Burka ban

recedite · 17-03-2017 11:42AM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Peregrinus wrote: »

It makes me uncomfortable.

No business should have to tolerate a situation where customers and clients are being made to feel uncomfortable. A shopping mall can ban people wearing hoodies. A restaurant should be able to ask staff to dress in a neutral manner, ie not to dress as a Goth or an Islamic fundamentalist.

Peregrinus wrote: »

...to call for a law that tells you how you must dress and imposed penalties if you will not comply

That's a complete strawman

The formerly "traditional" Irish headscarf is IMO slightly not completely unrelated to the hijab anyway. Until relatively modern times it was unacceptable for a woman to go into a church without a head covering, and the headscarf was a quick and easy way of gaining a very acceptable nun-like appearance. Legs were also required to be covered. The garb of the nuns themselves was originally based on styles worn in the "Holy Land" in the Middle East. Different orders of nuns had different styles, and the more restrictive the covering, the holier. Much as with Muslims today.
Once these kind of clerical based dress codes come into use, they become normalised in daily life too. So in Ireland, the headscarf, which also had some useful weather resistant function, became normalised as the "respectable" attire.
In NI, even today, women still attend protestant churches wearing hats. Never headscarves though; too nun-like.

smacl · 17-03-2017 12:03PM

I'm religious and support the ban

recedite wrote: »

No business should have to tolerate a situation where customers and clients are being made to feel uncomfortable. A shopping mall can ban people wearing hoodies. A restaurant should be able to ask staff to dress in a neutral manner, ie not to dress as a Goth or an Islamic fundamentalist.

While I agree with this in principal, I think all companies should allow hijabs and turbans in spite of this. If a company uses this ruling to ban hijabs or turbans, cynically I'd say it is to appeal to a bigoted clientele and I for one would be reluctant to give them my business on that basis. I agree with the point of looking like an Islamic fundamentalist, but a woman wearing a discreetly coloured hijab in addition to whatever else the company clothes policy requires hardly fits this bill.

recedite · 17-03-2017 12:12PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

smacl wrote: »

While I agree with this in principal, I think all companies should allow hijabs and turbans in spite of this. If a company uses this ruling to ban hijabs or turbans, cynically I'd say it is to appeal to a bigoted clientele and I for one would be reluctant to give them my business on that basis.

And that would be your right as a consumer. You could keep your principles. The only problem is, you probably wouldn't know that the headgear had been banned. You'd just see "normal" people working there.

smacl wrote: »

I agree with the point of looking like an Islamic fundamentalist, but a woman wearing a discreetly coloured hijab in addition to whatever else the company clothes policy requires hardly fits this bill.

Its all about advertising your personal beliefs and identity on the company's time. Would it be OK for staff to wear a "discrete" swastika lapel pin?

cnocbui · 17-03-2017 12:20PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Samaris wrote: »

But it is comparable only in cases where the hijab (headscarf) is used as a symbol of slavery or being second-class. For those that wear it because they like it and it's part of their identity (and that they wish to be modest accordance with their own beliefs), it's no such thing, and is far more like being instructed to remove your top because it is customary to do so even though locals are perfectly well allowed to wear a top if they want so long as they don't say it's for a religious reason. At that stage, it seems it's getting a bit too interfering and mostly to keep the loudly terrified of Islam content. (If you cannot identify a Muslim woman at first sight, is she really there?)

I'm pretty fine with the headscarf. I don't see it a religious/cultural reason for wearing it being much different from a cultural/practical reason as long as it's up to the person wearing it and not it being under duress.

The burqa and niqab are a rather different story in western societies as - like others have already said - it is part of our culture to be able to see the face of someone speaking to us and we get a lot of context from facial expressions and body language, both of which are hard to read through a curtain. They also do seem a hell of a lot more restrictive and a lot more isolating.

