/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Belgian City Bans Hijab



Hashim_507
11-28-2007, 04:18 PM
BRUSSELS — Ghent City, Belgium's third largest, has decided to prohibit civil servants who were with the public from donning hijab.
"It is really not clear who counts as an employee in contact with the public, but we will have to carry it out," a city spokesman told Reuters on Wednesday, November 28.

The city council voted the ban with 26 in favor and 23 other against.

The spokesman said hijab-clad employees might be offered work elsewhere.

Teachers and police officers will be exempted from the hijab ban.

Belgium's second city Antwerp banned the Muslim headscarf earlier this year.

Islam sees hijab as an obligatory code of dress, not a religious symbol displaying one’s affiliations.

Hijab has been thrust into the limelight since the 2004 French ban on the Muslim headscarf at public schools and institutions.

Several European countries have since followed the French lead.

Belgian Muslims are estimated at 450,000 – out of a 10-million-population – about half of them are from Moroccan origin, while 120,000 are from Turkish origin.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...News/NWELayout
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Malaikah
11-29-2007, 10:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hashim_507
Islam sees hijab as an obligatory code of dress, not a religious symbol displaying one’s affiliations.
:sl:

I was just thinking, finally a journalist makes the distinction... until I realised it was from an Islamic website anyway.:-\
Reply

chacha_jalebi
11-29-2007, 10:02 PM
:mmokay:
Reply

wilberhum
11-29-2007, 10:55 PM
I always like Real News sources.

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/stor...005361,00.html

BELGIUM'S third largest city Ghent has banned its employees from wearing Muslim headscarves and other religious or political symbols.

All city personnel, such as librarians and child care workers, will not be allowed to wear such garments or symbols if they come into contact with the public, a city spokesman said.

Similar measures have been imposed in other European countries like France, where there are growing numbers of Muslim immigrants.

The measures are controversial. Supporters say they help Muslim immigrant women better integrate in their host countries, while opponents say they are discriminatory.

The council voted 26 to 23 yesterday for the ban, with the Liberals, Christian Democrats and far-right Vlaams Belang in favour and the socialists and Greens against.

“It is really not clear who counts as an employee in contact with the public, but we will have to carry it out,” said the spokesman.

The city has 4700 employees and is aware of two women wearing headscarves who work on counters dealing with the public. It was possible they might be offered work elsewhere, the spokesman said.

The ban would not affect teachers and police officers.

Ghent follows Belgium's second city Antwerp, which banned its workers from wearing headscarves and religious wear earlier this year.

Antwerp has since said Muslim women in nurseries would be allowed to cover their heads with bandanas instead.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
chosen
11-29-2007, 11:11 PM
This is one of the main reasons why I love living in America..We have true freedom of religion..This would never happen in an american city. I think one religion should never be put over any other religion..if they can ban Hijaab..what is next banning the wearing of crosses or the star of David..there will never be world peace as long as there is discrimination in religion..
Reply

chosen
11-29-2007, 11:13 PM
There have been several cases in America where muslims and shieks have been told they could nt wear there religous dress...these employeers are immediatley sued..and never win..it is just not allowed in america
Reply

Keltoi
11-29-2007, 11:14 PM
Well, one either works on the assumption that this law was passed as a result of discrimination and religious intolerance, or on the assumption that it is just secularism gone mad. Either way it is a bad law.
Reply

wilberhum
11-29-2007, 11:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by chosen
This is one of the main reasons why I love living in America..We have true freedom of religion..This would never happen in an american city. I think one religion should never be put over any other religion..if they can ban Hijaab..what is next banning the wearing of crosses or the star of David..there will never be world peace as long as there is discrimination in religion..
Try reading again. I think the "Star of David" would qualify as a religious symbol.

But I do like freedom of religion and I don't like the ban.

