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

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:Surely it should be choice....freedom to choose.
Its as bad for women to be TOLD to wear a head covering as it is for her to be denied it if she chooses herself to wear it.

Yes I agree. But lots and lots of Muslim women do choose to wear it themselves.

I think they do, and SM who knows more than me on these matters says so too.
If its their own choice to wear a head covering I don't see any reason to deny them that choice.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

Yes I agree. But lots and lots of Muslim women do choose to wear it themselves.

I think they do, and SM who knows more than me on these matters says so too.
If its their own choice to wear a head covering I don't see any reason to deny them that choice.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Thorin wrote:

It is for some, from the earliest ages.

Does the child have a choice, when the parents force this religion on them?

No

The child grows up!

Next!

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think they do, and SM who knows more than me on these matters says so too.
If its their own choice to wear a head covering I don't see any reason to deny them that choice.

Syl believe me in this country every single Muslim woman I know wears it from her own free will.
Some don't as it's their choice.

eddie wrote:Yes that's pretty much what I just said, above, SM.

Good to see you girl x

eddie wrote:Yes that's pretty much what I just said, above, SM.

Good to see you girl x

Thorin wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:No

Cause you are 'forcing' them to not wear it WHEN THEY WANT TO WEAR it!!!!

Let's take into account the Sikh turbans

Are they forced?

No

Do ALL Sikh men wear it?

No

How will this ban affect them?

Wrong.
Show men again where I said they must not wear?

I said why can they not chose not to wear to be in solidarity for their Muslim sisters?

If Sikhs are forced to wear, then that is also wrong

One last chance

Why not help that tide by showing it truly is a choice to wear. By those who choose to wear, refusing to wear and standing up for their Muslim sisters, who are forced to wear. Until change happens and such a law is revoked. They can then revert back to wearing.
Would this not be a powerful message to those countries that force women to wear?

Thorin wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

The child grows up!

Next!

The child whilst a child has no choice

That is not a choice and are often brainwashed and in many Muslim countries cannot leave due to Apostasy having the death penalty



Next

Raggamuffin wrote:So if jewellery is allowed, and someone wants to wear a cross, will they be told they cannot wear it and that they can wear a different necklace instead? It's all a bit silly really.

What if a Sikh is told he must get a haircut?

Thorin wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Syl believe me in this country every single Muslim woman I know wears it from her own free will.
Some don't as it's their choice.

No they do not.
Why do they believe they should wear?
If there is no view that they should wear, why do they wear?
because its taught that they should cover in that school of Islam
The choice is on the belief, not on whether to wear

Thorin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Wrong.
Show men again where I said they must not wear?

I said why can they not chose not to wear to be in solidarity for their Muslim sisters?

If Sikhs are forced to wear, then that is also wrong

One last chance

Why not help that tide by showing it truly is a choice to wear. By those who choose to wear, refusing to wear and standing up for their Muslim sisters, who are forced to wear. Until change happens and such a law is revoked. They can then revert back to wearing.
Would this not be a powerful message to those countries that force women to wear?

So Sexy, avoided answering

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Thorin wrote:


No they do not.
Why do they believe they should wear?
If there is no view that they should wear, why do they wear?
because its taught that they should cover in that school of Islam
The choice is on the belief, not on whether to wear

Why do Sikh men wear turbans?

for their religion!

So are you going to force them to cut their hair now?

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So Sexy, avoided answering

What?

I've responded to all your questions!

Thorin wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

What?

I've responded to all your questions!

No, you avoided and misdirected claiming I was forcing people, off where I offered them a choice.
A choice that would prove it was really a choice to wear and one that stood in solidarity with their Muslim sisters forced to wear
Why not help that tide by showing it truly is a choice to wear. By those who choose to wear, refusing to wear and standing up for their Muslim sisters, who are forced to wear. Until change happens and such a law is revoked. They can then revert back to wearing.
Would this not be a powerful message to those countries that force women to wear?

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Thorin wrote:


No, you avoided and misdirected claiming I was forcing people, off where I offered them a choice.
A choice that would prove it was really a choice to wear and one that stood in solidarity with their Muslim sisters forced to wear
Why not help that tide by showing it truly is a choice to wear. By those who choose to wear, refusing to wear and standing up for their Muslim sisters, who are forced to wear. Until change happens and such a law is revoked. They can then revert back to wearing.
Would this not be a powerful message to those countries that force women to wear?

No it wouldn't

I have said this 3 times now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think they do, and SM who knows more than me on these matters says so too.
If its their own choice to wear a head covering I don't see any reason to deny them that choice.

I have known and still know, plenty of Muslims. Some of the women don't wear them and some do. The ones that do are strong, independent women who simply choose to.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

I have known and still know, plenty of Muslims. Some of the women don't wear them and some do. The ones that do are strong, independent women who simply choose to.

Yep...a bit like Christian women, Jewish women, and plain old Atheist women like us.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So if jewellery is allowed, and someone wants to wear a cross, will they be told they cannot wear it and that they can wear a different necklace instead? It's all a bit silly really.

What if a Sikh is told he must get a haircut?

Again, why should religious people have a privilege over others?

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think they do, and SM who knows more than me on these matters says so too.
If its their own choice to wear a head covering I don't see any reason to deny them that choice.

Syl believe me in this country every single Muslim woman I know wears it from her own free will.
Some don't as it's their choice.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Again, why should religious people have a privilege over others?

It's hardly a privilege, and others are allowed to wear their own choice of necklace/chain. Others could also wear a cross as long as it's not a religious symbol, so that would be discrimination against someone who wears it as a religious symbol. You can't tell one person they can wear a cross, and another one that they can't - it's silly.

