No hijabs need apply.

Omackeral

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I only employ people who make decisions based on the evidence in front of them. People who either confirm they believe in makey uppey beings or don't answer the question are of no use to me. People reacting as you have outlined means the question is dong it's job nicely. It helps to weed out people I would otherwise have wasted my time interviewing.

I don't believe in God. My partner's friend holds a degree in microbiology (of all things!), works in a lab and is way more intelligent than I am and she does believe in God. Plenty of competent people from Gardaí to firemen to healthcare workers to accountants to teachers believe in God. You could miss out on some good candidates with that outlook.

Lt Dan

end of the road wrote: »

the court operates on the basis of law. not the basis of pleasing left wing or right wing. it isn't going to make a decisian on the basis of pleasing those on the far right or any other political viewpoint, as much as some might like to think they would.
in terms of EU law, it was never illegal for an employer to stop people wearing religious garments or symbols, as long as it was across the board and the dress code was nutral. each individual country may have separate laws on the issue however. i should think any case that was found to be discrimination on this issue, was found to be so on the basis that the dress code the employers had weren't nutral, religious symbols were banned but nothing else, and those employees were disciplined for wearing religious symbols when other symbols weren't banned. so this case does not change the fact that an employer can't decide to pick on whatever religion they fancy and cannot discriminate against someone on the basis of their religion.

Yes, that is suppose to be What they are to do and did here, in this case

But, the poster to whom you are referring to, can not be blamed for taking such an opinion

The CJEU and ECtHR have done a lot of judicial activism and interpreting the Treaties and Convention way beyond their meaning on paper over the pass 20 years, especially on immigration. They are so unpredictable and frankly, are often making it up as they go along

DEFTLEFTHAND

Any measure looking at banning religious garb is wrong.

It violates the Freedom of Religion principle.

pilly

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I only employ people who make decisions based on the evidence in front of them. People who either confirm they believe in makey uppey beings or don't answer the question are of no use to me. People reacting as you have outlined means the question is dong it's job nicely. It helps to weed out people I would otherwise have wasted my time interviewing.

I doubt that anyone works for you in fairness but sure that's your prerogative.

pilly

Widdershins wrote: »

I wouldn't fill out the part of a questionaire asking about religious beliefs,for a job, but I'd keep any religious or symbolic items discretely hidden or I wouldn't wear them, because religion does not need to be expressed in the workplace, schools, hospitals or in public, it should be a private matter unless you are a nun attending to religious patients in a hospital or the community, in which case naturally your uniform is part of the job.
There is no grounds to complain about employers asserting the right to refude to allow religious attire or jewellery (if ostentaitous or prominent, if invisibly worn under a blouse, that's different) in their workplace. It's not an infringement of rights in any way and not an attack on any religion. This is a fuss about nothing.

More than 30 people were either killed or crippled or injured a couple of days thanks to religion and what it has made some people think, that's something to complain about. We don't need religious beliefs shoved down our throats, it should be private.

I'm tired of the phrase "shoved down our throats" Widdershins to be honest.

Really sick of it. If you can explain to me how a lady wearing a scarf is shoving anything down your throat I might understand it.

Je_suis_Jean

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I don't ask anyone what their religion is. I ask if they believe in a selection of imaginary beings one of which is loosely described as "god". Anyone ticking any of the boxes doesn't proceed any further in the interview process.

Sure you do. I completely believe you.

Widdershins

pilly wrote: »

I'm tired of the phrase "shoved down our throats" Widdershins to be honest.

Really sick of it. If you can explain to me how a lady wearing a scarf is shoving anything down your throat I might understand it.

It's a figure of speech, Pilly. I'm really tired of people, especially women, failing to grasp the significance and the implications of modesty garb for women, and even more so, the wearing of same at all times when in public, and the possibility that women won't be able to go to work or school without it.

But of course, it's more important to appear superficially respectful to ''ladies in headscarves'', and ignore why they are in hijab, or burqa, et cetera.

