether a person wishes to wear a hijab or not should be a personal decision. Whether someone is wearing one or not has absolutely no impact on their ability to do a job or provide a service, my interaction with them as a customer (for example) is not impacted at all.

I do think people should not be allowed to turn cash counters into "no meat/beer" lines - you take a sales job you sell whatever the company sells - but making it a law that a company can tell you not to wear a religious symbol? Nah, don't agree.

eviltwin

When did we become so intolerant?

Muslim women have always worn hijabs and its only in the last few years its become an issue. I don't understand it. Its obviously reactionary, nothing practical in it at all, its saying "you're Muslim but I don't want to have a constant reminder that you are Muslim".

I don't have an issue with it. My son's first teacher was a Muslim lady who wore a hijab, his school friends and their mums wear them, I was served in a shop a few weeks ago by a girl who was wearing one.....it has zero impact on their ability to do their job.

Same goes for other religious symbols and clothing.

challengemaster

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I think it is a disgrace - whether a person wishes to wear a hijab or not should be a personal decision. Whether someone is wearing one or not has absolutely no impact on their ability to do a job or provide a service, my interaction with them as a customer (for example) is not impacted at all.

I do think people should not be allowed to turn cash counters into "no meat/beer" lines - you take a sales job you sell whatever the company sells - but making it a law that a company can tell you not to wear a religious symbol? Nah, don't agree.

It is a personal decision, but at work you represent the company, not yourself. So I think it's perfectly fair for them to say "Leave your political, philosophical or religious crap at home". Customers go to places to obtain goods or services, not be subjected to the beliefs or world views of the cashier.

Widdershins

eviltwin wrote: »

When did we become so intolerant?

Muslim women have always worn hijabs and its only in the last few years its become an issue. I don't understand it. Its obviously reactionary, nothing practical in it at all, its saying "you're Muslim but I don't want to have a constant reminder that you are Muslim".

I don't have an issue with it. My son's first teacher was a Muslim lady who wore a hijab, his school friends and their mums wear them, I was served in a shop a few weeks ago by a girl who was wearing one.....it has zero impact on their ability to do their job.

Same goes for other religious symbols and clothing.

They haven't always worn hijab and it's not necessary that they do so. There used to be a far more relaxed attitude to it, even ten years ago in the UK, maybe a loose headscarf, maybe nothing for a lot of women I would see. The more modesty garb is involved the more orthodox and regressive the belief. Ask an Iranian woman. There is a movement called My Stealthy Freedom by Iranian women who want to be free of the pressure to wear hijab. Why should people ''tolerate'' intolerance anyway.
Why do people think Muslim men don't have to wear hijab?
I agree with this ruling as it's to be applied to all religious garb and it is appropriate in a number of situations for security and hygiene reasons.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The poor divils. Well, why is the unemployment rate so high? I'd wager that the issue isn't with France, but with the other party.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I think it is a disgrace - whether a person wishes to wear a hijab or not should be a personal decision. Whether someone is wearing one or not has absolutely no impact on their ability to do a job or provide a service, my interaction with them as a customer (for example) is not impacted at all.

I do think people should not be allowed to turn cash counters into "no meat/beer" lines - you take a sales job you sell whatever the company sells - but making it a law that a company can tell you not to wear a religious symbol? Nah, don't agree.

If that's the case, people should be able to go to work with spaghetti or traffic cone on their heads, or wearing a balaclava or deep sea diving suit.

Burqa's have no place in modern society, or any other religious garb that covers one from head to toe.

Widdershins

Widdershins wrote: »

They haven't always worn hijab and it's not necessary that they do so. There used to be a far more relaxed attitude to it, even ten years ago in the UK, maybe a loose headscarf, maybe nothing for a lot of women I would see. The more modesty garb is involved the more orthodox and regressive the belief. Ask an Iranian woman. There is a movement called My Stealthy Freedom by Iranian women who want to be free of the pressure to wear hijab. Why should people ''tolerate'' intolerance anyway.
Why do people think Muslim men don't have to wear hijab?
I agree with this ruling as it's to be applied to all religious garb and it is appropriate in a number of situations for security and hygiene reasons.

Widdershins, my dentist wears the Hijbab, there is nothing wrong with her hygiene She wears a mask, like all dentists when doing procedures. Everything she uses is pre sterislised for treatment.

Widdershins

The fact that an Irish man commented to say Irish women could learn from the modesty of a religion is deeply disturbing. There is a middle ground between dressing and acting like you're a stripper and covering your hair, face or full body up. And you wouldn't be allowed to work dressed like a stripper in most jobs, either.

Widdershins

Jake1 wrote: »

Widdershins, my dentist wears the Hijbab, there is nothing wrong with her hygiene She wears a mask, like all dentists when doing procedures. Everything she uses is pre sterislised for treatment.