But you will find most that compalin only want religious freedom when they benifit from it.
Reply

chosen
11-29-2007, 11:22 PM
Could be secularism gone mad..never really though of it that way..but why target one religion and the way they dress..and muslim dress isnt really a religious symbol..a scarf is an article of clothes..not a religious symbol..just between you and me my grandmother, who is christian wears a scarf on her head everyday...
Reply

Thanaa
11-29-2007, 11:24 PM
They talk about helping women to integrate..because they assume all Muslim women in the area to be immigrants.
How rude.
Its just dicrimination against Muslims in general, especially when they only have 2 employees who wear it!
Theres no way that If a ban came to Britain, that Id observe it. Im British through and through, and noone has the right to decide what a free British woman wears or does not wear.
Reply

wilberhum
11-29-2007, 11:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by chosen
Could be secularism gone mad..never really though of it that way..but why target one religion and the way they dress..and muslim dress isnt really a religious symbol..a scarf is an article of clothes..not a religious symbol..just between you and me my grandmother, who is christian wears a scarf on her head everyday...
Nock Nock. :muddlehea Go read the real article. Not the Islamonline one.

The target is religious or political symbols.
That would cover waring a big cross outside your shirt to.
Reply

جوري
11-29-2007, 11:26 PM
I have to agree that Europe is not like the U.S.. U.S is fairly conservative and puritanical still-- I hope that doesn't change..

freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion.. secularism is becoming a doctrine all its own, with hyper vigilant disciples who want to do away with centuries long traditions... You can't force people to consent to this brand of thought!

what a crying shame---
Reply

NoName55
11-29-2007, 11:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by chosen
Could be secularism gone mad..never really though of it that way..but why target one religion and the way they dress..and Muslim dress isn't really a religious symbol..a scarf is an article of clothes..not a religious symbol..just between you and me my grandmother, who is christian wears a scarf on her head everyday...
had you visited north of England during 50s, you would have had difficulty finding English women without a headscarf

wa salam (peace)
Reply

wilberhum
11-29-2007, 11:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thanaa
They talk about helping women to integrate..because they assume all Muslim women in the area to be immigrants.
How rude.
Its just dicrimination against Muslims in general, especially when they only have 2 employees who wear it!
Theres no way that If a ban came to Britain, that Id observe it. Im British through and through, and noone has the right to decide what a free British woman wears or does not wear.
Interesting, a law that covers every person of every religion is just dicrimination against Muslims in general.
Reply

Thanaa
11-29-2007, 11:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Interesting, a law that covers every person of every religion is just dicrimination against Muslims in general.
Ah, but will other people be made to take off their religious symbols, hmm?
A crucifix can be tucked in, as can a star of David.
I dont doubt that a lot of non-muslim people will be "let off", as their personal religious symbols are less obvious.
I do wonder about Sikhs though.
Reply

wilberhum
11-29-2007, 11:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thanaa
Ah, but will other people be made to take off their religious symbols, hmm?
A crucifix can be tucked in, as can a star of David.
I dont doubt that a lot of non-muslim people will be "let off", as their personal religious symbols are less obvious.
I do wonder about Sikhs though.
So you assume that the law will be enforced only on a decimator basis.

That seams a bit paranoid.
Reply

chosen
11-29-2007, 11:46 PM
but again head scarves are not worn by muslims only..and they are not always worn for religious reasons ..so to ban them is crazy...and beyond that many muslim women will not take off their headscarves..so if they are banned in the workplace or anywhere else, you are making impossible for them to earn a living and do day to day activities..no one should tell another human being what they should or should not wear..
Reply

wilberhum
11-29-2007, 11:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by chosen
but again head scarves are not worn by muslims only
Not true. Head scarves are worn by many.
..and they are not always worn for religious reasons
True, thats why Head scarves are worn by many
..so to ban them is crazy..
Now that I have agree with that.
.and beyond that many muslim women will not take off their headscarves..so if they are banned in the workplace or anywhere else,
Why do you keep acting like the law covers things it does not cover. The law covers city personnel only.
you are making impossible for them to earn a living and do day to day activities..
Again, I do not support the law, but making false statements only makes things worse.
no one should tell another human being what they should or should not wear..
Well I have to agree with that one too. Maybe you should tell Iran that too.
Man you need to reread. Or did you ever read it in the first place?
Reply

