This is a fairly disingenious title. The court has ruled that yes a ban is applicable, but only as part of a blanket ban on all religious symbols in a working place.
This is a fairly disingenious title. The court has ruled that yes a ban is applicable, but only as part of a blanket ban on all religious symbols in a working place.
However, this objective must be pursued in a “consistent and systematic manner” and measures must be limited to what is strictly necessary. It was for a national court to verify that these requirements are complied with.
If Kippas for example interfere with protective clothing, I could see it viable. I believe some other cases involved the safety of wearing headscarfs around industrial equipment. In this...
If Kippas for example interfere with protective clothing, I could see it viable. I believe some other cases involved the safety of wearing headscarfs around industrial equipment. In this particular case it is the desire for a service worker of the state to appear neutral as part of a secular nation, which I can understand too.
The employer must still provide a good reason for introducing the ban.
There are arguments to be made, but it is important news. Different article, possibly different case the independant Industrial equipment requirements are not something I would ever question....
There are arguments to be made, but it is important news.
Why is hiring (visibly) muslim employees seen as not neutral? This seems to me to be quite similar to the problems Black people have in the US wearing their hair natural, its illegal to...
Why is hiring (visibly) muslim employees seen as not neutral? This seems to me to be quite similar to the problems Black people have in the US wearing their hair natural, its illegal to discriminate on the basis of race so people choose race-adjacent things with which to ban and sanction people.
Regarding the portion of the comment about employers using things like hair as a legitimate non-discriminatory business reason to do something adverse: Thankfully there’s been a lot of progress in...
Exemplary
Regarding the portion of the comment about employers using things like hair as a legitimate non-discriminatory business reason to do something adverse:
Thankfully there’s been a lot of progress in this space in the last few years as it relates to race discrimination using hair as a proxy:
As of May 2023, 22 states including Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington and 28 municipalities have signed The CROWN Act or legislation inspired by The CROWN Act into law.
What’s the CROWN Act?
The CROWN Act, which stands for “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair,” is a law that prohibits race-based hair discrimination, which is the denial of employment and educational opportunities because of hair texture or protective hairstyles. It prohibits discrimination based on natural hair style and texture, such as locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, fades, afros, and/or the right to keep hair in an uncut or untrimmed state.
Why is it necessary?
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act only prohibits employment discrimination on the bases of race, color, religion, national origin, and sex. Other federal laws also create protected classes based on age, disability, pregnancy, familial status, veteran status, and genetic information. The CROWN Act seeks to close gaps in current anti-discrimination legislation.
Regarding the other part and the top level comment this is under:
I’m too lazy to grab to EU Law textbook off the shelf or research this more fully, but based on my super hazy recollection of employment discrimination in the EU and this portion of the quote above - “ consistent and systematic manner” - I feel like the inquiry isn’t whether there’s a disparate impact - which it would be in the US - but whether the prohibition is uniformly applied and based on a justifiable reason.
First of all, I said banning of all religions symbols, not Muslim ones. This is also what the court order is about. Making the ban religion specific would be discrimination. If you run a secular...
First of all, I said banning of all religions symbols, not Muslim ones. This is also what the court order is about. Making the ban religion specific would be discrimination.
If you run a secular state then it's a viable option to order everyone executing duties in the name of said state to leave religion at home in order for the religion not to influence the state, because it wants to be secular.
But what's neutral about it? I don't understand why the appearance of employees implies anything about the employer apart from the bare minimal of tolerance (i.e., they were willing to hire the...
But what's neutral about it? I don't understand why the appearance of employees implies anything about the employer apart from the bare minimal of tolerance (i.e., they were willing to hire the person). So when I hear that an employer wants to ban religious symbols, what I assume is that the employer doesn't want to appear tolerant of those religions.
Surely the neutral thing would be to be seen hiring anybody regardless of religion or race.
I think you are conflating who they hire and how the employees present themselves in their professional capacity. If they banned hiring people of any religious affiliation, yes, that would be...
I think you are conflating who they hire and how the employees present themselves in their professional capacity.
If they banned hiring people of any religious affiliation, yes, that would be intolerant, but that is not what they are doing.
Work is, generally speaking, a religiously unaffiliated space which other people are more or less forced to come. Yes, people can be tolerant of others displaying religious affiliations, but people with religious affiliations can also be tolerant to others by not bringing such displays into such a space.
In addition, tolerance and neutrality aren't the same concepts, even if they sometimes overlap. I think a tolerant approach from a company would be to tolerate the religious expressions, while a neutral approach would be to demand the employees express themselves neutrally, not showing any affiliation of religion.
My interpretation of neutral here is essentially, I think, "showing no affiliation". Yes, on a company-wide level it is neutral for the company to be tolerant of all religious expressions because...
My interpretation of neutral here is essentially, I think, "showing no affiliation".
Yes, on a company-wide level it is neutral for the company to be tolerant of all religious expressions because its policies don't make a distinction between religions. In its activities and interactions, however, it is not fully neutral, because employees representing the company may show religious affiliation. This means that in individual interactions, such as between employees or between customers and employees, the company representation may be less neutral.
In short, while an employer is working, they represent their company, and the neutral stance with respect to religion is for that employee to not show any religious affiliation.
Just to note: this itself is not an argument for whether any specific employer or employers in general should* be neutral with respect to religion. I'm just trying to clarify what I consider neutrality in this regard.
That's what I'm confused about, I don't understand why it would imply any affiliation to have employees of a particular group. I do see why a company may lose customers if it is perceived as...
That's what I'm confused about, I don't understand why it would imply any affiliation to have employees of a particular group. I do see why a company may lose customers if it is perceived as supporting muslims, but I don't have any sympathy for companies worried about that.
I also don't see why this neutrality doesn't extend to racial or sexual minorities (or other protected groups), but only targets religion. I don't think employers would be allowed to force them to pretend to be other than they are.
In the article it says political, philosophical or religious. I don't know why the tildes discussion dropped two of those. Maybe it doesn't answer your question fully, but its not only religious...
In the article it says political, philosophical or religious. I don't know why the tildes discussion dropped two of those. Maybe it doesn't answer your question fully, but its not only religious symbols.
You are again conflating "having employees of a group" and "having employees actively present themselves as members of a group". It is OK if you don't think that makes a difference to the...
That's what I'm confused about, I don't understand why it would imply any affiliation to have employees of a particular group.
You are again conflating "having employees of a group" and "having employees actively present themselves as members of a group". It is OK if you don't think that makes a difference to the argument, but at least recognize that that is a distinction I am making.
I do see why a company may lose customers if it is perceived as supporting muslims, but I don't have any sympathy for companies worried about that.
This is not at all related to what I was arguing. It is not whether they lose customers, it's about being able to meet customers (or citizens, residents, people in general) in a neutral fashion. If a representative of the company has a clear religious affiliation, that does reflect on the employer.
Mind, again, that I'm not arguing that this is what amy specific company should do, but if a company wants to be neutral in their representation, not representing a religion can be part of that and the neutral way to do it is to not have any perceivable, religious identification while at work.