222233

Widdershins wrote: »

It's a figure of speech, Pilly. I'm really tired of people, especially women, failing to grasp the significance and the implications of modesty garb for women, and even more so, the wearing of same at all times when in public, and the possibility that women won't be able to go to work or school without it.

But of course, it's more important to appear superficially respectful to ''ladies in headscarves'', and ignore why they are in hijab, or burqa, et cetera.

Why wouldn't they be able to go to school or go out in Public? There are now laws in the EU saying you must cover your head/face.

pilly

Widdershins wrote:

It's a figure of speech, Pilly. I'm really tired of people, especially women, failing to grasp the significance and the implications of modesty garb for women, and even more so, the wearing of same at all times when in public, and the possibility that women won't be able to go to work or school without it.

I'll say it before and I'll say it again. Any Muslim woman I know has no problem with wearing the hijab and I've no reason to not believe them.

I don't see why I should be outraged on their behalf.

pilly

Widdershins wrote:

It's a figure of speech, Pilly. I'm really tired of people, especially women, failing to grasp the significance and the implications of modesty garb for women, and even more so, the wearing of same at all times when in public, and the possibility that women won't be able to go to work or school without it.

I'll say it before and I'll say it again. Any Muslim woman I know has no problem with wearing the hijab and I've no reason to not believe them.

I don't see why I should be outraged on their behalf.

A hijab is a harmless item of clothing that doesn't affect a womans life in any way. I have much greater reservations regarding the niquab, which keeps her hidden from view, affecting how she interacts with others and they with her, I see that as an oppressive garment, as is the bur'qa. Personally, I see no point at all in banning a headscarf. There is nothing oppressive about covering one's hair.

The hijab affects nobody apart from the wearer and anybody who objects to that is being unreasonable in the same way anyone who objects to a person wearing a cross around their neck is being unreasonable. Unless they're carrying it on their back, it's not exactly obtrusive.

I'm not sure the State should be given a say in how people dress.

222233

Candie wrote: »

The hijab affects nobody apart from the wearer and anybody who objects to that is being unreasonable in the same way anyone who objects to a person wearing a cross around their neck is being unreasonable. Unless they're carrying it on their back, it's not exactly obtrusive.

I'm not sure the State should be given a say in how people dress.

It's not unreasonable if it's against the dress code in a business or workplace.

I often think - Should all children be allowed to wear hats in class in primary schools? Because in most they aren't allowed to but if the Hijab should be allowed for certain pupils I don't see why students shouldn't wear whatever they please on their heads.

Widdershins

Candie wrote: »

A hijab is a harmless item of clothing that doesn't affect a womans life in any way. I have much greater reservations regarding the niquab, which keeps her hidden from view, affecting how she interacts with others and they with her, I see that as an oppressive garment, as is the bur'qa. Personally, I see no point at all in banning a headscarf. There is nothing oppressive about covering one's hair.

The hijab affects nobody apart from the wearer and anybody who objects to that is being unreasonable in the same way anyone who objects to a person wearing a cross around their neck is being unreasonable. Unless they're carrying it on their back, it's not exactly obtrusive.

I'm not sure the State should be given a say in how people dress.

As long as you think so that must be ok then. It's not you who is expected to wear one, is it? Nor are any of your freedoms being curtailed.

It's not the state in which the ruling was passed, it's the communities or families of the women who dictate that modesty garb should be worn in public, which is why women theoretically might not be free to go out if they are banned in a workplace. This was a theory raised in this thread. The piece of cloth isn't allowing or stopping them from having freedom, it's the controlling culture that does so. It's not the piece of fabric that is offensive, it's the fact that women are wearing what is a tool of oppression and some women here, are foolish enough to think those women choose it, as if they weren't brought up to believe in it, and had simply decided one day that a hijab might be nice.