chosen
11-30-2007, 12:10 AM
city personnel are workers..how can you ban a city worker from comming to work..that is what you are effectively doing when you tell a religious person they can not show up wearing a headscarf..as far as whats next and me acting like this law covers things it doesnt...if the city personel can not wear headscarfs..how long before they are banned from city schools and gathering?????the goverment has no businness sticking there noses into this situation.
Reply

chosen
11-30-2007, 12:12 AM
as far as Iran is concerned..I think they are wrong too..arresting women for not dressing islamically...the parent sof those girls in many instances were outraged.they felt like there was nothing wrong with the way there daughters were dressed....but you can not point to the situation in iran to justify this...two wrongs do not make a right..
Reply

wilberhum
11-30-2007, 12:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by chosen
city personnel are workers..how can you ban a city worker from comming to work..that is what you are effectively doing when you tell a religious person they can not show up wearing a headscarf..as far as whats next and me acting like this law covers things it doesnt...if the city personel can not wear headscarfs..how long before they are banned from city schools and gathering?????the goverment has no businness sticking there noses into this situation.
Good questions, you should ask the city government.
Reply

wilberhum
11-30-2007, 12:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by chosen
as far as Iran is concerned..I think they are wrong too..arresting women for not dressing islamically...the parent sof those girls in many instances were outraged.they felt like there was nothing wrong with the way there daughters were dressed....but you can not point to the situation in iran to justify this...two wrongs do not make a right..
Lets see, how many times did I say I thought the law was wrong?
Let me go have a look.
<<some time passes>>
Twice. Further evidence you don't read.

I was only pointing out that dress laws are not limited to a Belgian city.

That must have been too deep a thought. :muddlehea

The true irony is that most people only want to address the side that offends them and could care less about the other side.
Reply

sevgi
11-30-2007, 12:32 AM
amid the personal feuds in progress within this thread, id like to have a little rant...

regardless of the fact that either of the articles do not illuminate the justification for the ban, it has been stated that immigrant muslim women could better integrate into the culture of their new land.

for starters, im sick of this 'idea' of national identity. what identity are we talking abt? which borders? what cultures? these countries need to realise that they have developed enough for people to want to live in their country. they are good enough, globalised enough and ideal enough for people to get up and say " i want to leave my own country...and start a new life here"...they need to see that their nations are becoming increasingly multiCULTURAL...i'd like to pose the notion that perhaps their ideologies and laws begin to reflect this. u have physically embraced these people and benefit from their input, whatever they may do for a living, but u refuse to establish a grounds for free-living in terms of the actual culture....

in this case i'd like to argue that belgian culture is anything but distinct. western culture is anything mainstream....what are u trying to protect? whose culture are u trying to integrate the immigrants into? why cant they see that these people have taken that big step by simply moving away from their own homes...they are ready to embrace what the western culture has to offer...coz it is better than their own. they just wanna dress diffrently.

what will happen to the migrant muslim men? most hijabi women wear western clothes anyway..they just wear an extra peice of cloth on their head. i dnt understand how this can be a threat to the culture of a country.women who are undetermined to embrace the dress sense and culture of their new country wont leave their home anyway..they wont go out seeking work in the 'big western world'. the ones out there looking for work in public offices etc are the ones ready to adapt and adopt...with respect to their own virtues and rights.

untill their are stupidly taken away.
Reply

sevgi
11-30-2007, 12:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum

The true irony is that most people only want to address the side that offends them and could care less about the other side.
thats true wilber...but i think there are instances where ppl adress the side which they see as being logical...offended or not...i dnt know abt the bloke above, bt i think that looking at the side which offends you is anal...unless u are refuting or ranting...