I also don't see why this neutrality doesn't extend to racial or sexual minorities (or other protected groups), but only targets religion. I don't think employers would be allowed to force them to pretend to be other than they are.
First, what part of sexual orientation necessitates making that orientation known during most work? I don't know the sexuality of the cashier, of the waiter, of the bus driver, because why would I? Their sexuality is none of my concern. Is your experience different?
Second, sexual orientation and race do not come with inherently associated beliefs. They do not on their own imply right or wrong, other than perhaps their immediate concern (e.g. assuming that most people who are bisexual believe it is OK to be bisexual).
Third, even if race is visible, it is so by default by no choice of the person in question. It would be the difference in taking action to hide something (race) as opposed to action to actively express something (religious affiliation).
TL;DR: I do not agree that there is anything neutral about a homogenised workforce, it is a deeply fascist goal The only distinction I see between "having employees of a group" and "having...
TL;DR: I do not agree that there is anything neutral about a homogenised workforce, it is a deeply fascist goal
The only distinction I see between "having employees of a group" and "having employees actively present themselves as members of a group" is its harder to come up with a plausibly deniable way to stop hiring people of colour than it is to target them by proxy by banning or limiting their cultural practices. I don't accept the distinction you're making because I don't agree that looking like the majority is "neutral" and I don't agree that companies should have the right to control their employees religious practice (esp. while freedom of religion is protected).
I know that sexual/gender minorities are harder to notice, but there are certainly actions an employee could take that would infringe upon their employer's "right to neutrality". Say, an office worker with a picture of their family on their desk or a trans person existing with their untrained voice. A trans woman who chooses to wear a beard would also threaten the neutrality of their employer.
I take issue with the fact that you can tell someone's beliefs by their religion. You can't know without talking to them that a hijabi is even religious, let alone what their specific beliefs are.
Race is more visible but we still see employers target racial minorities by proxy via banned hair styles, as I noted in an earlier comment. This isn't hypothetical, I just don't know how much the EU legal system has weighed in on it.
I don't mean to call you a fascist, I know nothing of your beliefs, but I want to be clear that: (specifically mentioning Islam and Judaism here, because those are the religions Europe has a particularly long history of targeting)
wishing your employees not be visibly muslim or jewish is fascist.
wishing not to interact with visibly muslim or jewish tellers when you go to the bank is fascist.
I'm going to mull this over for a while before any continuation, but please consider what you are reading into my replies that isn't there, or at least isn't intended to be there. Nowhere have I...
I'm going to mull this over for a while before any continuation, but please consider what you are reading into my replies that isn't there, or at least isn't intended to be there.
The only distinction I see between "having employees of a group" and "having employees actively present themselves as members of a group" is its harder to come up with a plausibly deniable way to stop hiring people of colour than it is to target them by proxy by banning or limiting their cultural practices
Nowhere have I argued against cultural expressions. The discussion was on religious neutrality, what is considered or perceived as neutral in that respect.
I know that sexual/gender minorities are harder to notice, but there are certainly actions an employee could take that would infringe upon their employer's "right to neutrality". Say, an office worker with a picture of their family on their desk or a trans person existing with their untrained voice. A trans woman who chooses to wear a beard would also threaten the neutrality of their employer.
For the picture, a neutral stance is to not allow any pictures. A tolerant stance to allow them regardless of family composition.
For the voice, a neutral stance is to not allow anyone to speak. A tolerant stance is to allow people to speak with the voice they wish to use.
For the beard, I have a harder time identifying a neutral stance. A tolerant stance is to allow them to wear it.
I am listing this to reinforce that neutrality is not the same as tolerance, and we were discussing neutrality not tolerance.
You can't know without talking to them that a hijabi is even religious, let alone what their specific beliefs are.
I have not argued that. Nowhere in our discussion were we talking specifically about people wearing a hijab. We were discussing what was neutral, specifically with respect to visibly (or perceivably) religious displays.
Whether or not wearing a hijab is a (primarily/dominantly) religious display is immaterial to the categorical discussion.
Race is more visible but we still see employers target racial minorities by proxy via banned hair styles, as I noted in an earlier comment.
And nowhere have I argued for this.
I don't mean to call you a fascist,
Acknowledging that I have twice stated that I am not arguing for neutrality to be used, and that I consider there to be a distinction between neutrality and tolerance, would go a long way to reinforce this.
Sorry, you did say it twice. I really don't mean to mischaracterise your views or words, I'm suffering more from poor reading comprehension. Also, a lot of what I've said is really talking past...
Sorry, you did say it twice. I really don't mean to mischaracterise your views or words, I'm suffering more from poor reading comprehension. Also, a lot of what I've said is really talking past you towards the employers/politicians/voters mentioned in the article, which is not polite.
I think I now understand your distinction as you've made it here, this last message helped my understanding a lot so thank you for reiterating.
Probably depends on whether it shows to a stranger. You could work in a turtleneck and hide it.
Probably depends on whether it shows to a stranger. You could work in a turtleneck and hide it.
The court said: “A prohibition on wearing any visible form of expression of political, philosophical or religious beliefs in the workplace may be justified by the employer's need to present a neutral image towards customers or to prevent social disputes.”
But the justification must be linked to a genuine need on the part of the employer, the court said.
Probably, but that's not because this is specifically excluding christians. It just so happens to be that most Christians already did away with their symbols and religion specific clothing. This...
Probably, but that's not because this is specifically excluding christians. It just so happens to be that most Christians already did away with their symbols and religion specific clothing. This would also apply to them if they'd have anything visible.
Notably, this discussion often talks about people representing the state, and wearing religious garb or symbolism is not representative of the state and goes against the separation of church and state. That argument is at the core of the issue, it's when they expand this to private companies that it starts becoming encroachment.
Exactly, and this is the point. "It just so happens" did not "just so happen": these policies are put forward by legislators who, if not Christian themselves, have grown up in cultures shaped by...
It just so happens to be that most Christians already did away with their symbols and religion specific clothing.
Exactly, and this is the point. "It just so happens" did not "just so happen": these policies are put forward by legislators who, if not Christian themselves, have grown up in cultures shaped by Christianity - they don't see anything wrong with it, because none of their clothing is associated with their religious culture.
You don't see ex. Muslim legislators calling for a ban on eating harem foods in the workplace. Arguably the consumption of pork is an expression of religion, in much the same way as the wearing of a head covering.
I think these kinds of policies come from a deep refusal of many European countries to acknowledge or accept other cultures, and I think that's a shame.
Honestly, I don’t think Europe can integrate immigrants. The national-ethnic character of basically all states means that you could’ve been born there as a child of immigrants, and people still...
Honestly, I don’t think Europe can integrate immigrants. The national-ethnic character of basically all states means that you could’ve been born there as a child of immigrants, and people still wouldn’t accept you as French/German/Polish/etc. You see higher radicalization rates among second/third-Gen folks for precisely that reason.
The U.S., Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, and a few other places are fundamentally immigrant societies, where (nominally, at least) anyone can come and be accepted as that nationality.
