The top European Union court ruled on Tuesday that public authorities in member states can prohibit employees from wearing signs of religious belief, such as an Islamic head scarf, in the latest decision on an issue that has divided Europe for years.

The case came to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) after an employee of the eastern Belgian municipality of Ans was told she could not wear an Islamic head scarf at work.

  • @xkforce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    191 year ago

    How does wearing a scarf inhibit these employees’ ability to do their job? It is one thing if they posed a valid safety concern i.e theyre working around machinery that the scarf could get caught in but thats not the case here the vast vast majority of the time.

    • Norgur
      link
      fedilink
      271 year ago

      That’s not what they are talking about. Basically, you can go two routes when ensuring that the state stays neutral in religious matters
      You can go the US route and allow exceptions for anyone to live their religion (which leads to the aforementioned issues), or you can go down the route the EU court has just ruled alongside, which is “the state does not give a fuck about your religion”, thus not granting any exceptions from workplace rules for religions at all. In botn cases, the state does not favour any religion or oppress anyone.

      • @captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        91 year ago

        There is a third route, and that’s what the US actually does. You’re allowed to follow your religion within the requirements of the job. If you won’t issue gay marriage licenses, that’s cool but you can’t accept a job that requires issuing marriage licenses. Mormons and Muslims alike aren’t allowed to refuse to issue liquor licenses. But if a Muslim wants to wear hijab while issuing liquor licenses then they’re protected from persecution based on religion.

        Christians keep trying to push the limits here and sometimes they get their way, but that’s part of our decent into christofascism, not the way we run our country

        • Norgur
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          No, it’s not imho. For there to be a middle ground, there would have to be comparable things across religions or any ruling would become unfair. Think about it: You allow religiously motivated head scarfs. Now some really, really old school Christian comes in and wants to wear their penitential robe to work. Now, of course the orthodox jews want to wear their clothing as well, but their locks are dangerous at the worksite because they might get caught in some hard hat or something and you can’t allow that. Now Christians and Muslims have a permission the Jews don’t get. What do you give to the Jews instead? And if you give them something else, the others will claim they want something along those lines as well. So in order for the state to stay neutral in religious quesions, there are only two possibilities: Allow it all, or grant no special status whatsoever.

          • darq
            link
            fedilink
            91 year ago

            If there isn’t a specific reason that something cannot be worn, such as a safety concern or an obstruction to others, then it should be allowed by default. A headscarf doesn’t affect anyone. Same way a kippah doesn’t affect anyone.

            That is completely non-comparable to denying someone service on the basis of religion. And the idea that the only two options are allow religious people to discriminate on the basis of their religion, or ban all clothing that indicates religion, is a false dichotomy.

            • Norgur
              link
              fedilink
              01 year ago

              I think we have an issue at the very start. The underlying motive is: The state cannot be biased towards any religion whatsoever. Now there is a rule that employees aren’t allowed to wear head coverings at work (for whatever reason)

              So if one religion is allowed to claim special status for their head covering (Head scarf), can an orthodox jew wear their hat? Can someone believing in druidism wear antlers to work?

              And what is with people who happen to have no religion they believe in. Why are they granted less rights by the state than the religious people?

              So: Which other possibilities does a state have to resolve this besides
              a) allow it all
              b) deny “religion” as justification for any exceptions (Meaning “you cannot cite religious reasons for anything”)

              To be clear here: the second option is not “ban religious symbols alltogether”, it’s “we have our rules, there is no way for you to get an exception with the reason ‘religion’”

              • darq
                link
                fedilink
                81 year ago

                Now there is a rule that employees aren’t allowed to wear head coverings at work (for whatever reason)

                And maybe that rule is the stupid one.

                So if one religion is allowed to claim special status for their head covering (Head scarf), can an orthodox jew wear their hat? Can someone believing in druidism wear antlers to work?

                Except it isn’t necessarily claiming a special status.

                The argument can simply be that the headwear ban should be removed, unless there is good reason for it. So yes, anyone can wear any headwear, so long as it doesn’t interfere with the task at hand or other people. The antlers would probably fall afoul of those requirements.

                And what is with people who happen to have no religion they believe in. Why are they granted less rights by the state than the religious people?

                They wouldn’t be. The removal of a ban doesn’t somehow mean that atheists have fewer rights. They’d be allowed to wear their desired headwear too.

