Bosses can now legally ban headscarves, crosses and turbans in the workplace.

by Syl Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:03 pm

First topic message reminder :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/31/bosses-can-ban-headscarves-and-crucifixes-eu-judge-says/

Is it a step forwards?
I tend to think not..... I agree that a full face veil is not appropriate at work, but if a headscarf, turban, crucifix, or any other article worn for religious or cultural reasons doesn't interfere with the job why ban them?

by Syl Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:43 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:

If its their choice to wear something, either because of their religion, culture, or because they feel safer, less on show, more modest to cover their heads....why should this be denied them Thor?
Many western women wear makeup, wigs, flattering underwear, sexy clothes.....this is their choice.

Or would you argue that they are forced or brainwashed to do so to fit in with their culture...or societys expectations of what they should look like?

That is not answering my question is it Syl?

Nobody is denying them on whether to wear, of which they can outside the work place.
Can you walk into work say in just your bra and knickers?

If a headscarf, cross or turban is not preventing them doing the job they are employed to do, I just don't see the point of the ban.
I personally think its unreasonable and is ultimately discriminating certain people from applying for certain jobs.
If a uniform is compulsory...everyone should wear the uniform.
If certain jewelry is banned for safety reasons...there is a point to that, but banning something just because some law now says you can if you want, is imo....pointless.

by Guest Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:46 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

That is not answering my question is it Syl?

Nobody is denying them on whether to wear, of which they can outside the work place.
Can you walk into work say in just your bra and knickers?

If a headscarf, cross or turban is not preventing them doing the job they are employed to do, I just don't see the point of the ban.
I personally think its unreasonable and is ultimately discriminating certain people from applying for certain jobs.
If a uniform is compulsory...everyone should wear the uniform.
If certain jewelry is banned for safety reasons...there is a point to that, but banning something just because some law now says you can if you want, is imo....pointless.

It is a problem, if the company has an image they expect their employees to abide by.
Like I said again, can you just turn up to work in just your bra and pants?
So if they have a dress code, you agree, that all must adhere to this, if they apply for the Job?
They can also choose to leave, if it then conflicts with their religion.
Again this is about only a few companies that would choose to do this.

Hence people are making a mountain out of a molehill on this

You need to understand that when you work for a company, you have to abide by their rules, not pick and chose what you want

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:49 pm

This should not be used by some as a reason to be unemployed and claim benefits!

by Guest Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:49 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

This should not be used by some as a reason to be unemployed and claim benefits!

They would not be able to, when they can find alternative employment.

by Syl Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:52 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:

If a headscarf, cross or turban is not preventing them doing the job they are employed to do, I just don't see the point of the ban.
I personally think its unreasonable and is ultimately discriminating certain people from applying for certain jobs.
If a uniform is compulsory...everyone should wear the uniform.
If certain jewelry is banned for safety reasons...there is a point to that, but banning something just because some law now says you can if you want, is imo....pointless.

It is a problem, if the company has an image they expect their employees to abide by.
Like I said again, can you just turn up to work in just your bra and pants?
So if they have a dress code, you agree, that all must adhere to this, if they apply for the Job?
They can also choose to leave, if it then conflicts with their religion.
Again this is about only a few companies that would choose to do this.

Hence people are making a mountain out of a molehill on this

You need to understand that when you work for a company, you have to abide by their rules, not pick and chose what you want

I do agree that companies can dictate to a certain degree how their employees should present themselves.
If a job requires smartness, sensible shoes, hair covered for hygienic reasons, jewelry not worn for safety reasons and so on....people should follow rules.
On the other hand, a company should respect its employers wishes too...its give and take.
We are a supposedly free country Thor, why erode away at a persons freedom of choice just for the sake of it?

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:52 pm

I don't see why a company would want to ban such articles anyway, unless they're raging, militant atheists who like to control others. I see the sense of having a reasonable dress code, and rules against flamboyant clothing, but it's all a bit paranoid to ban any religious symbols.

by Guest Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:54 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't see why a company would want to ban such articles anyway, unless they're raging, militant atheists who like to control others. I see the sense of having a reasonable dress code, and rules against flamboyant clothing, but it's all a bit paranoid to ban any religious symbols.

They could be Christians, who hate Muslims.
Again there are many reasons that companies want a certain image.
Again I fail to see why anyone supports the hijab, when it is a symbol of oppression.