I'm stunned at the ignorance. ''' The hijab affects nobody but the wearer and anyone that says it does is being unreasonable''. I again refer you to Iranian women campaigning to be free of the hijab. Not the niqab, not the abaya, the hijab. But they're being unreasonable?. Time to unfollow this farce of a thread.

Widdershins

Widdershins wrote: »

As long as you think so that must be ok then. It's not you who is expected to wear one, is it? Nor are any of your freedoms being curtailed.

It's not the state in which the ruling was passed, it's the communities or families of the women who dictate that modesty garb should be worn in public, which is why women theoretically might not be free to go out if they are banned in a workplace. This was a theory raised in this thread. The piece of cloth isn't allowing or stopping them from having freedom, it's the controlling culture that does so. It's not the piece of fabric that is offensive, it's the fact that women are wearing what is a tool of oppression and some women here, are foolish enough to think those women choose it, as if they weren't brought up to believe in it, and had simply decided one day that a hijab might be nice.

I'm stunned at the ignorance. ''' The hijab affects nobody but the wearer and anyone that says it does is being unreasonable''. I again refer you to Iranian women campaigning to be free of the hijab. Not the niqab, not the abaya, the hijab. But they're being unreasonable?. Time to unfollow this farce of a thread.

I've worked in countries where the hijab is routinely worn, and I can assure you that all the women I met wearing the hijab were anything but cowed and oppressed. I didn't interact with anyone wearing a full-face covering, so I imagine that might be rather different, but that's my personal, lived experience. The hijab has no effect on how a woman works, lives, interacts with others, and generally goes about her business. I am not ignorant.

If you read my post very carefully, you'll note that I stressed this is my opinion. I'm more than happy to read yours and interact politely, but I won't be called ignorant because I don't share your view as it is contrary to my experiences.

Again, I don't think it's particularly helpful to ban a woman from wearing a headscarf because it's a sign of an oppressive culture, but support a government telling people what they may and may not wear, and claim that this is not in fact oppressive itself.

Widdershins

Candie wrote: »

I've worked in countries where the hijab is routinely worn, and I can assure you that all the women I met wearing the hijab were anything but cowed and oppressed. I didn't interact with anyone wearing a full-face covering, so I imagine that might be rather different, but that's my personal, lived experience. The hijab has no effect on how a woman works, lives, interacts with others, and generally goes about her business. I am not ignorant.

If you read my post very carefully, you'll note that I stressed this is my opinion. I'm more than happy to read yours and interact politely, but I won't be called ignorant because I don't share your view as it is contrary to my experiences.

Again, I don't think it's particularly helpful to ban a woman from wearing a headscarf because it's a sign of an oppressive culture, but support a government telling people what they may and may not wear, and claim that this is not in fact oppressive itself.

What happens to some women when they don't wear modesty garb in regions where they are strict about it? It certainly does have an effect on their lives. It's wonderful that those women appeared to be free to you, in their hijab.

I take exception to being called unreasonable. I think it was ignorant to say objections to modesty garments are unreasonable. It is obviously either ignoring, dismissing or showing a lack of awareness of the many women who don't like or want modesty garments, and those who were indoctrinated into feeling they must wear them, and most importantly those who are at risk in any way if they reject them.

IF the state bans modesty garments I might not agree with that ban. But the government has not banned any of it. So how the government is oppressing anyone is a mystery.

Widdershins

Widdershins wrote: »

What happens to some women when they don't wear modesty garb in regions where they are strict about it? It certainly does have an effect on their lives. It's wonderful that those women appeared to be free to you, in their hijab.

I take exception to being called unreasonable. I think it was ignorant to say objections to modesty garments are unreasonable. It is obviously either ignoring, dismissing or showing a lack of awareness of the many women who don't like or want modesty garments, and those who were indoctrinated into feeling they must wear them, and most importantly those who are at risk in any way if they reject them.

IF the state bans modesty garments I might not agree with that ban. But the government has not banned any of it. So how the government is oppressing anyone is a mystery.