:)
Reply

Keltoi
11-30-2007, 12:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by sumeyye
amid the personal feuds in progress within this thread, id like to have a little rant...

regardless of the fact that either of the articles do not illuminate the justification for the ban, it has been stated that immigrant muslim women could better integrate into the culture of their new land.

for starters, im sick of this 'idea' of national identity. what identity are we talking abt? which borders? what cultures? these countries need to realise that they have developed enough for people to want to live in their country. they are good enough, globalised enough and ideal enough for people to get up and say " i want to leave my own country...and start a new life here"...they need to see that their nations are becoming increasingly multiCULTURAL...i'd like to pose the notion that perhaps their ideologies and laws begin to reflect this. u have physically embraced these people and benefit from their input, whatever they may do for a living, but u refuse to establish a grounds for free-living in terms of the actual culture....

in this case i'd like to argue that belgian culture is anything but distinct. western culture is anything mainstream....what are u trying to protect? whose culture are u trying to integrate the immigrants into? why cant they see that these people have taken that big step by simply moving away from their own homes...they are ready to embrace what the western culture has to offer...coz it is better than their own. they just wanna dress diffrently.

what will happen to the migrant muslim men? most hijabi women wear western clothes anyway..they just wear an extra peice of cloth on their head. i dnt understand how this can be a threat to the culture of a country.women who are undetermined to embrace the dress sense and culture of their new country wont leave their home anyway..they wont go out seeking work in the 'big western world'. the ones out there looking for work in public offices etc are the ones ready to adapt and adopt...with respect to their own virtues and rights.

untill their are stupidly taken away.
Well, I'm not sure this is the same issue as the one in question, but I think it would be a mistake to assume the "West" doesn't have a cultural identity. They very much do. The French are almost as xenophobic as the Japanese, but there are many more people trying to get into France than Japan. Part of Western culture these days is secularism, love it or hate it. Part of adapting to life in the West is coming to terms with secularism.

That being said, I don't think this Belgian law has anything to do with protecting a culture, but more to do with secularism.
Reply

sevgi
11-30-2007, 12:42 AM
[QUOTE=Keltoi;874496]Well, I'm not sure this is the same issue as the one in question, but I think it would be a mistake to assume the "West" doesn't have a cultural identity. They very much do. The French are almost as xenophobic as the Japanese, but there are many more people trying to get into France than Japan. Part of Western culture these days is secularism, love it or hate it. Part of adapting to life in the West is coming to terms with secularism.

That being said, I don't think this Belgian law has anything to do with protecting a culture, but more to do with secularism.[/QUOTE]

lol...

i did state that the west had a culture..."anything mainstream"...

so then wat do u think secularism is abt...?
Reply

wilberhum
11-30-2007, 12:50 AM
sumeyye,
Excellent points. But!
(There are always buts)
IMHO these things occur because multi-culturalism does not work without integration and assimilation.

Often immigrants will not integrate. I think far too frequently it is based on the concept that the culture of there new home is inferior to there old.

Until we accept “Others” as different but equal we will continue to have these problems.

It is obvious to me that most of these problems are targeted towards Muslims.
Far or not, things like the Teddy Bear sh** in Sudan, 9/11, and 7/7 make many Westerners fearful of Islam and anything related to it.

Hopefully some day we will all get along, but I doubt it.
Reply

wilberhum
11-30-2007, 12:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by sumeyye
thats true wilber...but i think there are instances where ppl adress the side which they see as being logical...offended or not...i dnt know abt the bloke above, bt i think that looking at the side which offends you is anal...unless u are refuting or ranting...

:)
Now if you look back, I never supported the law. In fact, multiple times, I said I didn't.

So which side offends me? Both. I find is just as offensive that one is forced to ware one as I am when one if forced not to. In fact I have said so before.

