No hijabs need apply.

Mountainsandh · 15-03-2017 12:57am

I'm a fallen Christian, certainly going to a non-existent hell

I don't mind religious or political accessories, if they're discreet, but I do think ostentatious religious or political dress is unsuited to many work environments. For people who deal with customers, teachers, civil servants, etc... I think it is more professional to dress and accessorize in a more neutral fashion. A little pendant or a tiny lapel would be ok in my book. Not something that screams of "look at me, I'm A or B".

LaChatteGitane · 15-03-2017 12:58am

Stheno wrote: »

I don't actually, I'm atheist, and dislike having any religion causing people to dress or adorn themselves in a way that causes their identity to be suborned by the religious iconograghy they wear, or how they dress.

I'd happily see all religious related dress forbidden

I am also atheist and I don't give a toss about what people wear. I respect their right to wear clothing that reflects whatever religion they are practicing.
That's tolerance for ye. :pac:

joe40 · 15-03-2017 1:02am

My understanding is that the ruling means that an employer can enforce their dress code. A person saying that a particular item should be exempt from the dress code because it has religious significance is not a valid reason. It is not the same as employers banning religious clothing/items

Pseudorandom · 15-03-2017 1:03am

DrumSteve wrote: »

EU trying to keep all the right wingers onside with this one.

I do agree to a certain extent though, if I rock up to work wearing a balaclava I'd be told to get out.

So many people support this ruling in the name of women's rights and all it can possibly do is reduce the likelihood of Muslim women being able to integrate into society. I think it's sad.

Junkyard Tom · 15-03-2017 1:14am

Pseudorandom wrote: »

So many people support this ruling in the name of women's rights and all it can possibly do is reduce the likelihood of Muslim women being able to integrate into society. I think it's sad.

I reckon most employers will not enforce the ruling with anything other than common sense. I couldn't give a damn if a Muslim wearing a Hijab, or Jew wearing his Yarmulke, was serving me my pork chops, sausages, black pudding, ham, bacon etc.

Pseudorandom · 15-03-2017 1:28am

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I reckon most employers will not enforce the ruling with anything other than common sense. I couldn't give a damn if a Muslim wearing a Hijab, or Jew wearing his Yarmulke, was serving me my pork chops, sausages, black pudding, ham, bacon etc.

No but like a lot of laws ostensibly brought in to protect women I think it's going to have a generally negative effect. Like how rules about making wearing niqab (the full face veil with the eyes exposed) illegal tended to hurt the people it was meant to protect.

In that women who were married to strict muslim husbands who wanted them to wear the niqab weren't liberated by laws restricting the niqab, it just effectively meant that they weren't allowed to leave their home.

Junkyard Tom · 15-03-2017 1:35am

Pseudorandom wrote: »

In that women who were married to strict muslim husbands who wanted them to wear the niqab weren't liberated by laws restricting the niqab, it just effectively meant that they weren't allowed to leave their home.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Mountainsandh · 15-03-2017 1:42am

Pseudorandom wrote: »

So many people support this ruling in the name of women's rights and all it can possibly do is reduce the likelihood of Muslim women being able to integrate into society. I think it's sad.

No, what would reduce their likelihood of being able to integrate into society is how extreme their religious adherence is, in the context of apolitical or non-religious employment opportunities.

It's a choice women have to make.

I hate uniforms of any kind. If I apply for a job in McDonald's, it's my own tough shít, I'll just have to go with it.
If I decide not to apply, well then, it's my choice.
It's not McDonald's responsibility to ensure I can work there.

BalcombeSt4 · 15-03-2017 1:46am

Stheno wrote: »

I don't actually, I'm atheist, and dislike having any religion causing people to dress or adorn themselves in a way that causes their identity to be suborned by the religious iconograghy they wear, or how they dress.

I'd happily see all religious related dress forbidden

Well I do and I'm also an atheist and believe people should be allowed wear what they want to work as long as it doesn't hinder their performance.

Mountainsandh · 15-03-2017 1:47am

Pseudorandom wrote: »

No but like a lot of laws ostensibly brought in to protect women I think it's going to have a generally negative effect. Like how rules about making wearing niqab (the full face veil with the eyes exposed) illegal tended to hurt the people it was meant to protect.

In that women who were married to strict muslim husbands who wanted them to wear the niqab weren't liberated by laws restricting the niqab, it just effectively meant that they weren't allowed to leave their home.

I don't think these laws were intended to protect women in oppressive marriages ?

I don't think the subject of OP is intended to protect women in that manner either ?