There is a reasonable argument that if you ban hijabs, that you're just condemning some women to never leaving the house again. If a woman is under such strict control that she has no choice in what she wears due to pressure by community or family, does anyone really believe that banning a hijab means she'll be free? No, she'll just be kept indoors.

It's just going to restrict the most restricted more, and unfairly dictate to people what they may or may not wear.

Since I don't believe a hijab to be oppressive, and I've no reason to believe that women who say they choose to wear them are lying and are adults making their own decisions, and that banning them will force those women who are forced to wear them to withdraw from wider society, I believe any move to ban them is counterproductive and unwarranted.

That is not an ignorant position to take. I will not be responding to you again.

Widdershins

Candie wrote: »

There is a reasonable argument that if you ban hijabs, that you're just condemning some women to never leaving the house again. If a woman is under such strict control that she has no choice in what she wears due to pressure by community or family, does anyone really believe that banning a hijab means she'll be free? No, she'll just be kept indoors.

It's just going to restrict the most restricted more, and unfairly dictate to people what they may or may not wear.

Since I don't believe a hijab to be oppressive, and I've no reason to believe that women who say they choose to wear them are lying and are adults making their own decisions, and that banning them will force those women who are forced to wear them to withdraw from wider society, I believe any move to ban them is counterproductive and unwarranted.

That is not an ignorant position to take. I will not be responding to you again.

Ok. I will concede that those women who haven't consciously been coerced into wearing one say it is their choice. Although I don't personally believe it can be a choice under the circumstances. It wasn't invented by a woman or for women's benefit, either. Not wearing it is to their detriment in some places. So it seems a strange choice to me, but then much of what religious people do and what they consider to be pious is a mystery to me.
When women only wear hijab because their society expects it of them and would not have worn one prior to their region coming under islamic state control, do you consider that oppressive?
Workplace rules restrict us in ways we aren't restricted in public, we all have to accept that in some way or another in some of our professional roles.Again, the government banning hijab would be quite different to this ruling.

Ah, have just seen your last word. That's ok, I'll continue to be unreasonable in the hope that women will wake up and stop defending the subjugation of other women.

pilly

Widdershins wrote:

Ok. I will concede that those women who haven't consciously been coerced into wearing one say it is their choice. Although I don't personally believe it can be a choice under the circumstances. It wasn't invented by a woman or for women's benefit, either. Not wearing it is to their detriment in some places. So it seems a strange choice to me, but then much of what religious people do and what they consider to be pious is a mystery to me. When women only wear hijab because their society expects it of them and would not have worn one prior to their region coming under islamic state control, do you consider that oppressive? Workplace rules restrict us in ways we aren't restricted in public, we all have to accept that in some way or another in some of our professional roles.Again, the government banning hijab would be quite different to this ruling.

You see this is why your posts could be considered unreasonable because you point blank refuse to even consider that it may be a choice for some women. It's actually quite arrogant to ignore others telling you that they've spoken to Muslim women who have a choice and choose to wear it.

I understand you don't get why religious people do it.

Doesn't mean you can keep telling others they're ignorant.

Widdershins

pilly wrote: »

You see this is why your posts could be considered unreasonable because you point blank refuse to even consider that it may be a choice for some women. It's actually quite arrogant to ignore others telling you that they've spoken to Muslim women who have a choice and choose to wear it.

I understand you don't get why religious people do it.

Doesn't mean you can keep telling others they're ignorant.

Do you understand what coercive control is?

And what was said was not that my posts are unreasonable, but thanks for that. This is what was said:

''The hijab affects nobody apart from the wearer and anybody who objects to that is being unreasonable''

I understand why some women think they do it. And why some religious people believe strange things. It does defy logic, though.

pilly

Widdershins wrote:

Do you understand what coercive control is?

I understand quite well thank you. You're trying a bit yourself by insisting on trying to convince people that your view is correct.

Sorry, not gonna work. I and many others disagree.