Yes and the employers who feel in their particular worklpace a hijab should not be worn can now make that call without a backlash. Is there anything wrong with that? The point is not to argue the suitability for each profession.

LaChatteGitane

Widdershins wrote: »

The fact that an Irish man commented to say Irish women could learn from the modesty of a religion is deeply disturbing. There is a middle ground between dressing and acting like you're a stripper and covering your hair, face or full body up. And you wouldn't be allowed to work dressed like a stripper in most jobs, either.

A hijab doesn't cover the face.

Widdershins

LaChatteGitane wrote: »

A hijab doesn't cover the face.

Yes, I know, I was referring to modesty garb in general, of which hijab is one item.That's why I said ''or''!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FTA69

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's a fact. I used to teach English to a class of Muslim women and nearly all of them bar one or two wore the hijab; a couple also wore the niqab. If I had said "no religious symbology" in my class then I'd have been sitting in an empty classroom; the women wouldn't have learned any English whatsoever and the whole purpose of empowering women would have been defeated from the onset.

As you said above, this has little to do with enforcing across-the-board secularism at work and in school and everything to do with populist measures to stick it to the Muslims.

The_Valeyard

Grand, stop people from wearing those save the 8th/ repeal the 8th badges in work.

seachto7

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Grand, stop people from wearing those save the 8th/ repeal the 8th badges in work.

When they were handing out the Yes badges for the referendum a few years back, I refused to take them. Not that I didn’t support it, but it’s my business what way I’ll vote, I don’t need to tell everyone on the street. Same as I don’t go around in a run up to an election with part political badges on.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

eviltwin wrote: »

When did we become so intolerant?

Muslim women have always worn hijabs and its only in the last few years its become an issue. I don't understand it. Its obviously reactionary, nothing practical in it at all, its saying "you're Muslim but I don't want to have a constant reminder that you are Muslim".

I don't have an issue with it. My son's first teacher was a Muslim lady who wore a hijab, his school friends and their mums wear them, I was served in a shop a few weeks ago by a girl who was wearing one.....it has zero impact on their ability to do their job.

Same goes for other religious symbols and clothing.

A lot of people who oppose the Burka (and similar dress) are fine with the hijab. Some mix them up.

The issue isn't with ones ability to do a job. I believe it's more about conformity.

FTA69 wrote: »

That's a fact. I used to teach English to a class of Muslim women and nearly all of them bar one or two wore the hijab; a couple also wore the niqab. If I had said "no religious symbology" in my class then I'd have been sitting in an empty classroom; the women wouldn't have learned any English whatsoever and the whole purpose of empowering women would have been defeated from the onset.

As you said above, this has little to do with enforcing across-the-board secularism at work and in school and everything to do with populist measures to stick it to the Muslims.

It's strange that you need to conform to their ways in order for them to integrate. I totally disagree with this. If these women are subjected to more misery due to this rule, it's for them to oppose these ridiculous, stone age rules about dress code, not nanny state rules.

Can you point out where it's noting to do with enforcing across the board and everything to do with sticking it to the muslims? This is what the OP states: "The ECJ ruled today that employers may bar those that wear political or religious garb in the workplace and not be confronted with the word, discrimination", however, he/she has turned it into an anti "hijab" thing with the biased thread title.

Personally, I would have preferred a total ban on clothes completely covering ones face in public. With exceptions to PPE or the likes.

JupiterKid

I have no problem at all with the hijab but it should be at the employer's discretion whether it is appropriate to be worn or not - and the same goes for the garb of other religions.

However, there has been a disquieting growth in the use of the niquab and the burka in Europe and that is problematic in my book. Covering the face completely is a security issue and also is a major clash with our Western values. We should be asking why so many Muslim woman are turning to this oppressive garb - is it a sign of deintegration/radicalisation? This is worrying if so.

GerryDerpy

Intolerance of retarded ideas can only be a good thing can't it? Well I suppose it can contribute to raising the anger of the retarded.

If one young Muslim girl is made rethink about why she wears the hijab then the ban is worth it.

Tokyo

GerryDerpy wrote: »

Intolerance of retarded ideas can only be a good thing can't it? Well I suppose it can contribute to raising the anger of the retarded.

If one young Muslim girl is made rethink about why she wears the hijab then the ban is worth it.

It doesn't change the fact that forbidding them isn't less oppressive than requiring them though.

GerryDerpy

mike_ie wrote: »

It doesn't change the fact that forbidding them isn't less oppressive than requiring them though.

Umm is it like that though?

Hey girl, you're not allowed do stupid thing like put stupid thing on head. It is nonsense. Equals less stupidity.