My major attack is against making false statements or distorting what the law says to fit another agenda.
Reply

sevgi
11-30-2007, 12:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
sumeyye,
Excellent points. But!
(There are always buts)
IMHO these things occur because multi-culturalism does not work without integration and assimilation.

Often immigrants will not integrate. I think far too frequently it is based on the concept that the culture of there new home is inferior to there old.

Until we accept “Others” as different but equal we will continue to have these problems.

It is obvious to me that most of these problems are targeted towards Muslims.
Far or not, things like the Teddy Bear sh** in Sudan, 9/11, and 7/7 make many Westerners fearful of Islam and anything related to it.

Hopefully some day we will all get along, but I doubt it.
thanks...

i think what i was trying to say is that the immigrants who dnt want to assimilate are the ones who stay at home anyway..they arent the ones out there trying to get into the public sphere where the hijab has been banned...

it just isnt fair...and it upsets me. i love my country. u know that. and regradless of the fact that i am not an immigrant, if the hijab ban is implemented here, i am obliged to comply.

the issue isnt only with immigrants. there are many natives who accept islam...and many natives with differing ethnicities...whom are very much 'western'...

i dno...:)
Reply

Keltoi
11-30-2007, 12:59 AM
[QUOTE=sumeyye;874502]
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Well, I'm not sure this is the same issue as the one in question, but I think it would be a mistake to assume the "West" doesn't have a cultural identity. They very much do. The French are almost as xenophobic as the Japanese, but there are many more people trying to get into France than Japan. Part of Western culture these days is secularism, love it or hate it. Part of adapting to life in the West is coming to terms with secularism.

That being said, I don't think this Belgian law has anything to do with protecting a culture, but more to do with secularism.[/QUOTE]

lol...

i did state that the west had a culture..."anything mainstream"...

so then wat do u think secularism is abt...?
Anything mainstream? What does that even mean? I assume you live in the West, otherwise you wouldn't even be using the word "mainstream" in the context that you are. Or is there some larger culture out there that the West latches on to in order to join the "mainstream"?

As for what secularism "is about", it is about curbing all forms of religious faith from the public arena.
Reply

sevgi
11-30-2007, 01:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Now if you look back, I never supported the law. In fact, multiple times, I said I didn't.

So which side offends me? Both. I find is just as offensive that one is forced to ware one as I am when one if forced not to. In fact I have said so before.

My major attack is against making false statements or distorting what the law says to fit another agenda.
i agree...

and i was taking on a general stance..not speaking abt this thread or ur take on the issue...:)
Reply

sevgi
11-30-2007, 01:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi

Anything mainstream? What does that even mean? I assume you live in the West, otherwise you wouldn't even be using the word "mainstream" in the context that you are. Or is there some larger culture out there that the West latches on to in order to join the "mainstream"?

As for what secularism "is about", it is about curbing all forms of religious faith from the public arena.
im really not terming myself well at all today. i appologise...

anything mainstream is the culture being generated through globalisation, westernisation and 'Americanisation' of the world.

as for my second point...what i meant was 'what is the purpose for secularism if it isnt for maintaining and protecting culture? (i mean its initial purpose)...
Reply

KAding
11-30-2007, 02:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by chosen
city personnel are workers..how can you ban a city worker from comming to work..that is what you are effectively doing when you tell a religious person they can not show up wearing a headscarf..
It's only an issue for those that interact with the public directly though, so essentially those municipal civil servants behind the counters. And those that insist on wearing religious symbols will apparently be offered positions where they aren't coming in direct contact with the public. At least, thats what the article says that wilberhum posted.

as far as whats next and me acting like this law covers things it doesnt...if the city personel can not wear headscarfs..how long before they are banned from city schools and gathering?????
Regarding schools I would agree. The next logical step would be to also insist teachers do not wear religious symbols. I'm not sure what you mean with 'gathering'?

the goverment has no businness sticking there noses into this situation.
I think the city has every right to determine dress codes for its civil servants. Not to say I agree with this dress code though.
Reply

KAding
11-30-2007, 02:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by chosen
as far as Iran is concerned..I think they are wrong too..arresting women for not dressing islamically...the parent sof those girls in many instances were outraged.they felt like there was nothing wrong with the way there daughters were dressed....but you can not point to the situation in iran to justify this...two wrongs do not make a right..
These two cases are completely incomparable though. One applies to all women in public while the latter only applies to a tiny segment of the population that works for the municipal government and in certain positions. No one is forced to work for the municipal government.