Raggamuffin wrote:Muslim women aren't forced to wear headscarves. I don't like them much, but they choose to wear them.

Syl wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Syl believe me in this country every single Muslim woman I know wears it from her own free will.
Some don't as it's their choice.

That's what I believe to be true SM....there may be exceptions of course, but I imagine the majority of Muslim women are free to choose in the UK.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's hardly a privilege, and others are allowed to wear their own choice of necklace/chain. Others could also wear a cross as long as it's not a religious symbol, so that would be discrimination against someone who wears it as a religious symbol. You can't tell one person they can wear a cross, and another one that they can't - it's silly.

Its is a privilege.
If others wanted to wear a cross as a symbol, they would face the same problem on not being able to wear.
Hence equality.
A company can with a dress code.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Its is a privilege.
If others wanted to wear a cross as a symbol, they would face the same problem on not being able to wear.
Hence equality.
A company can with a dress code.

Others might want to wear a cross as a fashion item, and they would be allowed to. That's discrimination against someone who wears one as a religious symbol.

Raggamuffin wrote:What about a large hairband? Will they be banned too?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Others might want to wear a cross as a fashion item, and they would be allowed to. That's discrimination against someone who wears one as a religious symbol.

Does not matter. They would not be able to wear.

Its not discrimination, when you sign a contract of employment.

Raggamuffin wrote:So if jewellery is allowed, and someone wants to wear a cross, will they be told they cannot wear it and that they can wear a different necklace instead? It's all a bit silly really.

What if a Sikh is told he must get a haircut?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Does not matter. They would not be able to wear.

Its not discrimination, when you sign a contract of employment.

It would be unenforceable IMO. Telling people they can't wear a cross is just stupid.

Raggamuffin wrote:What about wedding rings for people who got married in church? That would be a religious symbol.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It would be unenforceable IMO. Telling people they can't wear a cross is just stupid.

Really?

Then why in say Factories that process food, is their a ban on all Jewelry, accept wedding bands?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Really?

Then why in say Factories that process food, is their a ban on all Jewelry, accept wedding bands?

That's a completely different issue to do with safety - another red herring from you.

Why not ban wedding rings as well in those circumstances?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What about wedding rings for people who got married in church? That would be a religious symbol.

See my last post

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


See my last post

It didn't answer my question. Why should wedding rings be exempt from a ban on all jewellery/symbols.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's a completely different issue to do with safety - another red herring from you.

Why not ban wedding rings as well in those circumstances?

How is it a different issue.
You said they could not enforce a ban and as seen they can.
I have no idea why they allow wedding bands, why not ask them

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Yep...a bit like Christian women, Jewish women, and plain old Atheist women like us.

Okay, lts put it this way.
Why do they believe they should wear the Hijab?
Sexy claims it is to please this deity
What would happen if you displease this deity?

How then is it a choice?

The choice is based off fear

You have to fear Allah in order to believe in Islam

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


How is it a different issue.
You said they could not enforce a ban and as seen they can.
I have no idea why they allow wedding bands, why not ask them

Because you're talking about safety issues, and all items of jewellery, including religious and non-religious ones. It's a completely different issue.

The point is that in the scenario we're talking about, someone would be allowed to wear a necklace as long as it didn't have a cross attached to it.

Tommy Monk wrote:I know quite a few Sikhs pretty well... and out of all of them, there is only one of them who wears a turban... and hardly a paragon of virtue as he is a workshy scrounger and owes everyone money!!!


He has owed me a grand from 20 years ago!!!


Also... a few years ago I was at a Sikh friends wedding party... and there was only one Sikh fella there wearing a turban... it was my mates uncle... and I remember when we were all dancing about to the music, he made a joke of saying to us how hot he was getting, and then whipped his turban off like a hat, and wiped his brow with a napkin... revealing that he had a number 2 length hair cut all over!!!

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Okay, lts put it this way.
Why do they believe they should wear the Hijab?
Sexy claims it is to please this deity
What would happen if you displease this deity?

How then is it a choice?

The choice is based off fear

You have to fear Allah in order to believe in Islam

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?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Because you're talking about safety issues, and all items of jewellery, including religious and non-religious ones. It's a completely different issue.

The point is that in the scenario we're talking about, someone would be allowed to wear a necklace as long as it didn't have a cross attached to it.

Jewelry is a safety hazard in any work place, as it can get caught in many things.
So its very easy to ban them
Again, its not even relevant.
If a company has a contract which you sign, that says you cannot ear this and that. If you fall foul of this, you would face a disciplinary.
You need to understand employment law and its not a privilege as you think it should be

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Jewelry is a safety hazard in any work place, as it can get caught in many things.
So its very easy to ban them
Again, its not even relevant.
If a company has a contract which you sign, that says you cannot ear this and that. If you fall foul of this, you would face a disciplinary.
You need to understand employment law and its not a privilege as you think it should be

We're not talking about safety hazards though. You're just introducing red herrings in order to troll yet again.

I doubt you understand anything about employment law - or employment.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

We're not talking about safety hazards though. You're just introducing red herrings in order to troll yet again.

I doubt you understand anything about employment law - or employment.

Oh move along, this is what you always do, when you cannot counter

Grow up

Its contract law

Equality means the same for everyone, not a privilege to some

I am proving that I do understand employment law and so does the European court

Thorin wrote:@ Eddie



Can you have a word, as its clear Rags is fixing for a fight and trying to derail the thread.


Thanks