Does not anyone care that millions of Muslim women are oppressed with this?

by Syl Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:55 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't see why a company would want to ban such articles anyway, unless they're raging, militant atheists who like to control others. I see the sense of having a reasonable dress code, and rules against flamboyant clothing, but it's all a bit paranoid to ban any religious symbols.

That's about my take on it too. alien

I hope most companies will consider their employers feelings before enforcing any such ban.

by Syl Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:57 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I don't see why a company would want to ban such articles anyway, unless they're raging, militant atheists who like to control others. I see the sense of having a reasonable dress code, and rules against flamboyant clothing, but it's all a bit paranoid to ban any religious symbols.

They could be Christians, who hate Muslims.
Again there are many reasons that companies want a certain image.
Again I fail to see why anyone supports the hijab, when it is a symbol of oppression.

Does not anyone care that millions of Muslim women are oppressed with this?

If that was the case here I think most modern women would object Thor....but I (and it seems most others here) don't think that's the case.

Off for the night...good debate. x

by Guest Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:57 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I don't see why a company would want to ban such articles anyway, unless they're raging, militant atheists who like to control others. I see the sense of having a reasonable dress code, and rules against flamboyant clothing, but it's all a bit paranoid to ban any religious symbols.

That's about my take on it too.
I hope most companies will consider their employers feelings before enforcing any such ban.

Feelings. I hope they do, when many Muslims worldwide are oppressed by such a misogynistic form of oppression.
This is the worst aspect here, you claim feelings?
Think about those who are oppressed, not someone who I am told has a choice over whether to wear or not.
So if it is a choice to wear, then what is the issue Syl?

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:58 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I don't see why a company would want to ban such articles anyway, unless they're raging, militant atheists who like to control others. I see the sense of having a reasonable dress code, and rules against flamboyant clothing, but it's all a bit paranoid to ban any religious symbols.

They could be Christians, who hate Muslims.
Again there are many reasons that companies want a certain image.
Again I fail to see why anyone supports the hijab, when it is a symbol of oppression.

Does not anyone care that millions of Muslim women are oppressed with this?

If they were Christians, they probably wouldn't want to ban crosses, but they'd have to otherwise they'd be had up under the discrimination laws.

I don't think that Muslim women in Europe are oppressed.

by Guest Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:59 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

They could be Christians, who hate Muslims.
Again there are many reasons that companies want a certain image.
Again I fail to see why anyone supports the hijab, when it is a symbol of oppression.

Does not anyone care that millions of Muslim women are oppressed with this?

If that was the case here I think most modern women would object Thor....but I (and it seems most others here) don't think that's the case.

Off for the night...good debate. x

I would hope most modern women would not support the hijab, when it is forced upon many Muslim women.
Like I said, this should not even be an issue, if it is a choice to wear, should it?

Night Syl

x

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:00 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I don't see why a company would want to ban such articles anyway, unless they're raging, militant atheists who like to control others. I see the sense of having a reasonable dress code, and rules against flamboyant clothing, but it's all a bit paranoid to ban any religious symbols.

That's about my take on it too.
I hope most companies will consider their employers feelings before enforcing any such ban.

I can't see any possible reason why a company which allows necklaces would say that it mustn't be a cross. How would they justify that? They'd look ridiculous.

by Guest Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:00 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

They could be Christians, who hate Muslims.
Again there are many reasons that companies want a certain image.
Again I fail to see why anyone supports the hijab, when it is a symbol of oppression.

Does not anyone care that millions of Muslim women are oppressed with this?

If they were Christians, they probably wouldn't want to ban crosses, but they'd have to otherwise they'd be had up under the discrimination laws.

I don't think that Muslim women in Europe are oppressed.

But Muslims could ban the crosses

You don't think Muslims are not oppressed in the west.

Tell that to many who are unable to go to to the Police when beaten by their husbands.
Tell that to those who are forced to cover up by their husbands.
Tell that to those who are forced to have sex by their husbands and thus raped.

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:04 pm

I choose to wear whatever I want to when outside of work... but while at work I am required to wear things I don't really want to and not allowed to wear things that I do want to...

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:05 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

If they were Christians, they probably wouldn't want to ban crosses, but they'd have to otherwise they'd be had up under the discrimination laws.

I don't think that Muslim women in Europe are oppressed.

But Muslims could ban the crosses

You don't think Muslims are not oppressed in the west.

Tell that to many who are unable to go to to the Police when beaten by their husbands.
Tell that to those who are forced to cover up by their husbands.
Tell that to those who are forced to have sex by their husbands and thus raped.