The UK is an interesting edge case. I get the impression that there is discrimination but people, especially from former colonies, have been integrating there more effectively than some other...
The UK is an interesting edge case. I get the impression that there is discrimination but people, especially from former colonies, have been integrating there more effectively than some other European countries.
The Small Axe series focuses on the experiences of immigrants from the West Indies in London during the 60s - 80s. I haven’t watched it but I have heard about it on NPR. That’s not today,...
The Small Axe series focuses on the experiences of immigrants from the West Indies in London during the 60s - 80s. I haven’t watched it but I have heard about it on NPR. That’s not today, obviously, but it might provide context or a starting point for further exploration, if anyone is curious.
I think the UK just has slightly more relevant recent experience than other European countries, but I’m not convinced it’s otherwise doing better than anywhere else, like Sweden integrating Somali immigrants or Germany integrating Turkish immigrants.
That's a good interview, thank you! After a year, I'm only 2 films in, because they are heavy and require both full attention and the right emotional space.
That's a good interview, thank you!
After a year, I'm only 2 films in, because they are heavy and require both full attention and the right emotional space.
To an extent, but it’s fundamentally still a society which didn’t have a significant immigrant population until after World War II (the tidbit that most highlights this for me is that in 1950,...
To an extent, but it’s fundamentally still a society which didn’t have a significant immigrant population until after World War II (the tidbit that most highlights this for me is that in 1950, Britain only had around 20,000 nonwhite people in it, a stark contrast to today).
I would love to hear how people with roots in India or in Hong Kong feel about this. I wish it were not so, but I think people from the West Indies might have a different experience. But, not my...
I would love to hear how people with roots in India or in Hong Kong feel about this. I wish it were not so, but I think people from the West Indies might have a different experience.
I think you're assessing this with a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of religion within European politics, especially the western European politics. By default, policy like this does not...
I think you're assessing this with a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of religion within European politics, especially the western European politics. By default, policy like this does not come from a place of religion since the state isn't religious.
This isn't meant to be exclusionary, it's meant to level the playing field. Nobody is stopped from practicing religion in private, but religion has no place in government (and some would argue, not in public either).
Conflating this with cultural acceptance seems strange to me too. You are free to be who you are. With or without religious background.
I challenge that. 1500 years of a Christian state1 does not one 100-year respite relieve. The state may say it is not religious, and may strive to not be religiously influenced, but it is! When...
By default, policy like this does not come from a place of religion since the state isn't religious.
I challenge that. 1500 years of a Christian state1 does not one 100-year respite relieve.
The state may say it is not religious, and may strive to not be religiously influenced, but it is! When you have a government formed by Christians, run by Christians, taking cues on policy from other governments also formed and run by Christians, its policy is going to be influenced by Christianity.
I think it is leveling the playing field. But it is leveling a very specific playing field. And the only ones being leveled for it are immigrants to the EU from the Middle East. It's definitely a matter of cultural acceptance.
1 more or less, depending on where exactly in Europe
But that's my point, in principle it's not formed by Christians. It contains people of all faiths. My own government is not a Christian government. There is a much stronger separation of church...
But that's my point, in principle it's not formed by Christians. It contains people of all faiths. My own government is not a Christian government.
There is a much stronger separation of church and state in most European countries than there is in the US. We had wars, revolutions, and uprisings over this stuff. It's not a change made in the past 100 years, it's a change centuries in the making even if only codified in the modern age. Not to mention Germanic/Nordic paganism being alive and well not a thousand years ago.
I truly think the misapprehension starts with assuming the church plays a large role in modern day life for the average western European citizen*. It by and large does not.
As someone from a country with the right to religious freedom in its constitution, please take it from me that this discussion does not stem from trying to exclude non Christians, it may be coopted and warped by that movement, but its roots are within the separation of church and state.
*I'm refraining from speaking beyond Western/Northern Europe on purpose. I simply do not know enough about religiosity in government past, let's say, Poland. Though I do know that Czechs are especially a-religious.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that this distinction is important too. Europe is not as monolithic and it becomes impossible to make blanket statements about cultural acceptance, religiousness, governing, and more.
I'm fully aware Hungary may be less inclined to be favourable towards immigrants than the likes of England.
If person A is Christian, are all their decisions necessarily influenced by their religion? Because if not, then the government they form is not necessarily influenced by it either, the decisions...
If person A is Christian, are all their decisions necessarily influenced by their religion?
Because if not, then the government they form is not necessarily influenced by it either, the decisions that government makes aren't necessarily influenced by it and finally the policies it enacts aren't necessarily influenced by Christianity.
That's an interesting counter example to use, as to me they represent two very different assessments. The goal is in these circumstances to minimize the observable religious affiliations /...
Arguably the consumption of pork is an expression of religion, in much the same way as the wearing of a head covering.
That's an interesting counter example to use, as to me they represent two very different assessments.
The goal is in these circumstances to minimize the observable religious affiliations / influences which people are exposed to. At least that is how I interpret it.
If that is the goal, then the grounds for considering whether something is not allowed under such restrictions should be something along the lines of whether
It is encouraged or dictated by a religion,
It is (readily) noticable to an observer; and
It sets people following that religion apart from people not following that religion
These are general criteria, whether we are talking about clothing, iconography, food, song, makeup, perfumes, or any other perceivable expression.
If 1 is not fulfilled, there is no religious connection. If 2 is not fulfilled, there's no awareness. If 3 is not fulfilled, there's no discernment.
3 is heavily dependent on circumstances. It is where cultural context* plays a role and where historically dominant religions may be likely to be more well-aligned even with the behaviour of people who are not religious particularly in regions where the religion has been dominant.
Wearing a religious head covering meets criteria 1, and definitely meets criteria 2. Whether criteria 3 is fulfilled depends on what particular head covering is being considered, and the cultural context in which it is being worn and thus may make it a complex assessment.
For eating pork, it fails already to meet criteria 1 as the religious influence is a ban on eating pork, not to actively do so. I believe it would also in many common circumstances fail criteria 2 as it is not necessarily easy to discern what type of meat someone is eating.
* That is to say, if the wearing of such a head covering is as common among people who do not follow the religion as it is among people who do (when under no duress from the religion to conform), then it may fail criteria 3 because it is no longer discernable as simply religious but has become cultural.
Where to draw that line of assessment is however not something I think has a simple answer for what's best. Assessing it from the jurisdictional area in which the law applies is simple, but if we're striving to be multi-cultural it does present a barrier for smaller cultures, and cultures with a smaller presence, to gain full equality, so to speak.
At the same time, that cultural aspect cannot be ignored, because if we do then anything any religion dictates would be necessarily disallowed by the remaining criteria, a state of affairs which is not tenable.
The crux of my argument is that this fundamentally favours Christianity. Christianity sets itself apart from Islam, and Judaism, and many smaller religions, by that there is no observable sign one...
The goal is in these circumstances to minimize the observable religious affiliations / influences which people are exposed to.