BalcombeSt4 · 15-03-2017 1:51am

Pseudorandom wrote: »

So many people support this ruling in the name of women's rights and all it can possibly do is reduce the likelihood of Muslim women being able to integrate into society. I think it's sad.

Well thats what they say its in the name of but its really in the name of so called liberals making themselves feel better right.

Junkyard Tom · 15-03-2017 1:58am

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Well thats what they say its in the name of but its really in the name of so called liberals making themselves feel better right.

Such rules are anything but liberal. Also, the idea that a ruling like the one in the OP will cause Muslim women to suddenly run home to their Husbands and say 'Hah! Not wearing dis shit any more init bruv, laters. I is off to join the pole-dancing club'' is just silly.

Tokyo · 15-03-2017 2:17am

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I reckon most employers will not enforce the ruling with anything other than common sense. I couldn't give a damn if a Muslim wearing a Hijab, or Jew wearing his Yarmulke, was serving me my pork chops, sausages, black pudding, ham, bacon etc.

I would hope so, but as with many of these situations, an underlying element of xenophobia often applies.

The only argument that seems reasonable for banning the hijab is the security rationale - if a person can't go into a bank or an airport with their face covered, I can accept that. Other than that though, I believe that a company (or a government) needs a good reason for dictating what you can or can not wear, particulalrly if that attire was acceptable up until now.

Ostensibly it's a ruling that singles out the most vulnerable members of an unpopular religion, and no good will come from that.

fatknacker · 15-03-2017 2:22am

FORD_7710 wrote: »

it could be no harm for irish women to learn some modesty from other religions

Only if fattyholed Irish men observe Ramadan every few months too.

Mountainsandh · 15-03-2017 2:22am

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Such rules are anything but liberal. Also, the idea that a ruling like the one in the OP will cause Muslim women to suddenly run home to their Husbands and say 'Hah! Not wearing dis shit any more init bruv, laters. I is off to join the pole-dancing club'' is just silly.

I thought I had missed a link so I re-read OP, but no.
I have no idea where you get this notion that the law is in any manner designed to have an impact on a woman's personal life and choices.

It validates a company's right to decide on their dress code without fear of being branded discriminatory.

How is that telling a woman to change her ways ?
She is perfectly free to choose jobs that allow her to dress as she pleases.

Junkyard Tom · 15-03-2017 2:26am

FORD_7710 wrote: »

it could be no harm for irish women to learn some modesty from other religions

I'd go further and say they could learn some modesty from other times like the Stone Age.

Junkyard Tom · 15-03-2017 2:31am

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I have no idea where you get this notion that the law is in any manner designed to have an impact on a woman's personal life and choices.

My second sentence is tongue-in-cheek. There are people who will try to make the argument that laws banning religious garb will help liberate women from religious radical-conservatism when the actual effect is likely to be the opposite.

FORD_7710 · 15-03-2017 2:32am

COP ON YOUR JUNKYARD TOM,

suicide_circus · 15-03-2017 4:16am

This is about workplace dress codes not religion. Once you clock off you can do what you like. Storm in a tea cup.

Tokyo · 15-03-2017 4:28am

suicide_circus wrote: »

This is about workplace dress codes not religion. Once you clock off you can do what you like. Storm in a tea cup.

Read again. It very much is about religion.

“An internal rule of an undertaking which prohibits the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign does not constitute direct discrimination,” the court said in a statement.

[Source].

Manfred Weber, head of the centre-right European People's Party, the biggest in the European Parliament, welcomed the ECJ's ruling as a victory for European values.

"Important ruling by the European Court of Justice: employers have the right to ban the Islamic veil at work. European values must apply in public life," Weber said in a tweet.

[Source]

^^^^ This is the motivation, regardless of the packaging.

JupiterKid · 15-03-2017 4:32am

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.

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.

Stheno · 15-03-2017 6:38am

The ruling will also potentially affect Christians Sikhs and Jew's as it has to be applied across the board.

suicide_circus · 15-03-2017 8:07am

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.

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.

The fact is Christianity had to have reformations and ecumenical changes (vatican 2) bringing it more in line with the enlightenment and softening it's cough so to speak. Islam styles itself as the last, final and unalterable revelation of God. Even if there was public will to do so (which there dosnt seem to be), there is no scope within the theology to modernise. This unavoidably puts Islam at odds with "European Values". The RCC saw the writing on the wall in the 60s and made some changes and this pope looks like he'd be amenable to making further updates.