Muslims can't ban crosses without also banning headscarves.

Of course Muslim women can go to the police if they're beaten up. There's no evidence that they're forced to cover up.

by magica Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:06 pm

Syl wrote:
magica wrote:Maybe it's to make everyone the same. I think it's a good idea to help everyone integrate tbh.

I don't agree Mags, I can see it causing problems not helping people integrate better.
Who wants to look the same as everyone else anyway? I don't.

Many Muslim women wear scarves, but many don't. I don't see what they wear them tbh. They have no need to wear them here it's not compulsory. Also everyone looking the same? we all look the same really.

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:06 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I choose to wear whatever I want to when outside of work... but while at work I am required to wear things I don't really want to and not allowed to wear things that I do want to...

We have certain rules at work, but nobody really enforces them. Laughing

by Guest Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:07 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

But Muslims could ban the crosses

You don't think Muslims are not oppressed in the west.

Tell that to many who are unable to go to to the Police when beaten by their husbands.
Tell that to those who are forced to cover up by their husbands.
Tell that to those who are forced to have sex by their husbands and thus raped.

Muslims can't ban crosses without also banning headscarves.

Of course Muslim women can go to the police if they're beaten up. There's no evidence that they're forced to cover up.

Of course they can ban.
Yes there is evidence they are forced to cover up and many cannot go to the Police and even worse some think its allowed in Islam, that men can beat them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_domestic_violence

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:09 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:I choose to wear whatever I want to when outside of work... but while at work I am required to wear things I don't really want to and not allowed to wear things that I do want to...

We have certain rules at work, but nobody really enforces them.

The rules are enforced where I work...

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:13 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Muslims can't ban crosses without also banning headscarves.

Of course Muslim women can go to the police if they're beaten up. There's no evidence that they're forced to cover up.

Of course they can ban.
Yes there is evidence they are forced to cover up and many cannot go to the Police and even worse some think its allowed in Islam, that men can beat them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_domestic_violence

Muslim employers can't ban crosses without also banning headscarves.

Company dress codes that ban religious clothing are legal in the EU as long as they apply to all faiths and political views equally, it was said.

by Guest Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:14 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Of course they can ban.
Yes there is evidence they are forced to cover up and many cannot go to the Police and even worse some think its allowed in Islam, that men can beat them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_domestic_violence

Muslim employers can't ban crosses without also banning headscarves.

Company dress codes that ban religious clothing are legal in the EU as long as they apply to all faiths and political views equally, it was said.

Yes they can, if they have an image that employees have to abide by.
That could mean no jewelry.

by Guest Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:18 pm

Dear Organizers of the Women’s March.

Dear Human Rights Watch!

I am a female Arab academic who considers Islam to be her religion. I have extensively researched the conditions of women in the Arab Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region in addition to the United Kingdom and South Africa; and have been been involved in various campaigns for gender justice, freedom of expression, religion and political association. In other words, I have an established record in the defense of universal human rights.

I supported the idea of the Women’s March since its start. I thought and still think it was important to send a clear message to the new American president. Mr. Trump’s acrimonious campaign made it clear that he needed a reminder that universal human rights are not subject to negotiation. We are not entering into a post-human rights era. They are here to stay and the Women’s March was supposed to be a reminder that there are enough people in the United States and the world willing to fight peacefully for these rights.

And it was indeed a success.

Congratulations!

That said, I was alarmed by some posters used for your campaign, namely the posters showing a woman wearing the American flag as a headscarf (veil). It was meant as a symbol for the minority of Islamic faith and their rights to equal citizenship. While the idea behind it is to be praised and applauded. Your choice of the symbol was misguided, to say the least.

The headscarf (veil) is a controversial symbol. If you are working in the defense of women’s rights, you should know that by now. Some consider it a religious symbol; others see it as a tool of patriarchal control and oppression; and yet others consider it a symbol of the march of political Islam.

When it comes to wearing the headscarf (veil), some women wear it because they truly believe it to be part of their faith. Others, one the other hand, are forced to wear it, and these are many.

Those, who insist on not wearing it face physical and physiological sanctions from their family and community. I dealt with such cases in my consulting work with educational authorities here in Switzerland. In certain parts of the UK, some women’s rights activists have to wear the headscarf in order for them to get access to the women trapped in their closed communities. In Egypt, where a wave of young women taking off their veil is on the march, some young women face defamation and threats. And in some Islamic countries, women are forced to wear the headscarf whether they wanted it or not. For example, in Iran, women are not privileged with the freedom of choice. Like it or not they have to wear the headscarf. The veil was the symbol by which the Islamic Revolution showed its face to the world – by decreeing that all women should cover themselves! Those who disobey this decree are faced with fines and arrest.