The crux of my argument is that this fundamentally favours Christianity. Christianity sets itself apart from Islam, and Judaism, and many smaller religions, by that there is no observable sign one is a Christian. They'd be much more likely to evangelize, but this isn't something the legislators making these laws care as much about - they're blind to it, growing up surrounded by Christianity. Approaching such matters of separation of religion by "observability" is a inequitable and discriminatory approach that states shouldn't take.
it is no longer discernible as simply religious but has become cultural
I would also note, though it's tangential to the point at hand - I do think head scarves are far too common to be treated as religious iconography, and I do think that there's no hard distinction between "religious" and "cultural". Holidays are perhaps a good example of this. It's not like European governments recognize Nowruz, they recognize Easter.
I think it becomes tricky when they don't differentiate between clothing that is mandatory for membership in your group vs other religious clothing. Sikhs and orthodox Jewish men would be 100...
I think it becomes tricky when they don't differentiate between clothing that is mandatory for membership in your group vs other religious clothing. Sikhs and orthodox Jewish men would be 100 percent excluded unless they wish to become apostate. I don't know enough about Islam to say anything intelligent.
I mean, there are some Roman Catholic religious communities I am aware of where members work in the community, but I don't think the hospitals or schools or charities they choose would exclude...
I mean, there are some Roman Catholic religious communities I am aware of where members work in the community, but I don't think the hospitals or schools or charities they choose would exclude them like that.
The state shouldn't be concerning itself with what kinds of hats citizens want to wear. Not a great look for the EU that this 'issue' never seems to go away
The state shouldn't be concerning itself with what kinds of hats citizens want to wear. Not a great look for the EU that this 'issue' never seems to go away
This isn't the state going "religios symbols are illegal" this is the state saying "An employer can introduce a blanket ban on religios symbols at a place of work if they have good reason for it."
This isn't the state going "religios symbols are illegal" this is the state saying "An employer can introduce a blanket ban on religios symbols at a place of work if they have good reason for it."
As an agnostic (as in I'm 100% sure it can't be known), I'm not convinced that a world without religion is any more peaceful or sane, and I don't think a balanced reading of history would support...
As an agnostic (as in I'm 100% sure it can't be known), I'm not convinced that a world without religion is any more peaceful or sane, and I don't think a balanced reading of history would support that it would be (at the very least, it would cast serious doubt toward such a conclusion). Religions can adapt and evolve, and you might be surprised to learn that religion in the present is sometimes more conservative than it was practiced in the past. On the whole, the whole nikab/burka situation in Europe is a complex issue, but the idea of a religious garment itself is pretty benign.
Side note: my view of how Europe should tackle the issue would be to use the education system to critique the nikab/burka as a cultural problem, not a religious one, and to place bans on all face coverings in certain public jobs. It's a very specific, cultural interpretation of Islam that views the hijab as insufficient (in fact, several Muslim-majority countries have partial bans on the nikab and burka)
Edit: does anyone know why the comment was deleted? I disagreed with the view, but it was overall a fine comment
Well, it would remove the Magic Sky Man cover that people hide behind when they are shitty. If we can remove that Ultimate Trump Card from play, then people have to justify their shittiness with a...
As an agnostic (as in I'm 100% sure it can't be known), I'm not convinced that a world without religion is any more peaceful or sane,
Well, it would remove the Magic Sky Man cover that people hide behind when they are shitty. If we can remove that Ultimate Trump Card from play, then people have to justify their shittiness with a more assailable rationale.
I think, realistically, people will wind up creating what amounts to a religion in its place (ie a system of thought based in unrefutable dogma) or entirely disregard the concept of persuasion and...
I think, realistically, people will wind up creating what amounts to a religion in its place (ie a system of thought based in unrefutable dogma) or entirely disregard the concept of persuasion and accept the premise that might is right. In practice there needs to be some balance. That exact balance might differ depending on your views, but the absolute extremes I feel are consistently shown to be catastrophic.
It doesn't stop it though. The history of self-criticism and struggle sessions in communist countries shows that ideologies can be more or less controlling and malignant without being about a...
It doesn't stop it though. The history of self-criticism and struggle sessions in communist countries shows that ideologies can be more or less controlling and malignant without being about a deity. It's about leadership and about the presence or absence of rights and about checks on authority. struggle sessions, criticism and self-criticism in marxism
You can point to malignant religious leaders and I can point to benign or beneficial ones such as Rev Desmond Tutu or the Rev Dr. Martin Luther King. Religion is a complex cultural and historical phenomenon. There have been books written about the rise of fundamentalist extremism across religions in response to the modern world, but there are equally movements within religion that are compassionate and cosmopolitan and tolerant. The more benign forms don't generate publicity as much.
I just find it odd that hijab is even classified as a religious symbol in the first place. It's something you wear because of your religion, muslim men have to wear shorts that extend past their...
I just find it odd that hijab is even classified as a religious symbol in the first place. It's something you wear because of your religion, muslim men have to wear shorts that extend past their knees, does this mean we should ban long shorts too?
In my opinion, I just don't see the difference. Perhaps because I was raised in a muslim area in a muslim family and the hijab never felt like anything out of the ordinary to me. Some women chose to wear it, others didn't, it was never an explicit sign of someones religion.
But long shorts are not exclusive to Islam. I don't agree with the ruling. In a country where Islam is a minority religion, visible demonstration of being muslim makes a public statement.
But long shorts are not exclusive to Islam.
I don't agree with the ruling.
In a country where Islam is a minority religion, visible demonstration of being muslim makes a public statement.
Headscarves are not exclusive to Islam either. I don't think saying "but today I'm wearing a non-religious headscarf" is gonna be allowed, and if it is, the law will be pretty toothless.
Headscarves are not exclusive to Islam either. I don't think saying "but today I'm wearing a non-religious headscarf" is gonna be allowed, and if it is, the law will be pretty toothless.
I am unaware of any users of daily head scarves who have secular reasons, but I suppose it could happen. I'm a lawyer. There are always edge cases. That's part of what keeps courts and judges in...
I am unaware of any users of daily head scarves who have secular reasons, but I suppose it could happen. I'm a lawyer. There are always edge cases. That's part of what keeps courts and judges in business.
There are quite a few cultures where people wear headscarves for secular reasons, like eastern Europe, west Africa, Sicily and Sardinia. And many more places have traditional attire that includes...
There are quite a few cultures where people wear headscarves for secular reasons, like eastern Europe, west Africa, Sicily and Sardinia. And many more places have traditional attire that includes some sort of head covering.
I think it's a waste of everyone's time to hash these things out in court. Your employer can't discriminate based on your religion, why should they be allowed to say how you should practice it?
In the US - which is not the EU - employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for an (1) individual’s + (2) sincerely held + (3) religious belief. So the focus is on a single,...
In the US - which is not the EU - employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for an (1) individual’s + (2) sincerely held + (3) religious belief.
So the focus is on a single, individual not a faith community generally and on that individual’s sincerely held religious beliefs.
Before Groff v. DeJoy, employees regularly got shafted because employers could argue an accommodation wasn’t reasonable, that an accommodation was an undue burden.