Well if they aren't wearing it under duress, and 'want' to wear a headscarf, then this ruling shouldn't be a problem then. Employees do not generally get carte blanche to wear whatever they like.

looksee · 17-03-2017 12:34PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

I don't think this is as much a matter of how the 'host' country reacts to various forms of dress, as hope that individuals will show respect for the country they are in by adopting the more conspicuous norms of that country. So if I go to a country where wearing shorts is taboo, then I will respect that. It is courteous for people to accept that if having the face exposed is a social norm they should accept that also.

smacl · 17-03-2017 05:55PM

I'm religious and support the ban

recedite wrote: »

Its all about advertising your personal beliefs and identity on the company's time. Would it be OK for staff to wear a "discrete" swastika lapel pin?

I agree in that it is clearly a call to be made by the employer, and I think it is reasonable for the EJC to afford the employer on that basis. The swastika for example, I'd expect most employers to ban because to many people it symbolises hatred. Banning something like a Fáinne or Pioneer pin by comparison would be seen by most people as unnecessarily petty.

It will be interesting to see how many employers use this legislation to ban the hijab, and what the net effect will be. If the outcome effectively marginalises a large cohort of women such that they feel excluded from the workforce I'd suspect that if anything this could contribute to more homegrown terrorists in the longer term. Doesn't seem clever.

MrPudding · 17-03-2017 11:17PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

smacl wrote: »

I agree in that it is clearly a call to be made by the employer, and I think it is reasonable for the EJC to afford the employer on that basis. The swastika for example, I'd expect most employers to ban because to many people it symbolises hatred. Banning something like a Fáinne or Pioneer pin by comparison would be seen by most people as unnecessarily petty.

It will be interesting to see how many employers use this legislation to ban the hijab, and what the net effect will be. If the outcome effectively marginalises a large cohort of women such that they feel excluded from the workforce I'd suspect that if anything this could contribute to more homegrown terrorists in the longer term. Doesn't seem clever.

I don't think it is down, simply, to employers. There is no legislation for them to use. This was the answer to a request for clarification on a point. I have not had a chance to read the judgement in full, but from what I have heard, all they have said in that in certain circumstances banning articles of clothing that are religious or political in nature may not be direct discrimination. That has a fairly specific meaning. In the UK I am not sure how "useful" this will be. Whilst indirect discrimination can be justified, I suspect for something like this the bar would be pretty high.

MrP

BlaasForRafa · 18-03-2017 07:04AM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Samaris wrote: »

as long as it's up to the person wearing it and not it being under duress.

Indoctrination isn't a form of duress?

pilly · 18-03-2017 07:33AM

Initially I was against this but the more I think about it the more I agree with it. I mean would you allow a receptionist to wear a baseball cap at the desk? Probably not unless it's a very relaxed environment so yes employers should be allowed impose a dress code without fear of being accused of discrimination.

After all we all have to conform to certain dress codes in our working life.

And before someone says a baseball cap an hijab are not the same, I know that but the ruling is really about dress codes in general.

smacl · 18-03-2017 10:15AM

I'm religious and support the ban

pilly wrote: »

And before someone says a baseball cap an hijab are not the same, I know that but the ruling is really about dress codes in general.

Fair enough, but the nagging question lurks in the background, did the ruling come about for the hijab specifically?

smacl · 18-03-2017 10:21AM

I'm religious and support the ban

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Indoctrination isn't a form of duress?

No more or less than wearing clothes you don't want to wear because it is demanded by the job that you don't like but have to do to feed your family.

robindch · 18-03-2017 11:08AM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Indoctrination isn't a form of duress?

One suspects that opening up that can of legal worms would make even the ongoing Brexit cluster*ck look like a peaceful stroll on a warm day.

kleefarr · 18-03-2017 11:12AM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

This is a big point.. "The law would ban any clothing that obscures the identity of the wearer."

Only makes sense. No objections if you can see the person.

looksee · 18-03-2017 11:44AM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

kleefarr wrote: »

This is a big point.. "The law would ban any clothing that obscures the identity of the wearer."

Only makes sense. No objections if you can see the person.

That would create issues with such as winter face protection, safety masks and festival masks. However the difference is that with any of the above once the person is in a situation where they are communicating they would remove the face covering.

kleefarr · 18-03-2017 11:51AM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

looksee wrote: »

That would create issues with such as winter face protection, safety masks and festival masks. However the difference is that with any of the above once the person is in a situation where they are communicating they would remove the face covering.