Given the complexity of the headscarf (veil) and what it represents, your choice of it as a symbol for the Islamic religion and the minority of Islamic faith was ill advised. Why choose a symbol ― considered a tool of oppression for many women in different parts of the world ― as a symbol of a rich and diverse religion like Islam? It is not only misguided, it is an insult to all of these women, who have to wear it and bear the psychological scars of that imposition.

I continue to support the demands of your march but I urge you to chose your posters carefully. It is the message you are sending that is my concern. If you are marching for equality, then I suggest that you stop patronizing those women of Islamic faith and heritage. Not all women of Islamic faith wear the headscarf, nor are all convinced that this is THE symbol of Islam. Choose a symbol that reflects that diversity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/womens-march-why-use-the-headscarf-viel-as-a-symbol_us_5884a1ede4b0111ea60b971c

by HoratioTarr Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:18 pm

What's going on here is that those adhering to political correctness in the workplace are all terrified of being sued, or accused of discrimination. So they put a blanket ban on anything and everything they think might offend. It's getting ridiculous. The irony is, you might be able to stop what people say or do at work, but you'll never be able to stop what they do, say or think in their own time.

by Guest Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:20 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:What's going on here is that those adhering to political correctness in the workplace are all terrified of being sued, or accused of discrimination. So they put a blanket ban on anything and everything they think might offend. It's getting ridiculous. The irony is, you might be able to stop what people say or do at work, but you'll never be able to stop what they do, say or think in their own time.

This has nothing to do with PC

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:21 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Muslim employers can't ban crosses without also banning headscarves.

Yes they can, if they have an image that employees have to abide by.
That could mean no jewelry.

That's another red herring.

Which bit of this did you not understand?

Company dress codes that ban religious clothing are legal in the EU as long as they apply to all faiths and political views equally, it was said.

If they banned jewellery, they wouldn't just be banning crosses would they?

by Guest Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:23 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Yes they can, if they have an image that employees have to abide by.
That could mean no jewelry.

That's another red herring.

Which bit of this did you not understand?

Company dress codes that ban religious clothing are legal in the EU as long as they apply to all faiths and political views equally, it was said.

If they banned jewellery, they wouldn't just be banning crosses would they?

No red herring.

You said they would have to ban the hijab, if they banned the cross.

No they would not have to if, they banned all Jewelry or even just crosses

That means all employees, whether Muslim or non-Muslim cannot wear crosses, whether they do so for religious reasons or not.

You just cannot understand what you are reading

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:36 pm

Technically speaking... clothing only means the fabrics people are dressed in... an item of jewellery might be worn, but is not clothing...

by Ben Reilly Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:52 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Technically speaking... clothing only means the fabrics people are dressed in... an item of jewellery might be worn, but is not clothing...

Employers can ban workers from wearing headscarves, crucifixes and other religious clothing, the European Union’s top legal adviser said yesterday.

by Guest Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:58 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Technically speaking... clothing only means the fabrics people are dressed in... an item of jewellery might be worn, but is not clothing...

Employers can ban workers from wearing headscarves, crucifixes and other religious clothing, the European Union’s top legal adviser said yesterday.

Its an item of Jewelry, of which the cross as a symbol is older than Christianity.

Its not clothing.

by magica Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:08 pm

I agree Thor. I wear a cross but not for religious reasons.

by Ben Reilly Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:10 pm

Thorin wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Technically speaking... clothing only means the fabrics people are dressed in... an item of jewellery might be worn, but is not clothing...

Employers can ban workers from wearing headscarves, crucifixes and other religious clothing, the European Union’s top legal adviser said yesterday.

Its an item of Jewelry, of which the cross as a symbol is older than Christianity.

Its not clothing.

Whether it's clothing or not, clearly the ruling allows banning the crucifix as well. That's what my point to Tommy was. The ruling was not against "religious clothing" alone, it specifically also included crucifixes.