And yes it is unreasonable to object to wearing of a headscarf in my opinion and nothing will change that.

You asked another poster to not call you unreasonable. I'm asking you to not call others ignorant because they don't agree with your view.

Widdershins

pilly wrote: »

I understand quite well thank you. You're trying a bit yourself by insisting on trying to convince people that your view is correct.

Sorry, not gonna work. I and many others disagree.

And yes it is unreasonable to object to wearing of a headscarf in my opinion and nothing will change that.

You asked another poster to not call you unreasonable. I'm asking you to not call others ignorant because they don't agree with your view.

And you're not insisting your view is correct, and by calling objectors unreasonable, Candy wasn't either. No, the coercive control exerted over women from birth is somewhat different to disagreeing on Boards.

I'm sure Candie is not an ignorant person. I thought the comment was ignorant of peoples' reasons for objecting. As Candie has said she has finished responding, I will do the same. I'm sorry to have caused offense.

54and56

Omackeral wrote: »

I don't believe in God. My partner's friend holds a degree in microbiology (of all things!), works in a lab and is way more intelligent than I am and she does believe in God. Plenty of competent people from Gardaí to firemen to healthcare workers to accountants to teachers believe in God. You could miss out on some good candidates with that outlook.

I appreciate that may be the case but my policy has worked pretty well so far.

54and56

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Any measure looking at banning religious garb is wrong.

It violates the Freedom of Religion principle.

No one is banning religious garb. What you wear on your own time is up to you. What you wear when I'm paying you is up to me and if i want you to wear a uniform which doesn't include a head scarf or whatever then you either adhere to that or get another job. Thankfully the law supports this position.

LordSutch

I guess the hijab is a bit like a balaclava in that your face & identity are visually hidden. Same with the KKK head gear. (sharply pointed hat that includes a full-faced cloth mask with eyeholes).

LaChatteGitane

LordSutch wrote: »

I guess the hijab is a bit like a balaclava in that your face & identity are visually hidden. Same with the KKK head gear. (sharply pointed hat that includes a full-faced cloth mask with eyeholes).

*sigh*
The hijab does not cover the face ! :rolleyes:

LaChatteGitane

LaChatteGitane wrote: »

*sigh*
The hijab does not cover the face ! :rolleyes:

True, but if you freely allow the use of the Hijab, then how do you justify refusal of the Burka, or the Niqab?

Widdershins

Deleted User wrote: »

True, but if you freely allow the use of the Hijab, then how do you justify refusal of the Burka, or the Niqab?

Quite. Since they are worn for the very same reasons, how is one ok and the others not, since the others are more extreme expressions of the same piety and modesty.

Either you're ok with women (only women) having to cover up areas not usually associated with immodesty (I can't think of the word I want), or you think it's an imposition and a dangerous front line.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

No one is banning religious garb. What you wear on your own time is up to you. What you wear when I'm paying you is up to me and if i want you to wear a uniform which doesn't include a head scarf or whatever then you either adhere to that or get another job. Thankfully the law supports this position.

I agree with this.

LaChatteGitane

Deleted User wrote: »

True, but if you freely allow the use of the Hijab, then how do you justify refusal of the Burka, or the Niqab?

Quite frankly, I don't care what people wear, for whatever reason. But this thread is about the hijab and it is, to me, no different from a person wearing a hat or 'god-forbid' a shawl.
Why anyone would care is beyond me.

Widdershins

LaChatteGitane wrote: »

Quite frankly, I don't care what people wear, for whatever reason. But this thread is about the hijab and it is, to me, no different from a person wearing a hat or 'god-forbid' a shawl.
Why anyone would care is beyond me.

Nobody has to wear a hat or shawl, every day, in public. They won't be judged or at risk for not wearing one. That's why I care. I've tried to explain this to the best of my ability and have referred to Iranian women who campaign against the hijab so if it's still beyond anyone why some of us object, I'm sorry to hear that.