Yeah, forgot about that. All the people walking around in the general public wearing ski masks and such like.

No real issue is it.

pilly · 18-03-2017 12:05PM

smacl wrote:

Fair enough, but the nagging question lurks in the background, did the ruling come about for the hijab specifically?

It is a weird one alright. I actually think the original company should have lost their case because they didn't have this policy in at the time that they sacked this woman .

So essentially it is about the hijab I suppose.

smacl · 18-03-2017 01:10PM

I'm religious and support the ban

pilly wrote: »

It is a weird one alright. I actually think the original company should have lost their case because they didn't have this policy in at the time that they sacked this woman .

So essentially it is about the hijab I suppose.

For me, the one of the more telling and honest posts in the forum was the one below, which FWIW I agree with;

Dades wrote: »

I don't think a ban is "right" per se, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't happy with some unnecessary measure that stems Islamification.

There. I've said it.

My concern is that if the issue really is the spread of Islam, the ongoing risk of ISIS terrorist attacks, and the increasing number of immigrants from Islamic countries, is banning various articles of women's clothing a reasonable or useful approach in tackling it? To my mind it seems petty, unproductive, and like most things concerning organised religion, largely misogynistic in that women end up bearing the brunt of the hardship. Having read the arguments from both sides over the last few years, I'm in favour of the burqa ban, but would be against underhand approaches to ban the hijab.

recedite · 18-03-2017 02:22PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

What does full "Islamification" of a country mean?
In a middle eastern context, it means laws and dress codes for everybody are dictated by Islamic scholars.

In Europe, we are not debating the banning of Islam. We are only talking about treating it in a neutral way. So no exemptions from workplace dress codes that apply to everybody else. There is nothing "underhand" about that.
Once you grant initial and apparently "harmless" concessions to an expansionist and authoritarian religion/ideology, you are on the slippery slope downwards.

smacl · 18-03-2017 04:22PM

I'm religious and support the ban

recedite wrote: »

What does full "Islamification" of a country mean?

Looking up a couple of different definitions of Islamification, the Oxford Dictionary has it as

The action or process of making something or someone Islamic, or more strictly Islamic, in faith, culture, or character; Islamization.

while Wikipedia suggests

Islamization (also spelled Islamisation, see spelling differences; Arabic: أسلمة‎‎ aslamah), Islamicization[1] or Islamification (pejorative Muhammadization) is the process of a society's shift towards Islam, such as found in Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, Malaysia, or Algeria.[2] In contemporary usage, it may refer to the perceived imposition of an Islamist social and political system on a society with an indigenously different social and political background.

I think in European countries it is a fear of a growing ratio of Muslim to non-Muslim citizens largely through immigration, and also the radicalisation of the existing Muslim population. In both cases there is concern that this will result in a dilution of strongly held local values which are considered central to national identity, e.g. egalitarianism in France. There is also a fear of increased levels of terrorist attacks, so for example if we look at your own post from a few pages back, you don't want people dressed up looking like an 'Islamic fundamentalist', whatever that might entail.

Once you grant initial and apparently "harmless" concessions to an expansionist and authoritarian religion/ideology, you are on the slippery slope downwards.

That's fair enough, but if that population had always enjoyed those concessions and you remove them for no good reason, it is something entirely different. This is particularly true of ex-Colonial powers such as France and Britain that has spent so many years drilling into their foreign subjects that they are French or British and the proceed to treat them like some class of alien.

recedite · 18-03-2017 09:25PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

In general smacl I find your posts are reasonably balanced and don't disagree to any great extent. But there is that little subtext the whole time that any interference with a Muslim's "right" to wear whatever they want, whenever they want, is a just sneaky way for racists to persecute them. Which I find annoying.

smacl wrote: »

..fear of increased levels of terrorist attacks, so for example if we look at your own post from a few pages back, you don't want people dressed up looking like an 'Islamic fundamentalist'

Its not that I don't want them going around looking like that. I was referring to a business ie the employer should be permitted to request staff to dress in a professional way. That's what the recent ECJ ruling is about. Given the frequency of Islamic terror attacks over the last year or two in Europe, it is not surprising that some clients or customers might view somebody dressed as an Islamic Fundamentalist in a negative way. Perception and first impressions are very important unfortunately, otherwise marketing wouldn't be such big business.

smacl wrote: »

That's fair enough, but if that population had always enjoyed those concessions and you remove them for no good reason, it is something entirely different. This is particularly true of ex-Colonial powers such as France and Britain that has spent so many years drilling into their foreign subjects that they are French or British and the proceed to treat them like some class of alien.