The actual ruling reads:

It must be emphasized first of all that the ban at issue applies to all visible religious symbols without distinction. There is therefore no discrimination between religions. In particular, all of the information available to the Court indicates that the measure in question is not one directed specifically against employees of Muslim faith, let alone specifically against female employees of that religion. After all, a company rule such as that operated by G4S could just as easily affect a male employee of Jewish faith who comes to work wearing a kippah, or a Sikh who wishes to perform his duties in a Dastar (turban), or male or female employees of a Christian faith who wish to wear a clearly visible crucifix or a T-shirt bearing the slogan ‘Jesus is great’ to work.

by Guest Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:11 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Its an item of Jewelry, of which the cross as a symbol is older than Christianity.

Its not clothing.

Whether it's clothing or not, clearly the ruling allows banning the crucifix as well. That's what my point to Tommy was. The ruling was not against "religious clothing" alone, it specifically also included crucifixes.

The actual ruling reads:

It must be emphasized first of all that the ban at issue applies to all visible religious symbols without distinction. There is therefore no discrimination between religions. In particular, all of the information available to the Court indicates that the measure in question is not one directed specifically against employees of Muslim faith, let alone specifically against female employees of that religion. After all, a company rule such as that operated by G4S could just as easily affect a male employee of Jewish faith who comes to work wearing a kippah, or a Sikh who wishes to perform his duties in a Dastar (turban), or male or female employees of a Christian faith who wish to wear a clearly visible crucifix or a T-shirt bearing the slogan ‘Jesus is great’ to work.

Okey dokey

by veya_victaous Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:34 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

They could be Christians, who hate Muslims.
Again there are many reasons that companies want a certain image.
Again I fail to see why anyone supports the hijab, when it is a symbol of oppression.

Does not anyone care that millions of Muslim women are oppressed with this?

If they were Christians, they probably wouldn't want to ban crosses, but they'd have to otherwise they'd be had up under the discrimination laws.

I don't think that Muslim women in Europe are oppressed.

But Muslims could ban the crosses

You don't think Muslims are not oppressed in the west.

Tell that to many who are unable to go to to the Police when beaten by their husbands.
Tell that to those who are forced to cover up by their husbands.
Tell that to those who are forced to have sex by their husbands and thus raped.

I cant say 100% in the UK
but no Muslim women is unable to go to the police in Australia
they may choose, through fear and cowardice, to no go to the police but they can.

how can a husband Force her to cover up? unless he is with 100% of the time? she can just leave for work with it on and take it off once around the corner Rolling Eyes

these women choose to do these things they choose to let their husbands do it to them, why I don't know. But what I do know is to have westerners belittle them and downplay their ability to become independent women in a western nation DOES NOT HELP!! If westerners want to 'help' they should do it the same way as it was done for western women and that is giving them confidence to expect equality of treatment, to be confident that if they go to the police They will be treated with respect and care and be given the means to escape abuse.

TLDR
the Thorin method is wrong, the Spice girl's method (a.k.a Girl Power) is right.
Teaching them to obey a 'different' man is not fixing the root cause of the issues.
teaching them to be strong, confident and convincing them that they can do it, they are capable people, is the actual solution.

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:19 am

Ben Reilly wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Its an item of Jewelry, of which the cross as a symbol is older than Christianity.

Its not clothing.

Whether it's clothing or not, clearly the ruling allows banning the crucifix as well. That's what my point to Tommy was. The ruling was not against "religious clothing" alone, it specifically also included crucifixes.

The actual ruling reads:

It must be emphasized first of all that the ban at issue applies to all visible religious symbols without distinction. There is therefore no discrimination between religions. In particular, all of the information available to the Court indicates that the measure in question is not one directed specifically against employees of Muslim faith, let alone specifically against female employees of that religion. After all, a company rule such as that operated by G4S could just as easily affect a male employee of Jewish faith who comes to work wearing a kippah, or a Sikh who wishes to perform his duties in a Dastar (turban), or male or female employees of a Christian faith who wish to wear a clearly visible crucifix or a T-shirt bearing the slogan ‘Jesus is great’ to work.

Your above highlighted bit of quote says 'visible' items...

So theoretically it would be fine for a Christian to have a necklace on, but if with a cross on it then would still be fine as long as it was covered by a layer of non religious clothing and not visible to others... could also be wearing a 'Jesus is great' t-shirt too as long as it was under another layer of non religious clothing and not visible to others...!?

by 'Wolfie Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:50 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I don't see why a company would want to ban such articles anyway, unless they're raging, militant atheists who like to control others. I see the sense of having a reasonable dress code, and rules against flamboyant clothing, but it's all a bit paranoid to ban any religious symbols.

They could be Christians, who hate Muslims.
Again there are many reasons that companies want a certain image.
Again I fail to see why anyone supports the hijab, when it is a symbol of oppression.