Hey girl, you must be stupid and put stupid thing on head. Equals more stupidity.

joe40

Right I'm going to show my lack of knowledge here. Two questions: what exactly is a "hijab" is it just the head scarve as opposed to the full face covering.
Secondly is it Muslim women's choice to wear this and more importantly what sort of pressure would be put upon a young Muslim woman that did not wish to wear a hijab.
Surely we in Ireland have enough experience of the problems which occur when a religion has too much power in a society. Nothing like dogmatic rules to keep people subservient, and stifle debate.

TommyKnocker

GerryDerpy wrote: »

Umm is it like that though?

Hey girl, you're not allowed do stupid thing like put stupid thing on head. It is nonsense. Equals less stupidity.

Hey girl, you must be stupid and put stupid thing on head. Equals more stupidity.

Do you not get the fact that in both case someone is telling the girl what she is allowed to do? How about people being allowed to wear whatever they like as long as it is not interfering with anybody else.

Of course employers can have dress codes and should be able to enforce them. But these women appear to have been dismissed from their jobs. So I am assuming that they went for some sort of interview wearing Hijab and were hired and then at some point were told to remove their Hijabs. If the Hijab was such an issue how did they a) get an interview and b) get hired in the first place?

I cannot really think of any job where the wearing of Hijab or Niqab or Burqa for that matter would have any impact of the customer, client, patient etc. etc. Personally I would like to believe that it was that persons choice to wear said item of clothing and that they were not forced/coerced, but other than that I cannot think how it would impact me dealing with a person dressed in one of these items of clothing.

This case came about because two Muslin women were dismissed from their jobs for refusing to remove their Hijabs. I seriously believe that if this had of been 2 Jewish women dismissed for wearing hair scarves or Jewish men dismissed for wearing Yarmulke or a Sikh wearing a turban the ruling would have been much different.

I have spent time in France and I found it to be a fairly nationalist, racist, xenophobic country. I have heard French people I worked with hurl racist, xenophobic abuse at colored and Muslim people on the street with no provocation what so ever. With the way Muslims are portrayed in the media and after both France & Belgium having suffered attacks carried out by lunatics who professed or were adjudged to be Muslim I believe that this colored the judgement handed down by the ECJ.

Widdershins

I'd be more worried about the amount of women in domestic abuse situations prevented from going to work without their hijab. Instead of blaming about the ruling for 'causing' that situation.

Tokyo

joe40 wrote: »

Right I'm going to show my lack of knowledge here. Two questions: what exactly is a "hijab" is it just the head scarve as opposed to the full face covering.

A fundamental tenet of Islam is that both men and women dress "modestly" - for women, this means to make some attempt to cover the hair. The extent to which that modesty is executed varies from a basic headscarf to the full on head-to-toe burqa.

A hijab is effectively a headscarf - it doesn't cover the face. Depending on the culture, the style can vary, some hijabs resemble the headscarves of an older generation of Irish women, others look more like a nuns habit in the sense that they surround the head and under the chin. A quick google gives this image, which fits with my exposure to people I've met who wear a hijab.



(Incidentally, I'd consider the Afghani one above a niqab rather than hijab - not sure why it's included there.)

joe40 wrote: »

Secondly is it Muslim women's choice to wear this and more importantly what sort of pressure would be put upon a young Muslim woman that did not wish to wear a hijab.

The answer to that question can vary wildly, depending on the environment that Muslim woman happens to find herself in. It certainly has been used as a tool of oppression - it's a legal requirement in certain countries (Iran and Saudi Arabia, to name but two), but in countries where it's not enforced by law, or you're not going to get attacked for not wearing one, it's not as straightforward - many women choose to wear the hijab as a sign of faith, feminism, identity, or simply because they want to. As it happens, I work in a predominantly female Muslim workplace, and speaking to my colleagues today about this thread, they all say that it's about their own sense of self.

Maybe it's just my simplistic view of things, but, in my opinion, living in a country where you are being FORCED to wear a hijab is oppressive. But living in a country where you are FORBIDDEN to wear a hijab is equally as oppressive. Women jailed (or worse) in Afghanistan for not wearing a burqa are being oppressed, because they have no choice. Women in Europe do have a choice. Until you take it away, of course, which is what has just happened here.

TommyKnocker

joe40 wrote: »

Right I'm going to show my lack of knowledge here. Two questions: what exactly is a "hijab" is it just the head scarve as opposed to the full face covering.
Secondly is it Muslim women's choice to wear this and more importantly what sort of pressure would be put upon a young Muslim woman that did not wish to wear a hijab.
Surely we in Ireland have enough experience of the problems which occur when a religion has too much power in a society. Nothing like dogmatic rules to keep people subservient, and stifle debate.