Unfortunately this is just nonsense. You can't say that because somebody had a right to do something up till now, that that their "right" can't be withdrawn. What about the right of teachers to beat children?
Secondly, the country's history, colonial or otherwise, is irrelevant. Even if it was relevant, how would you rate countries such as Ireland and Austria that were formerly part of an imperial power?
Thirdly, the former imperial powers had very different policies towards their colonies. Britain never considered people in the colonies to be British citizens, or part of the UK. Others such as France, on the other hand did make them part of the motherland, which is why there are still some far flung parts of the world which are today part of the EU, such as the pleasant French island of Reunion

...and the much less pleasant Spanish territory of Ceuta.

smacl · 19-03-2017 11:19AM

I'm religious and support the ban

The way I see it is not so much what is right and wrong, in that technically I have no issue with businesses being able to dictate a dress code that does not make concessions for items of clothing such as the hijab or turban. Pragmatically though, I think you have to look at why you would want to do this, and the outcome of doing it. The why seems to me to be increasing intolerance of Islam following on from domestic ISIS terrorist attacks, which at one level is to be expected. The outcome is more of a concern as the net effect of this is that you will force many Muslim women out of the workforce. Sure some will bite the bullet and drop the hijab, but many more won't. The latter will experience significant increased hardship as a result (which you could perhaps argue is of their own making but that is by the by). Increased hardship and poverty will no doubt breed resentment and if anything deepen the fault lines that exist in these societies between Muslims and non-Muslims, which in turn creates an ideal breeding ground for the next bunch of home grown terrorists. Seems a bit like putting a plaster on an infected wound and pretending that will make it better.

silverharp · 19-03-2017 02:46PM

smacl wrote: »

The way I see it is not so much what is right and wrong, in that technically I have no issue with businesses being able to dictate a dress code that does not make concessions for items of clothing such as the hijab or turban. Pragmatically though, I think you have to look at why you would want to do this, and the outcome of doing it. The why seems to me to be increasing intolerance of Islam following on from domestic ISIS terrorist attacks, which at one level is to be expected. The outcome is more of a concern as the net effect of this is that you will force many Muslim women out of the workforce. Sure some will bite the bullet and drop the hijab, but many more won't. The latter will experience significant increased hardship as a result (which you could perhaps argue is of their own making but that is by the by). Increased hardship and poverty will no doubt breed resentment and if anything deepen the fault lines that exist in these societies between Muslims and non-Muslims, which in turn creates an ideal breeding ground for the next bunch of home grown terrorists. Seems a bit like putting a plaster on an infected wound and pretending that will make it better.

there is a bit of a "be nice to us or else" in there. Where are the Traveller or Roma terrorists? its kind of a no win, compromise westerns values and we lose, assert western values and we lose....

smacl · 19-03-2017 03:07PM

I'm religious and support the ban

silverharp wrote: »

there is a bit of a "be nice to us or else" in there. Where are the Traveller or Roma terrorists? its kind of a no win, compromise westerns values and we lose, assert western values and we lose....

There is, but if your options are 1) be pragmatic and act in such a way as to achieve the best outcome or 2) stand by your principals regardless of the outcome, I know which choice I'd make. So for example, say you have a Muslim women who is a doctor, and following on from this legislation she feels she must resign her position and stop working, society is down a much needed doctor and up another disgruntled person on welfare. Doing this on the basis that the woman wants to wear a scarf into work to me seems nuts, YMMV. We haven't even got rid of the hijab in this instance, just the doctor.

looksee · 19-03-2017 05:08PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

If a Muslim woman were my doctor, I would want to be able to see her face. Beyond that I don't think it matters.