After Groff v. DeJoy “de minimus” is presumably dead for Title VII claims and now employees might have more successful claims because employers need to demonstrate substantial increased costs.
Anywho, for religious accommodations at work in the US, generally speaking:
the employer needs to engage in an interactive process with the employee to identify accommodations that resolve the conflict between religion and work
the employer doesn’t have to give the employee their preferred accommodation
the employer doesn’t have to provide an unreasonable accommodation, like one that’s an undue hardship
@zini, an “accommodation” for a secular practice based on cultural heritage might, maybe, possibly have a disparate treatment or disparate impact claim - depending on the facts - under a national origin discrimination theory. So even if there is a strong cultural preference for it, those generally aren’t the employees wearing them in the work place in the US when it requires an accommodation to do so.
And regardless of the employee’s intent - which is likely just to practice their sincerely held religious beliefs - it is a public statement in the US. But an individual’s actions being received as public statements isn’t an unfamiliar - and unfair - reality for minorities in the US. Even more so for individuals that run into intersectionality like a Muslim woman who chooses to wears hijab.
@Interesting, yeah. Definitely. ADA accommodations might help out folks with chemotherapy related hair loss, but I’d guess it mostly just managers not being jerks. I guess if there was anxiety or depression related to alopecia then there might a reasonable path to request an ADA accommodation.
Either way, a heard scarf - that an outside observer might perceive as hijab - is not the only solution for those individuals. Bandanas, balls caps, and wigs are easy alternatives. And none of those look like hijab. So again, even if the intent isn’t to make a public statement most observers will have a different perception.
This may be a very ignorant comment, but couldn't they just work with the religious groups to develop an acceptable standardized, work safe equivalent? Like a headscarf that is cut very close to...
This may be a very ignorant comment, but couldn't they just work with the religious groups to develop an acceptable standardized, work safe equivalent? Like a headscarf that is cut very close to the head with no trails for industrial work (that could fit very comfortably under a hardhat) or one that integrates with standard uniforms like police and fire? It kind of feels like if they can develop the Burkini, anything is possible!
Yes they absolutely can, women have been wearing hijab perfectly safely in commercial kitchens and hospitals for hundreds of years. Their problem is with the people wearing the religious clothing,...
Yes they absolutely can, women have been wearing hijab perfectly safely in commercial kitchens and hospitals for hundreds of years. Their problem is with the people wearing the religious clothing, not with the clothing itself.
I don't have an opinion one way or the other regarding this ruling, so the following isn't to sway the argument on that one way or the other. Standards vary and change over time, so saying "over...
I don't have an opinion one way or the other regarding this ruling, so the following isn't to sway the argument on that one way or the other. Standards vary and change over time, so saying "over hundreds of years" doesn't necessarily mean it aligns with perceptions of safety today. In some ways, safety is relative. Something can be perceived as safe when there's no means to do something another way, but once the means to do something another way comes around, relative to the new means, the old means no longer seems safe.
You can look at a number of regulations and standards that exist today that didn't exist years, decades or centuries ago, many often coming from advances in technology that enable safer methods of doing things, but prior to those advancements some of the older methods were regarded as "safe", relatively speaking.
Whether the perception of safety with regards to religious garments has changed is one thing, and even in the event it has, whether it should trump freedom to practice religion or to what extent is another thing.
I promise you that there is no situation or regulation that would ever make wearing hijab more dangerous than any other kind of clothing, and there are hijabi versions of basically any workwear...
I promise you that there is no situation or regulation that would ever make wearing hijab more dangerous than any other kind of clothing, and there are hijabi versions of basically any workwear you could come up with.
Also, just as eating pork is permissible to prevent death, if wearing hijab became dangerous then even the most pious muslims would not consider it mandatory.
Commercial kitchens have different safety requirements from working near equipment that might catch your clothing and suck you into a machine. But I believe it is possible.
Commercial kitchens have different safety requirements from working near equipment that might catch your clothing and suck you into a machine. But I believe it is possible.
I guess I more meant if they could professionalize it so that it is part of the uniform. That way everyone/no one is wearing something obviously religious but it still satisfies all parties. Maybe...
I guess I more meant if they could professionalize it so that it is part of the uniform. That way everyone/no one is wearing something obviously religious but it still satisfies all parties. Maybe it's a weird way to approach it.
This is a fairly disingenious title. The court has ruled that yes a ban is applicable, but only as part of a blanket ban on all religious symbols in a working place.
It still has a disproportionate impact on some groups. Orthodox Jewish men for example would be excluded from working there
If Kippas for example interfere with protective clothing, I could see it viable. I believe some other cases involved the safety of wearing headscarfs around industrial equipment. In this particular case it is the desire for a service worker of the state to appear neutral as part of a secular nation, which I can understand too.
The employer must still provide a good reason for introducing the ban.
There are arguments to be made, but it is important news.
Different article, possibly different case the independant
Industrial equipment requirements are not something I would ever question. Christians habitually remove wedding rings for work safety requirements.
In the article I just linked, one person provided child care and one worked in a supermarket.
Why is hiring (visibly) muslim employees seen as not neutral? This seems to me to be quite similar to the problems Black people have in the US wearing their hair natural, its illegal to discriminate on the basis of race so people choose race-adjacent things with which to ban and sanction people.
Regarding the portion of the comment about employers using things like hair as a legitimate non-discriminatory business reason to do something adverse:
Thankfully there’s been a lot of progress in this space in the last few years as it relates to race discrimination using hair as a proxy:
What’s the CROWN Act?
Why is it necessary?
Here’s more info about discrimination based on hair texture in the United States and natural hair discrimination
Regarding the other part and the top level comment this is under:
I’m too lazy to grab to EU Law textbook off the shelf or research this more fully, but based on my super hazy recollection of employment discrimination in the EU and this portion of the quote above - “ consistent and systematic manner” - I feel like the inquiry isn’t whether there’s a disparate impact - which it would be in the US - but whether the prohibition is uniformly applied and based on a justifiable reason.
First of all, I said banning of all religions symbols, not Muslim ones. This is also what the court order is about. Making the ban religion specific would be discrimination.
If you run a secular state then it's a viable option to order everyone executing duties in the name of said state to leave religion at home in order for the religion not to influence the state, because it wants to be secular.
But what's neutral about it? I don't understand why the appearance of employees implies anything about the employer apart from the bare minimal of tolerance (i.e., they were willing to hire the person). So when I hear that an employer wants to ban religious symbols, what I assume is that the employer doesn't want to appear tolerant of those religions.
Surely the neutral thing would be to be seen hiring anybody regardless of religion or race.
I think you are conflating who they hire and how the employees present themselves in their professional capacity.
If they banned hiring people of any religious affiliation, yes, that would be intolerant, but that is not what they are doing.
Work is, generally speaking, a religiously unaffiliated space which other people are more or less forced to come. Yes, people can be tolerant of others displaying religious affiliations, but people with religious affiliations can also be tolerant to others by not bringing such displays into such a space.