1. Hijab is the scarf worn by Muslim women. There are different styles, but it usually covers the hair and wraps around the neck. See https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/33/85/4d/33854d05829b84d25bbf774e255ac1ec.jpg

The Niqab includes a covering of the nose and mouth and sometimes a mesh covers the eyes also. See https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/01/11/31/20/240_F_111312073_rufYmn7AVAwBoM5USpG9cEWy6dZNbphJ.jpg

A Burqa is the full length gown that covers the whole body, usually worn in the likes of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. See http://cdn.unilad.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/58976UNILAD-imageoptim-Women_in_burqa_with_their_children_in_Herat_Afghanistan.jpg

2. I believe that here in Ireland and in the west in general in most cases the Women chose to wear the covering as a sign of devotion to their God. However I am sure there are cases where the women are forced/coerced to cover, which I think is wrong. But IMHO telling a woman what she cannot wear is equally wrong.

Widdershins

Widdershins wrote: »

Yes and the employers who feel in their particular worklpace a hijab should not be worn can now make that call without a backlash. Is there anything wrong with that? The point is not to argue the suitability for each profession.

I agree with you on that point. I also think its up to each employer.
I was just pointing out that hygiene cant be used as a reason.

end of the road

JupiterKid wrote: »

I think the ECJ made the right decision. It should be at the employer's discretion what types of dress and clothing are appropriate. I'd say for 80% or more employers, religious garb wouldn't be an issue but in cases where practicality and hygiene are of import, the wearing of proper attire is paramount.

it always was at the employers discretion. i all ready clarified this earlier. the employers always could decide a dress code. what they couldn't do is have a dress code that banned islamic religious garments and symbols but not other religious garments and symbols. for some employers this could be left to their discretion but others couldn't be trusted, and in an ideal world a facility would exist to deal with that. in short, the ruling has changed nothing but simply clarified the existing law.

JupiterKid wrote: »

If this drives Islamic communities towards radicalism and terrorism, it isn't the ECJ's nor employers' fault. It is becoming clear to me that Europe has welcomed immigrants, but many immigrants refuse to integrate with European societies. What are we to do? Cater to their every demand and whim? Introduce Sharia Law? Boundaries need to be set. No religious group can hold Europe to ransom.

Boundaries have all ready been set. it is called the law. outside that, no other boundaries needed on this issue. oh and we could not say that the ruling, dispite only clarifying something that was all ready there, wouldn't give islamic extremists and radicals an excuse to radicalise more people.

Winterlong wrote: »

I commend your faith in the European justice system and wish I had it. . As the European court judges are appointed by politicians I think there is a political bias there. Not as bad as the US admittedly.

it's not about faith, but about evidence for me. the european court has been making many different rulings for and against things supported by both sides of the political spectrum for years. so on this particular issue, the far right think they have gotten some victory, that "ja muzzies" (forgive my terminology) can now be discriminated against by employers when they can't, whereas the left thought they would have got a victory on other rulings. i don't see why the courts would start making decisians just to please the far right now just because they are on the rise. the EU giving into them would be pointless as they want the EU to break up anyway.

Widdershins wrote: »

Yes and the employers who feel in their particular worklpace a hijab should not be worn can now make that call without a backlash.

only if they bann all religious garments and symbols. they cannot simply bann the wearing of a hijab.

GerryDerpy wrote: »

Intolerance of retarded ideas can only be a good thing can't it? Well I suppose it can contribute to raising the anger of the retarded.

If one young Muslim girl is made rethink about why she wears the hijab then the ban is worth it.

there is no "bann" . the ruling is clarification of an existing rule.
something that just "might" make only 1 person rethink about wearing something yet causes more issues for more people isn't "worth it"

challengemaster

Jake1 wrote: »

I agree with you on that point. I also think its up to each employer.
I was just pointing out that hygiene cant be used as a reason.

In the case of a dentist, sure, in the case of other professions though I would disagree. For example, surgeons and surgical staff would need to be much more strict in what is allowed in operating theatres. Similarly I can't see them being allowed into any GMP facility or clean rooms. They simply aren't sterile and wearing a mask over that doesn't change it.

mcmoustache

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't think that this ruling compels anyone to ban it. To me, it looks like a judgement that removes some state interference, red tape and the threat of sanctions from the rights of businesses and job-creators to implement uniform dress-code policies.

There is still a requirement that such dress-code policies apply equally to employees of all faiths and don't unfairly target one - banning hijabs while allowing crosses would be a no-no, for example.

In all, I think that this takes some control of the issue out of the government's hands and and leaves it up to individual employers to decide for themselves what they'd like to do.

conorhal

mike_ie wrote: »

It doesn't change the fact that forbidding them isn't less oppressive than requiring them though.

What, like insisting a flat earther should have suffer a globe in their school texbook kind of opressive?


Gerrawwnoutadat