It is not allowed to hang a cross on the wall in a municipal building and neither is it allowed to visibly wear one as a civil servant while in direct contact with the public. Similar dress codes have been in place in courtrooms for many many years now, to avoid any suggestions of bias on behalf of the civil servants.
Reply

wilberhum
11-30-2007, 05:40 PM
The think that bothers me about this kind of reporting is that reason for the new laws are not given. Truly a case of under reporting.

Why did the city pass the law?
Maybe one day they set back and said “Lets PO some people”. Or “How about creating some laws that show bias?”.

Maybe, but I don’t think so. Surly there was a problem and they were trying to solve it.

Does anyone know?
(The paranoid and those suffering from a persecution complex need not answer.)
Reply

KAding
12-01-2007, 10:49 AM
It is also important to realize that this law is not just about religious symbols. All ideological (political, but even philosophical) symbols are banned as well. So that would include, say, a hammer and sickle, labor unions icons, the shield of your favorite football club or ribbons of many kinds.
Reply

Bittersteel
12-01-2007, 11:01 AM
How many Muslim women are really religious in the west/Europe?UK aside I haven't seen Muslim women abroad being so religious.
Reply

aamirsaab
12-01-2007, 12:02 PM
:sl:
Isn't Belgian supposed to be secular?
Oh wait, I forgot secular now means banning of religion.
Silly me.
Reply

KAding
12-01-2007, 12:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aziz
How many Muslim women are really religious in the west/Europe?UK aside I haven't seen Muslim women abroad being so religious.
Well, the figures I saw is that about 24% of the Muslim women in Belgium think that women should wear a headscarf when in public. Of course, this doesn't mean that they necessarily do. 37% of the men think that Muslim women should wear a headscarf. 60% never go to a mosque. Most pray at least once a day.
Reply

Bittersteel
12-01-2007, 03:49 PM
Isn't Belgian supposed to be secular?
Oh wait, I forgot secular now means banning of religion.
Silly me.
you are mixing liberalism with secularism.Just like the Indians do.
secularism is separation of faith and state.Liberal means people are usually allowed to do whatever they want;they are granted a lot of freedoms.
Reply

aamirsaab
12-01-2007, 04:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aziz
you are mixing liberalism with secularism.Just like the Indians do.
secularism is separation of faith and state.Liberal means people are usually allowed to do whatever they want;they are granted a lot of freedoms.
I'm not mixing anything, I was being sarcastic.
You said it yourself: secularism is seperation of faith and state. What is happening though is abolishment of faith by the state.

The whole point of secularism was to prevent one religion being promoted more than another. In America where it started, the purpose of it was to prevent Churches being funded by the government so as not to be biased - thereby enabling complete freedom of choice, atleast in regards to religion. It's modern meaning is considerably different to what it used to stand for. Shame really.

And so the endless circle of irony (or bull crap) of mankind continues through the new millenia.
Reply

Bittersteel
12-01-2007, 05:28 PM
are crosses banned too?I wouldn't like that too but I will regard the whole thing as fair then.
Reply

Amadeus85
12-01-2007, 05:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aziz
are crosses banned too?I wouldn't like that too but I will regard the whole thing as fair then.
A cross can be hidden under clothes so its not a problem i guess.
Reply

KAding
12-01-2007, 05:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aziz
are crosses banned too?I wouldn't like that too but I will regard the whole thing as fair then.
Any religious symbol is banned yes, so that would include crosses. The dress code also includes bans of political party symbols for example. Or icons of trade unions or other organizations.
Reply

Muslim Knight
12-02-2007, 02:08 AM
My country Malaysia, it's 60% majority Malay population is pre-dominantly Muslim and our Federal Constitution says the religion of the State is Islam. However, the traffic laws of our land permit a Sikh to wear his required turban in place of helmet when riding a motorcycle, but not a Muslim man to wear his kuffiyah.