Dravokivich · 15-03-2017 9:12am

So why is it discrimination when a bakery refuses to sell a cake?

suicide_circus wrote: »

The fact is Christianity had to have reformations and ecumenical changes (vatican 2) bringing it more in line with the enlightenment and softening it's cough so to speak. Islam styles itself as the last, final and unalterable revelation of God. Even if there was public will to do so (which there dosnt seem to be), there is no scope within the theology to modernise. This unavoidably puts Islam at odds with "European Values". The RCC saw the writing on the wall in the 60s and made some changes and this pope looks like he'd be amenable to making further updates.

The Catholic Church had to do that in an effort to keep themselves somewhat popular. No other reason.

Samaris · 15-03-2017 9:25am

It does hit Muslim women the most as their religious/cultural garb is a lot more...more than anyone else's I can think of offhand. I don't really object to wearing a crucifix or a kippah in a workplace, the less obtrusive it is the better (okay, the kippahs are noticeable). And yes, picking on the Muslim women alone would be a bit of a dick move so everyone suffers from it. So be it, it's a fairly minor sacrifice (admittedly says she with no particular use for wearing religious imagery so may be underestimating how big the sacrifice actually is to those affected).

Overall, covering their faces is part of their culture. Well, having faces exposed for communication is part of our culture. It is considered polite. In this country, I'm more onside with "you're welcome here, just abide by those cultural norms of ours that allow our society to work".

"O you believe, obey God and obey the messenger and also those in charge among you" is an Islamic ayat that is commonly interpreted to indicate that citizens obey the laws and rules of the country they're living in (amongst other things). It follows in Christianity too - render until Caeser what is Caeser's (pay your damn taxes, even if you don't like the Romans) Judaism - very used to having to get along quietly in other lands - has Dinei DMalchuta Dina-the law of the land. All of them have limits (obey the law of the land so long as it does not conflict with the law of God - including Christianity; "We must obey God rather than men" (Paul, Acts 5;29).

Not wearing religious imagery rarely conflicts with the actual Word of God, although it does conflict with traditions around the various religions - which are, ultimately, the words of men. (I may have to make an exception for the kippah, but I don't recall seeing anything that makes wearing it actively the Word of God rather than a tradition. Can anyone correct me on that?)

suicide_circus · 15-03-2017 9:57am

Dravokivich wrote: »

So why is it discrimination when a bakery refuses to sell a cake?

The Catholic Church had to do that in an effort to keep themselves somewhat popular. No other reason.

Isn't that what I said? Vatican II was an effort to keep themselves relevant. Their hand was forced by falling church attendance and the change in social attitudes. The softening of Catholic doctrine in the end probably hastened the slide of church attendance in the end. Islam's strength is that it refuses to modernise and is indeed, according to its own doctrine, incapable of doing so. It provides its adherents with ancient certainty in an ever changing world. This is a problem obviously as it cannot update from its medieval roots leading to inevitable clashes with secular western values. The fact that Islam is basically a Christian heresy, just as Christianity is basically a Judaic heresy dosnt dissuade it's followers whose numbers are increasing faster than any other faith.

Winterlong · 15-03-2017 10:24am

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.

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.

RandomName2 · 15-03-2017 10:42am

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Personally I'm appalled that I mightn't be able to wear my colander (known as "the siv") to work - a defining aspect of pastafarianism.

Thought we'd seen the back of this after the infamous RSA discrimination case here. I may have to give up on employment if I'm not free to practice this inherent aspect of my faith (though some pastafarians may choose not don the colander to work, they are acting counter to scripture and should be ashamed of themselves). Ultimately those like me may be faced with no alternative other than to support the use of flour based IEDs by disgruntled members of our community.

topper75 · 15-03-2017 11:19am

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I wear a Tam-o-Shanter to work. Anyone says anything, I'm suing.

Aye! Just like ould Rab hisself would want, peace be upon him.

Dravokivich · 15-03-2017 11:23am

suicide_circus wrote: »

Isn't that what I said? Vatican II was an effort to keep themselves relevant. Their hand was forced by falling church attendance and the change in social attitudes. The softening of Catholic doctrine in the end probably hastened the slide of church attendance in the end. Islam's strength is that it refuses to modernise and is indeed, according to its own doctrine, incapable of doing so. It provides its adherents with ancient certainty in an ever changing world. This is a problem obviously as it cannot update from its medieval roots leading to inevitable clashes with secular western values. The fact that Islam is basically a Christian heresy, just as Christianity is basically a Judaic heresy dosnt dissuade it's followers whose numbers are increasing faster than any other faith.

Your comment sounded like they were progressive. They aren't. They just want to appear popular.

No hijabs need apply.

Comments