Does not anyone care that millions of Muslim women are oppressed with this?

There are plenty of Hindus, Jews and even Buddhists who don't like Muslims too, for various reasons...

There are also some other quite valid reasons for controlling what clothing people wear in certain workplaces, for example :

* OH&S, hygiene and/or cleanliness requirements;

* Certain dress requirements as a part of the job -- workplace uniforms, presentation as the 'public face' of a business;

* Security issues..

by Guest Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:59 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Thorin wrote:

But Muslims could ban the crosses

You don't think Muslims are not oppressed in the west.

Tell that to many who are unable to go to to the Police when beaten by their husbands.
Tell that to those who are forced to cover up by their husbands.
Tell that to those who are forced to have sex by their husbands and thus raped.

I cant say 100% in the UK
but no Muslim women is unable to go to the police in Australia
they may choose, through fear and cowardice, to no go to the police but they can.

how can a husband Force her to cover up? unless he is with 100% of the time? she can just leave for work with it on and take it off once around the corner
these women choose to do these things they choose to let their husbands do it to them, why I don't know. But what I do know is to have westerners belittle them and downplay their ability to become independent women in a western nation DOES NOT HELP!! If westerners want to 'help' they should do it the same way as it was done for western women and that is giving them confidence to expect equality of treatment, to be confident that if they go to the police They will be treated with respect and care and be given the means to escape abuse.

TLDR
the Thorin method is wrong, the Spice girl's method (a.k.a Girl Power) is right.
Teaching them to obey a 'different' man is not fixing the root cause of the issues.
teaching them to be strong, confident and convincing them that they can do it, they are capable people, is the actual solution.

Cultural Barriers
Asian / Muslim women face additional cultural barriers that prevent them from seeking help such as fear of dishonoring family, shame, stigma, taboo and being rejected by the community. Also women in these communities are expected to suffer in silence. So when they ask for help from family, friends and religious leaders, they are usually advised to be patient and / or pray for their situation to change. They are also usually blamed for any problem within the family including the violence and abuse they are subjected to. This fear of blame can also prevent women from coming forward and getting the help they need. Domestic violence is therefore under reported in Asian / Muslim communities. For some women it is too late to ask for help and are being murdered by their husbands or other family members as seen in a number of cases featured in the media. There is also anecdotal evidence that some women are being taken abroad to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh on the pretense of a family holiday so they can be murdered there to cover up the crime.

http://www.mwnhelpline.co.uk/issuesstep2.php?id=14

When it comes to wearing the headscarf (veil), some women wear it because they truly believe it to be part of their faith. Others, one the other hand, are forced to wear it, and these are many.

Those, who insist on not wearing it face physical and physiological sanctions from their family and community. I dealt with such cases in my consulting work with educational authorities here in Switzerland. In certain parts of the UK, some women’s rights activists have to wear the headscarf in order for them to get access to the women trapped in their closed communities. In Egypt, where a wave of young women taking off their veil is on the march, some young women face defamation and threats. And in some Islamic countries, women are forced to wear the headscarf whether they wanted it or not. For example, in Iran, women are not privileged with the freedom of choice. Like it or not they have to wear the headscarf. The veil was the symbol by which the Islamic Revolution showed its face to the world – by decreeing that all women should cover themselves! Those who disobey this decree are faced with fines and arrest.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/womens-march-why-use-the-headscarf-viel-as-a-symbol_us_5884a1ede4b0111ea60b971c

THE Islamic law propagated by some sharia courts in the UK is more antiquated and extreme than in parts of Pakistan, according to a new book that claims they are prepared to condone wife-beating, ignore marital rape and allow a father to annul his daughter’s marriage if he dislikes her choice of groom.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Crime/article1672846.ece

by Guest Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:12 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Thorin wrote:

They could be Christians, who hate Muslims.
Again there are many reasons that companies want a certain image.
Again I fail to see why anyone supports the hijab, when it is a symbol of oppression.

Does not anyone care that millions of Muslim women are oppressed with this?

There are plenty of Hindus, Jews and even Buddhists who don't like Muslims too, for various reasons...

There are also some other quite valid reasons for controlling what clothing people wear in certain workplaces, for example :

* OH&S, hygiene and/or cleanliness requirements;

* Certain dress requirements as a part of the job -- workplace uniforms, presentation as the 'public face' of a business;

* Security issues..

I agree there certainly is cases of this and never denied this.