Just as an aside, some of the rudest, most arrogant consultants I have ever had the misfortune to deal with have been European in a smart suit and (usually) a bow tie. One of the nicest, kindest people was a junior doctor with a Muslim name and a middle eastern appearance; he sat and talked with me at a time when I was distressed - he was a gentleman.

Hotblack Desiato · 19-03-2017 09:28PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

alias no.9 wrote: »

The thing that amuses me just a little bit is that she arrives by herself in a car, i.e. driving and unchaperoned by a man.

Can she see out ok?

Maybe the RSA will do a campaign, Don't Burka And Drive

or maybe, Just A Hijab Will Do

cnocbui wrote: »

My mother used to wear scarves on occasion, but it was to keep her hair in place, salt spray out of it or for fashion. She didn't wear it because of the dictates of a medieval patriarchy and she faced no prospect of censure or opprobrium if and when she removed it in public, or if she never wore one at all.

She would have if going to church though - right up to the end of the 70s at least, in the Dublin suburb I grew up in. Women covering their heads in church seemed to tail off after that, but people like my mother still tutted. It was always other women, not men, who dictated how women should behave and dress. My churchy observations stopped in 1989 but I would expect that covering the head was not general across Ireland by that stage.

Anyway. Why on earth should I be expected to be respectful and tolerant towards islam when it remains so disrespectful and intolerant towards me?

smacl · 20-03-2017 05:20PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Anyway. Why on earth should I be expected to be respectful and tolerant towards islam when it remains so disrespectful and intolerant towards me?

You shouldn't, I certainly amn't, but nor do I treat people who are Muslims disrespectfully because of their religion. Most people are much more than their religion and IMHO should be treated according to how they behave on an individual basis rather than collectively labelled based on the actions of a small minority of people who they ostensibly share a faith with.

I'd be more intolerant of the imams who do little in terms of ostracising the radicals and condemning their actions than the women who wear a hijab into work.

BoatMad · 20-03-2017 05:26PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

rather then ban burkas , perhaps we should just ban all religions , most of them have done us harm over the years

silverharp · 20-03-2017 06:28PM

smacl wrote: »

You shouldn't, I certainly amn't, but nor do I treat people who are Muslims disrespectfully because of their religion. Most people are much more than their religion and IMHO should be treated according to how they behave on an individual basis rather than collectively labelled based on the actions of a small minority of people who they ostensibly share a faith with.

I'd be more intolerant of the imams who do little in terms of ostracising the radicals and condemning their actions than the women who wear a hijab into work.

its the group behaviour that is the problem, it allows people from 3 continents to have a group identity and its one that is not compatible with the west. I remember a Somali muslim lady interviewed in Sweden and she said moving to Sweden was the first time she was put under pressure to wear Islamic garb and to cover up whereas where she lived in Somalia she wore western clothes. to me that is shockingly wrong.
I don't know how to square it accept reducing access, how do you pick out the secularists? do it based on education? but then brain draining islam and cherry picking will only suit the Islamic conservatives in those countries.

smacl · 20-03-2017 06:56PM

I'm religious and support the ban

silverharp wrote: »

its the group behaviour that is the problem, it allows people from 3 continents to have a group identity and its one that is not compatible with the west

Allows them to have or allows us to give? It smacks of another version of reds under the bed or the yellow peril from where I'm sitting. While I neither like nor trust most organised religions in general, and Islam in particular, I like xenophobia even less. It is also worth remembering that many European countries have had large Muslim populations for many generations who are at this point indigenous.

silverharp · 20-03-2017 11:49PM

smacl wrote: »

Allows them to have or allows us to give? It smacks of another version of reds under the bed or the yellow peril from where I'm sitting. While I neither like nor trust most organised religions in general, and Islam in particular, I like xenophobia even less. It is also worth remembering that many European countries have had large Muslim populations for many generations who are at this point indigenous.

reds under the bed? sounds preferable , it's unlikely to be as sticky as a culture of Islamofascism. xenophobia? thats a general dislike of foreigners so no that doesnt apply. As for your last point Im not sure how that is relevant?
so would that mean you are in favour of balkinisation and ghettoisation of parts of some European cities? because meh it would be rude to do anything about it? even though already doing nothing is causing stress for certain countries membership of the EU?

Burka ban

Comments