                So: Which other possibilities does a state have to resolve this besides

                Still a false dichotomy here.

                To be clear here: the second option is not “ban religious symbols alltogether”, it’s “we have our rules, there is no way for you to get an exception with the reason ‘religion’”

                The option is not to allow “religion” to be used as an exception, but rather set rules that are permissive to everyone, including religious people, within the limits of the task at hand and inconvenience to other people.

                A headwear ban is pretty clearly discriminatory towards Muslim people, and probably also to certain Jewish people though I’m not 100% sure of that. The goal should not be to give them exceptions, but rather rethink the headwear rule.

                • Norgur
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -11 year ago

                  What you are describing is my variant number 2. If the rule by itself is dumb or not is another matter.
                  I tried to describe my second path poorly perhaps. Let’s try with a made up dialogue.

                  First variant how a state can be fair towards all religions:
                  Employee: Hey boss, I want an exception for the “no hats” rule because a head scarf is my religion
                  Boss: Of course, “religion” is always a valid reason to get an exception, since I can’t judge how much we’d interfere with your religion if we deny that

                  Second variant:
                  Employee: Hey boss, I want an exception for the “no hats” rule because a head scarf is my religion
                  Boss: Your religion you say? Yeah, that’s not anything we care about, honestly. If your head scarf had a medical use, there’d be an exception, but “religion” is not what we accept. You cannot be allowed to wear a headdress because “it’s your religion”, our rules apply to everyone equally.

                  • darq
                    link
                    fedilink
                    61 year ago

                    If the rule by itself is dumb or not is another matter.

                    No. It’s not another matter. It’s the entire matter. That’s my point.

                    I know what I described is your second option. But I’m deliberately putting the focus on the original rule, because that is where the problem lies.

                    The rule disproportionately affects people who wear headwear. The rule basically makes that job inaccessible to those whose religion requires headwear. The rule is discriminatory in its effect, even if not in its wording or intention. So the appropriate action is to rethink the rule. If there is no strong reason why the rule exists, and it has these discriminatory effects, then the rule should change.

          • @captainlezbian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 year ago

            Or place reasonable scrutiny. “You can wear yarmulkes but no hair can extend below X location, the same applies for everyone and to head coverings. Also no flowing clothes for similar reasons this is a worksite and safety regulations must take precedence over religious garb”

        • Norgur
          link
          fedilink
          111 year ago

          So “no state employee may wear religious symbols whatsoever” is “oppression” to you? How?

            • Norgur
              link
              fedilink
              41 year ago

              yes. and they do not give a fuck either way. Be religious, be not religious, we don’t care. Besides, the court’s ruling is in the article, so I assumed people knew what was up and thus would detect my hyperbole as such.

      • @otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        “We don’t care about your religion, but we DO care about requiring you to show your hair” seems like a silly stance to take…

        • @bingbong@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          71 year ago

          Because it is, and the commenter you are replying to is making it seem like it’s even remotely comparable to denying service to someone because of religious conviction (eg. Denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple).

          Except it’s not, unless people are somehow offended by a woman covering her hair.

        • @EatYouWell@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -21 year ago

          It’s not uncommon for a specific case to set a larger legal precedent; it’s basically how the USSC works.

          Yes, this particular case is about a head covering, but the ruling applies to visible religious paraphernalia in general.

      • @Not_mikey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        It does, it just favors the dominant ethno-religous complex. Much of the western proffesional dress code has basis in christian ideals of modesty. These cultural signifiers don’t occur to us though as they’re so normalized. If you came to work dressed like Angela from the office you wouldn’t be cited because the dress code was written with that attire in mind and people view it as normal. You’ll be cited if you violate those ideas of modesty, eg. Showing midriff, or having different views on modesty, eg. A head scarf.

        If you want to say it’s completely neutral you’ll have to exorcise all christian biases and assumptions from western culture, which they dont seem to be doing here.

    • @yggdar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 year ago

      One of the arguments that gets used is that the employees should look neutral. For example, if you want to get your gender changed you might not be comfortable with someone who is visibly associated with a religion that disproves of gender changes.

      • @xkforce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That is a valid argument. But given the lack of sympathy and support for the LGBT community otherwise, it is highly unlikely to be a major motivation. And the thing I wonder is whether this is or was also enforced on other religious symbols or is this specific to this particular one. If the former then it is consistent policy but if it is the latter that is another story.