In addition, tolerance and neutrality aren't the same concepts, even if they sometimes overlap. I think a tolerant approach from a company would be to tolerate the religious expressions, while a neutral approach would be to demand the employees express themselves neutrally, not showing any affiliation of religion.
This is exactly what I don't understand, why is it not neutral for a company to have visibly religious staff?
My interpretation of neutral here is essentially, I think, "showing no affiliation".
Yes, on a company-wide level it is neutral for the company to be tolerant of all religious expressions because its policies don't make a distinction between religions. In its activities and interactions, however, it is not fully neutral, because employees representing the company may show religious affiliation. This means that in individual interactions, such as between employees or between customers and employees, the company representation may be less neutral.
In short, while an employer is working, they represent their company, and the neutral stance with respect to religion is for that employee to not show any religious affiliation.
Just to note: this itself is not an argument for whether any specific employer or employers in general should* be neutral with respect to religion. I'm just trying to clarify what I consider neutrality in this regard.
That's what I'm confused about, I don't understand why it would imply any affiliation to have employees of a particular group. I do see why a company may lose customers if it is perceived as supporting muslims, but I don't have any sympathy for companies worried about that.
I also don't see why this neutrality doesn't extend to racial or sexual minorities (or other protected groups), but only targets religion. I don't think employers would be allowed to force them to pretend to be other than they are.
In the article it says political, philosophical or religious. I don't know why the tildes discussion dropped two of those. Maybe it doesn't answer your question fully, but its not only religious symbols.
Thank you, that does make more sense. Shows that I only read the first half the article
You are again conflating "having employees of a group" and "having employees actively present themselves as members of a group". It is OK if you don't think that makes a difference to the argument, but at least recognize that that is a distinction I am making.
This is not at all related to what I was arguing. It is not whether they lose customers, it's about being able to meet customers (or citizens, residents, people in general) in a neutral fashion. If a representative of the company has a clear religious affiliation, that does reflect on the employer.
Mind, again, that I'm not arguing that this is what amy specific company should do, but if a company wants to be neutral in their representation, not representing a religion can be part of that and the neutral way to do it is to not have any perceivable, religious identification while at work.
First, what part of sexual orientation necessitates making that orientation known during most work? I don't know the sexuality of the cashier, of the waiter, of the bus driver, because why would I? Their sexuality is none of my concern. Is your experience different?
Second, sexual orientation and race do not come with inherently associated beliefs. They do not on their own imply right or wrong, other than perhaps their immediate concern (e.g. assuming that most people who are bisexual believe it is OK to be bisexual).
Third, even if race is visible, it is so by default by no choice of the person in question. It would be the difference in taking action to hide something (race) as opposed to action to actively express something (religious affiliation).
TL;DR: I do not agree that there is anything neutral about a homogenised workforce, it is a deeply fascist goal
The only distinction I see between "having employees of a group" and "having employees actively present themselves as members of a group" is its harder to come up with a plausibly deniable way to stop hiring people of colour than it is to target them by proxy by banning or limiting their cultural practices. I don't accept the distinction you're making because I don't agree that looking like the majority is "neutral" and I don't agree that companies should have the right to control their employees religious practice (esp. while freedom of religion is protected).
I know that sexual/gender minorities are harder to notice, but there are certainly actions an employee could take that would infringe upon their employer's "right to neutrality". Say, an office worker with a picture of their family on their desk or a trans person existing with their untrained voice. A trans woman who chooses to wear a beard would also threaten the neutrality of their employer.
I take issue with the fact that you can tell someone's beliefs by their religion. You can't know without talking to them that a hijabi is even religious, let alone what their specific beliefs are.
Race is more visible but we still see employers target racial minorities by proxy via banned hair styles, as I noted in an earlier comment. This isn't hypothetical, I just don't know how much the EU legal system has weighed in on it.
I don't mean to call you a fascist, I know nothing of your beliefs, but I want to be clear that: (specifically mentioning Islam and Judaism here, because those are the religions Europe has a particularly long history of targeting)
I'm going to mull this over for a while before any continuation, but please consider what you are reading into my replies that isn't there, or at least isn't intended to be there.
Nowhere have I argued against cultural expressions. The discussion was on religious neutrality, what is considered or perceived as neutral in that respect.
For the picture, a neutral stance is to not allow any pictures. A tolerant stance to allow them regardless of family composition.
For the voice, a neutral stance is to not allow anyone to speak. A tolerant stance is to allow people to speak with the voice they wish to use.
For the beard, I have a harder time identifying a neutral stance. A tolerant stance is to allow them to wear it.
I am listing this to reinforce that neutrality is not the same as tolerance, and we were discussing neutrality not tolerance.
I have not argued that. Nowhere in our discussion were we talking specifically about people wearing a hijab. We were discussing what was neutral, specifically with respect to visibly (or perceivably) religious displays.
Whether or not wearing a hijab is a (primarily/dominantly) religious display is immaterial to the categorical discussion.
And nowhere have I argued for this.
Acknowledging that I have twice stated that I am not arguing for neutrality to be used, and that I consider there to be a distinction between neutrality and tolerance, would go a long way to reinforce this.
Sorry, you did say it twice. I really don't mean to mischaracterise your views or words, I'm suffering more from poor reading comprehension. Also, a lot of what I've said is really talking past you towards the employers/politicians/voters mentioned in the article, which is not polite.
I think I now understand your distinction as you've made it here, this last message helped my understanding a lot so thank you for reiterating.
Indeed. It affects Muslims, Sikhs, Orthodox Jews... and notably not Christians.
Presumably, Christians wouldn't be able to wear something like a cross necklace under this same ban, right?
Probably depends on whether it shows to a stranger. You could work in a turtleneck and hide it.
Probably, but that's not because this is specifically excluding christians. It just so happens to be that most Christians already did away with their symbols and religion specific clothing. This would also apply to them if they'd have anything visible.
Notably, this discussion often talks about people representing the state, and wearing religious garb or symbolism is not representative of the state and goes against the separation of church and state. That argument is at the core of the issue, it's when they expand this to private companies that it starts becoming encroachment.
Exactly, and this is the point. "It just so happens" did not "just so happen": these policies are put forward by legislators who, if not Christian themselves, have grown up in cultures shaped by Christianity - they don't see anything wrong with it, because none of their clothing is associated with their religious culture.
You don't see ex. Muslim legislators calling for a ban on eating harem foods in the workplace. Arguably the consumption of pork is an expression of religion, in much the same way as the wearing of a head covering.
I think these kinds of policies come from a deep refusal of many European countries to acknowledge or accept other cultures, and I think that's a shame.
Honestly, I don’t think Europe can integrate immigrants. The national-ethnic character of basically all states means that you could’ve been born there as a child of immigrants, and people still wouldn’t accept you as French/German/Polish/etc. You see higher radicalization rates among second/third-Gen folks for precisely that reason.
The U.S., Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, and a few other places are fundamentally immigrant societies, where (nominally, at least) anyone can come and be accepted as that nationality.