I just highlighted due to Rags failing to understand the law Wolf.

So I agree on all your points

by Raggamuffin Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:21 am

Ben Reilly wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Technically speaking... clothing only means the fabrics people are dressed in... an item of jewellery might be worn, but is not clothing...

Employers can ban workers from wearing headscarves, crucifixes and other religious clothing, the European Union’s top legal adviser said yesterday.

If it's crucifixes, that means crosses are allowed because they're different.

by Raggamuffin Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:25 am

Thorin wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

There are plenty of Hindus, Jews and even Buddhists who don't like Muslims too, for various reasons...

There are also some other quite valid reasons for controlling what clothing people wear in certain workplaces, for example :

* OH&S, hygiene and/or cleanliness requirements;

* Certain dress requirements as a part of the job -- workplace uniforms, presentation as the 'public face' of a business;

* Security issues..

I agree there certainly is cases of this and never denied this.

I just highlighted due to Rags failing to understand the law Wolf.

So I agree on all your points

It was you who didn't understand it, or pretended not to. When Ben explained the ruling to you, just like I did, you backed down. Strange eh?

by Raggamuffin Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:28 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:

Whether it's clothing or not, clearly the ruling allows banning the crucifix as well. That's what my point to Tommy was. The ruling was not against "religious clothing" alone, it specifically also included crucifixes.

The actual ruling reads:

It must be emphasized first of all that the ban at issue applies to all visible religious symbols without distinction. There is therefore no discrimination between religions. In particular, all of the information available to the Court indicates that the measure in question is not one directed specifically against employees of Muslim faith, let alone specifically against female employees of that religion. After all, a company rule such as that operated by G4S could just as easily affect a male employee of Jewish faith who comes to work wearing a kippah, or a Sikh who wishes to perform his duties in a Dastar (turban), or male or female employees of a Christian faith who wish to wear a clearly visible crucifix or a T-shirt bearing the slogan ‘Jesus is great’ to work.

Your above highlighted bit of quote says 'visible' items...

So theoretically it would be fine for a Christian to have a necklace on, but if with a cross on it then would still be fine as long as it was covered by a layer of non religious clothing and not visible to others... could also be wearing a 'Jesus is great' t-shirt too as long as it was under another layer of non religious clothing and not visible to others...!?

Yes. It's difficult to hide a headscarf or turban though. One could wear a hat on top I suppose. rabbit

You've highlighted a possible source of conflict there. Muslims or Sikhs might say that they are being discriminated against because Christians can wear hidden religious symbols, and they can't.

by Ben Reilly Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:17 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:

Whether it's clothing or not, clearly the ruling allows banning the crucifix as well. That's what my point to Tommy was. The ruling was not against "religious clothing" alone, it specifically also included crucifixes.

The actual ruling reads:

It must be emphasized first of all that the ban at issue applies to all visible religious symbols without distinction. There is therefore no discrimination between religions. In particular, all of the information available to the Court indicates that the measure in question is not one directed specifically against employees of Muslim faith, let alone specifically against female employees of that religion. After all, a company rule such as that operated by G4S could just as easily affect a male employee of Jewish faith who comes to work wearing a kippah, or a Sikh who wishes to perform his duties in a Dastar (turban), or male or female employees of a Christian faith who wish to wear a clearly visible crucifix or a T-shirt bearing the slogan ‘Jesus is great’ to work.

Your above highlighted bit of quote says 'visible' items...

So theoretically it would be fine for a Christian to have a necklace on, but if with a cross on it then would still be fine as long as it was covered by a layer of non religious clothing and not visible to others... could also be wearing a 'Jesus is great' t-shirt too as long as it was under another layer of non religious clothing and not visible to others...!?

Yes. It's difficult to hide a headscarf or turban though. One could wear a hat on top I suppose.

You've highlighted a possible source of conflict there. Muslims or Sikhs might say that they are being discriminated against because Christians can wear hidden religious symbols, and they can't.

Are you sure about that?

Bosses can now legally ban headscarves, crosses and turbans in the workplace. - Page 3 Crescent-Star-Islamic-Necklace-Pendant

by Raggamuffin Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:20 am

Ben Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes. It's difficult to hide a headscarf or turban though. One could wear a hat on top I suppose.

You've highlighted a possible source of conflict there. Muslims or Sikhs might say that they are being discriminated against because Christians can wear hidden religious symbols, and they can't.

Are you sure about that?

I mean turbans and headscarves. Laughing

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:17 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Your above highlighted bit of quote says 'visible' items...