The UK is an interesting edge case. I get the impression that there is discrimination but people, especially from former colonies, have been integrating there more effectively than some other European countries.
The Small Axe series focuses on the experiences of immigrants from the West Indies in London during the 60s - 80s. I haven’t watched it but I have heard about it on NPR. That’s not today, obviously, but it might provide context or a starting point for further exploration, if anyone is curious.
I think the UK just has slightly more relevant recent experience than other European countries, but I’m not convinced it’s otherwise doing better than anywhere else, like Sweden integrating Somali immigrants or Germany integrating Turkish immigrants.
Practice makes perfect, or something, hopefully?
That's a good interview, thank you!
After a year, I'm only 2 films in, because they are heavy and require both full attention and the right emotional space.
To an extent, but it’s fundamentally still a society which didn’t have a significant immigrant population until after World War II (the tidbit that most highlights this for me is that in 1950, Britain only had around 20,000 nonwhite people in it, a stark contrast to today).
I would love to hear how people with roots in India or in Hong Kong feel about this. I wish it were not so, but I think people from the West Indies might have a different experience.
But, not my area of expertise at all.
I think you're assessing this with a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of religion within European politics, especially the western European politics. By default, policy like this does not come from a place of religion since the state isn't religious.
This isn't meant to be exclusionary, it's meant to level the playing field. Nobody is stopped from practicing religion in private, but religion has no place in government (and some would argue, not in public either).
Conflating this with cultural acceptance seems strange to me too. You are free to be who you are. With or without religious background.
I challenge that. 1500 years of a Christian state1 does not one 100-year respite relieve.
The state may say it is not religious, and may strive to not be religiously influenced, but it is! When you have a government formed by Christians, run by Christians, taking cues on policy from other governments also formed and run by Christians, its policy is going to be influenced by Christianity.
I think it is leveling the playing field. But it is leveling a very specific playing field. And the only ones being leveled for it are immigrants to the EU from the Middle East. It's definitely a matter of cultural acceptance.
1 more or less, depending on where exactly in Europe
But that's my point, in principle it's not formed by Christians. It contains people of all faiths. My own government is not a Christian government.
There is a much stronger separation of church and state in most European countries than there is in the US. We had wars, revolutions, and uprisings over this stuff. It's not a change made in the past 100 years, it's a change centuries in the making even if only codified in the modern age. Not to mention Germanic/Nordic paganism being alive and well not a thousand years ago.
I truly think the misapprehension starts with assuming the church plays a large role in modern day life for the average western European citizen*. It by and large does not.
As someone from a country with the right to religious freedom in its constitution, please take it from me that this discussion does not stem from trying to exclude non Christians, it may be coopted and warped by that movement, but its roots are within the separation of church and state.
*I'm refraining from speaking beyond Western/Northern Europe on purpose. I simply do not know enough about religiosity in government past, let's say, Poland. Though I do know that Czechs are especially a-religious.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that this distinction is important too. Europe is not as monolithic and it becomes impossible to make blanket statements about cultural acceptance, religiousness, governing, and more.
I'm fully aware Hungary may be less inclined to be favourable towards immigrants than the likes of England.
That is a case of the Genetic Fallacy. Because even if all your initial statements are true, the conclusion does not automatically follow.
What? No, it's not?
If person A is Christian, are all their decisions necessarily influenced by their religion?
Because if not, then the government they form is not necessarily influenced by it either, the decisions that government makes aren't necessarily influenced by it and finally the policies it enacts aren't necessarily influenced by Christianity.
But we are talking about policies on religion.
And I would say yes regardless.
That's an interesting counter example to use, as to me they represent two very different assessments.
The goal is in these circumstances to minimize the observable religious affiliations / influences which people are exposed to. At least that is how I interpret it.
If that is the goal, then the grounds for considering whether something is not allowed under such restrictions should be something along the lines of whether
These are general criteria, whether we are talking about clothing, iconography, food, song, makeup, perfumes, or any other perceivable expression.
If 1 is not fulfilled, there is no religious connection. If 2 is not fulfilled, there's no awareness. If 3 is not fulfilled, there's no discernment.
3 is heavily dependent on circumstances. It is where cultural context* plays a role and where historically dominant religions may be likely to be more well-aligned even with the behaviour of people who are not religious particularly in regions where the religion has been dominant.
Wearing a religious head covering meets criteria 1, and definitely meets criteria 2. Whether criteria 3 is fulfilled depends on what particular head covering is being considered, and the cultural context in which it is being worn and thus may make it a complex assessment.
For eating pork, it fails already to meet criteria 1 as the religious influence is a ban on eating pork, not to actively do so. I believe it would also in many common circumstances fail criteria 2 as it is not necessarily easy to discern what type of meat someone is eating.
* That is to say, if the wearing of such a head covering is as common among people who do not follow the religion as it is among people who do (when under no duress from the religion to conform), then it may fail criteria 3 because it is no longer discernable as simply religious but has become cultural.
Where to draw that line of assessment is however not something I think has a simple answer for what's best. Assessing it from the jurisdictional area in which the law applies is simple, but if we're striving to be multi-cultural it does present a barrier for smaller cultures, and cultures with a smaller presence, to gain full equality, so to speak.
At the same time, that cultural aspect cannot be ignored, because if we do then anything any religion dictates would be necessarily disallowed by the remaining criteria, a state of affairs which is not tenable.
The crux of my argument is that this fundamentally favours Christianity. Christianity sets itself apart from Islam, and Judaism, and many smaller religions, by that there is no observable sign one is a Christian. They'd be much more likely to evangelize, but this isn't something the legislators making these laws care as much about - they're blind to it, growing up surrounded by Christianity. Approaching such matters of separation of religion by "observability" is a inequitable and discriminatory approach that states shouldn't take.
I would also note, though it's tangential to the point at hand - I do think head scarves are far too common to be treated as religious iconography, and I do think that there's no hard distinction between "religious" and "cultural". Holidays are perhaps a good example of this. It's not like European governments recognize Nowruz, they recognize Easter.
I believe the amish require headgear... but the US has many religious minorities who left Europe for reasons.
I think it becomes tricky when they don't differentiate between clothing that is mandatory for membership in your group vs other religious clothing. Sikhs and orthodox Jewish men would be 100 percent excluded unless they wish to become apostate. I don't know enough about Islam to say anything intelligent.
This rule seems not to. If an employer wants to exclude any visible religious symbols, my understanding is they must exclude them all.
Monks won't seek employment, but that may reinforce the isolation of other communities.
I mean, there are some Roman Catholic religious communities I am aware of where members work in the community, but I don't think the hospitals or schools or charities they choose would exclude them like that.
The state shouldn't be concerning itself with what kinds of hats citizens want to wear. Not a great look for the EU that this 'issue' never seems to go away
This isn't the state going "religios symbols are illegal" this is the state saying "An employer can introduce a blanket ban on religios symbols at a place of work if they have good reason for it."
I agree with you. I would have more sympathy for a rule that says its ok to require that you show your face.