So theoretically it would be fine for a Christian to have a necklace on, but if with a cross on it then would still be fine as long as it was covered by a layer of non religious clothing and not visible to others... could also be wearing a 'Jesus is great' t-shirt too as long as it was under another layer of non religious clothing and not visible to others...!?

Yes. It's difficult to hide a headscarf or turban though. One could wear a hat on top I suppose.

You've highlighted a possible source of conflict there. Muslims or Sikhs might say that they are being discriminated against because Christians can wear hidden religious symbols, and they can't.

Sikhs have been allowed to walk about with a dagger under their clothing for years here...

by Syl Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:28 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Your above highlighted bit of quote says 'visible' items...

So theoretically it would be fine for a Christian to have a necklace on, but if with a cross on it then would still be fine as long as it was covered by a layer of non religious clothing and not visible to others... could also be wearing a 'Jesus is great' t-shirt too as long as it was under another layer of non religious clothing and not visible to others...!?

Yes. It's difficult to hide a headscarf or turban though. One could wear a hat on top I suppose.

You've highlighted a possible source of conflict there. Muslims or Sikhs might say that they are being discriminated against because Christians can wear hidden religious symbols, and they can't.

Good point, which proves you can please some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.
If a company decides to adopt this rule certain groups of people will most definitely be discriminated against.

I wonder how this law will be translated with Jewish Orthodox married women who wear wigs? Lots of large companies are Jewish owned. I doubt they will enforce this optional rule.

by Guest Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:56 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I agree there certainly is cases of this and never denied this.

I just highlighted due to Rags failing to understand the law Wolf.

So I agree on all your points

It was you who didn't understand it, or pretended not to. When Ben explained the ruling to you, just like I did, you backed down. Strange eh?

No, that was you claiming that a Muslim company would have to ban Hijab if they banned crucifixes.
Ben made no such claim.
You mistook the view that if something was banned, all other religious aspects would be banned for all employees.
That was pure gibberish.
What it mean is that all crucifixes/crosses as jewelry would be banned

by Raggamuffin Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:07 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It was you who didn't understand it, or pretended not to. When Ben explained the ruling to you, just like I did, you backed down. Strange eh?

No, that was you claiming that a Muslim company would have to ban Hijab if they banned crucifixes.
Ben made no such claim.
You mistook the view that if something was banned, all other religious aspects would be banned for all employees.
That was pure gibberish.
What it mean is that all crucifixes/crosses as jewelry would be banned

You know very well that the point is that they would have to ban all religious symbols, not just one. They can't just ban one religious symbol and not another. That is what the article is about. You know that, but you chose to create some stupid argument just because you want to argue.

by Guest Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:13 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

No, that was you claiming that a Muslim company would have to ban Hijab if they banned crucifixes.
Ben made no such claim.
You mistook the view that if something was banned, all other religious aspects would be banned for all employees.
That was pure gibberish.
What it mean is that all crucifixes/crosses as jewelry would be banned

You know very well that the point is that they would have to ban all religious symbols, not just one. They can't just ban one religious symbol and not another. That is what the article is about. You know that, but you chose to create some stupid argument just because you want to argue.

That is complete rubbish
Yes they can ban something based around image
Its states very clearly what is banned applies to all, not all religious clothing or Jewelry

Now grow up you silly child

by Raggamuffin Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:26 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You know very well that the point is that they would have to ban all religious symbols, not just one. They can't just ban one religious symbol and not another. That is what the article is about. You know that, but you chose to create some stupid argument just because you want to argue.

That is complete rubbish
Yes they can ban something based around image
Its states very clearly what is banned applies to all, not all religious clothing or Jewelry

Now grow up you silly child

That made no sense at all, which is not surprising because you're tripping yourself up in your haste to be obnoxious and create irrelevant arguments. You do that every time you're losing a debate. You know I'm right, but you can't help yourself. You're on ignore again.

by Guest Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:29 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

That is complete rubbish
Yes they can ban something based around image
Its states very clearly what is banned applies to all, not all religious clothing or Jewelry

Now grow up you silly child

That made no sense at all, which is not surprising because you're tripping yourself up in your haste to be obnoxious and create irrelevant arguments. You do that every time you're losing a debate. You know I'm right, but you can't help yourself. You're on ignore again.

Whoopdeedoo

At least I can have some decent debate without your immature replies

I will however continue to counter the general rubbish that you post

So thank you

Now go off and sulk you silly child

by Sponsored content