As an agnostic (as in I'm 100% sure it can't be known), I'm not convinced that a world without religion is any more peaceful or sane, and I don't think a balanced reading of history would support that it would be (at the very least, it would cast serious doubt toward such a conclusion). Religions can adapt and evolve, and you might be surprised to learn that religion in the present is sometimes more conservative than it was practiced in the past. On the whole, the whole nikab/burka situation in Europe is a complex issue, but the idea of a religious garment itself is pretty benign.
Side note: my view of how Europe should tackle the issue would be to use the education system to critique the nikab/burka as a cultural problem, not a religious one, and to place bans on all face coverings in certain public jobs. It's a very specific, cultural interpretation of Islam that views the hijab as insufficient (in fact, several Muslim-majority countries have partial bans on the nikab and burka)
Edit: does anyone know why the comment was deleted? I disagreed with the view, but it was overall a fine comment
Well, it would remove the Magic Sky Man cover that people hide behind when they are shitty. If we can remove that Ultimate Trump Card from play, then people have to justify their shittiness with a more assailable rationale.
I think, realistically, people will wind up creating what amounts to a religion in its place (ie a system of thought based in unrefutable dogma) or entirely disregard the concept of persuasion and accept the premise that might is right. In practice there needs to be some balance. That exact balance might differ depending on your views, but the absolute extremes I feel are consistently shown to be catastrophic.
It doesn't stop it though. The history of self-criticism and struggle sessions in communist countries shows that ideologies can be more or less controlling and malignant without being about a deity. It's about leadership and about the presence or absence of rights and about checks on authority.
struggle sessions,
criticism and self-criticism in marxism
You can point to malignant religious leaders and I can point to benign or beneficial ones such as Rev Desmond Tutu or the Rev Dr. Martin Luther King. Religion is a complex cultural and historical phenomenon. There have been books written about the rise of fundamentalist extremism across religions in response to the modern world, but there are equally movements within religion that are compassionate and cosmopolitan and tolerant. The more benign forms don't generate publicity as much.
I just find it odd that hijab is even classified as a religious symbol in the first place. It's something you wear because of your religion, muslim men have to wear shorts that extend past their knees, does this mean we should ban long shorts too?
In my opinion, I just don't see the difference. Perhaps because I was raised in a muslim area in a muslim family and the hijab never felt like anything out of the ordinary to me. Some women chose to wear it, others didn't, it was never an explicit sign of someones religion.
But long shorts are not exclusive to Islam.
I don't agree with the ruling.
In a country where Islam is a minority religion, visible demonstration of being muslim makes a public statement.
Head coverings aren't exclusive to Islam either and I don't agree that visibly being religious is a public statement.
I don't think we can control what others interpret as a public statement. But Tildes is nice in that we can disagree and get along mostly.
Headscarves are not exclusive to Islam either. I don't think saying "but today I'm wearing a non-religious headscarf" is gonna be allowed, and if it is, the law will be pretty toothless.
I am unaware of any users of daily head scarves who have secular reasons, but I suppose it could happen. I'm a lawyer. There are always edge cases. That's part of what keeps courts and judges in business.
There are quite a few cultures where people wear headscarves for secular reasons, like eastern Europe, west Africa, Sicily and Sardinia. And many more places have traditional attire that includes some sort of head covering.
I think it's a waste of everyone's time to hash these things out in court. Your employer can't discriminate based on your religion, why should they be allowed to say how you should practice it?
I've seen people that have recently undergone chemotherapy wear a headscarf. Same for women with alopecia or tritchtillomania.
In the US - which is not the EU - employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for an (1) individual’s + (2) sincerely held + (3) religious belief.
So the focus is on a single, individual not a faith community generally and on that individual’s sincerely held religious beliefs.
Before Groff v. DeJoy, employees regularly got shafted because employers could argue an accommodation wasn’t reasonable, that an accommodation was an undue burden.
After Groff v. DeJoy “de minimus” is presumably dead for Title VII claims and now employees might have more successful claims because employers need to demonstrate substantial increased costs.
Anywho, for religious accommodations at work in the US, generally speaking:
EEOC Guidance on Religious Accommodations
@zini, an “accommodation” for a secular practice based on cultural heritage might, maybe, possibly have a disparate treatment or disparate impact claim - depending on the facts - under a national origin discrimination theory. So even if there is a strong cultural preference for it, those generally aren’t the employees wearing them in the work place in the US when it requires an accommodation to do so.
And regardless of the employee’s intent - which is likely just to practice their sincerely held religious beliefs - it is a public statement in the US. But an individual’s actions being received as public statements isn’t an unfamiliar - and unfair - reality for minorities in the US. Even more so for individuals that run into intersectionality like a Muslim woman who chooses to wears hijab.
@Interesting, yeah. Definitely. ADA accommodations might help out folks with chemotherapy related hair loss, but I’d guess it mostly just managers not being jerks. I guess if there was anxiety or depression related to alopecia then there might a reasonable path to request an ADA accommodation.
Either way, a heard scarf - that an outside observer might perceive as hijab - is not the only solution for those individuals. Bandanas, balls caps, and wigs are easy alternatives. And none of those look like hijab. So again, even if the intent isn’t to make a public statement most observers will have a different perception.
This may be a very ignorant comment, but couldn't they just work with the religious groups to develop an acceptable standardized, work safe equivalent? Like a headscarf that is cut very close to the head with no trails for industrial work (that could fit very comfortably under a hardhat) or one that integrates with standard uniforms like police and fire? It kind of feels like if they can develop the Burkini, anything is possible!
Yes they absolutely can, women have been wearing hijab perfectly safely in commercial kitchens and hospitals for hundreds of years. Their problem is with the people wearing the religious clothing, not with the clothing itself.
I don't have an opinion one way or the other regarding this ruling, so the following isn't to sway the argument on that one way or the other. Standards vary and change over time, so saying "over hundreds of years" doesn't necessarily mean it aligns with perceptions of safety today. In some ways, safety is relative. Something can be perceived as safe when there's no means to do something another way, but once the means to do something another way comes around, relative to the new means, the old means no longer seems safe.
You can look at a number of regulations and standards that exist today that didn't exist years, decades or centuries ago, many often coming from advances in technology that enable safer methods of doing things, but prior to those advancements some of the older methods were regarded as "safe", relatively speaking.
Whether the perception of safety with regards to religious garments has changed is one thing, and even in the event it has, whether it should trump freedom to practice religion or to what extent is another thing.
I promise you that there is no situation or regulation that would ever make wearing hijab more dangerous than any other kind of clothing, and there are hijabi versions of basically any workwear you could come up with.
Also, just as eating pork is permissible to prevent death, if wearing hijab became dangerous then even the most pious muslims would not consider it mandatory.
Commercial kitchens have different safety requirements from working near equipment that might catch your clothing and suck you into a machine. But I believe it is possible.
I guess I more meant if they could professionalize it so that it is part of the uniform. That way everyone/no one is wearing something obviously religious but it still satisfies all parties. Maybe it's a weird way to approach it.