I believe there is a word called tolerance.

I wonder what Belgium hopes to accomplish by banning the hijab & other religious symbols except to draw the ire of the religious folks who coincidentally, are also human beings. What? I thought you wanted to live in peace?
Reply

Aziaf
12-02-2007, 02:44 AM
Asalamualaikum

People who chose to display their beliefs, who look different, who are different can be easily identified. Their idenity links them directly with what they believe in and this is reflected in thier views and actions.

People are more likely to notice those that feel strongly about what believe in and have chosen to reflect this by wearing a symbl of thier belief, be it religous or otherwise. They will arouse intrest and support for a group, religion and union ect will grow. (Kind of like free advertising)

By introducing such measures that remove such 'identities', it hopes to remove such differences all together to develop a uniform method of approaching an increasingly diverse large population that feels threatened by practices which it has no understanding of. Instead of adressing the issue, it is trying to submerge it.Removing things out of sight does not remove it from ones mind.

If anything should be removed, is the view that such measures are acceptable and applicable and that they will last.

Which state will adopt these measures next and for what reason, and when will it be stopped?...can it be stopped?

walaikumsalam
Reply

Suomipoika
12-02-2007, 06:56 PM
So am I to gather that state and city or the employer cant set up dresscodes on their employees? No police or nurse uniforms? Everything needs to be accepted, all sorts of political and religious ideologies, because banning any of them is wrong and infringes on various freedoms such as expression, religion and speech? I guess you all who are so outraged by dresscodes also support the right of nudist working naked in his/hers work place right next to the hijab wearing people? Or is this just one of those double standard situations where what I follow needs to be accepted but what others follow can be banned?
Reply

aamirsaab
12-02-2007, 07:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Suomipoika
So am I to gather that state and city or the employer cant set up dresscodes on their employees? No police or nurse uniforms? Everything needs to be accepted, all sorts of political and religious ideologies, because banning any of them is wrong and infringes on various freedoms such as expression, religion and speech?
Dresscodes on employees I have no problem with. But forcing someone to effectively not practice a part of their religion (this goes for all religions) in a secular country is just plain hypocrisy.

I guess you all who are so outraged by dresscodes also support the right of nudist working naked in his/hers work place right next to the hijab wearing people? Or is this just one of those double standard situations where what I follow needs to be accepted but what others follow can be banned?
I see where you are coming from but the fact is a hijab is part of Islam - nudism is not a religion but technically it would be covered by freedom of expression. However, society widely accepts that people should wear some clothing.
And we all know what society is responsible for.
Reply

wilberhum
12-02-2007, 07:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Dresscodes on employees I have no problem with. But forcing someone to effectively not practice a part of their religion (this goes for all religions) in a secular country is just plain hypocrisy.
Kind of off topic, yet kind of not.
Can a Muslim work in a hog kill plant? Can a Muslim be the one that slits them open to drain the blood?
Reply

snakelegs
12-02-2007, 07:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Suomipoika
So am I to gather that state and city or the employer cant set up dresscodes on their employees? No police or nurse uniforms? Everything needs to be accepted, all sorts of political and religious ideologies, because banning any of them is wrong and infringes on various freedoms such as expression, religion and speech? I guess you all who are so outraged by dresscodes also support the right of nudist working naked in his/hers work place right next to the hijab wearing people? Or is this just one of those double standard situations where what I follow needs to be accepted but what others follow can be banned?
do you also think jews should be forbidden to wear yarmulke and sikhs should be forbidden to wear turban?
Reply

جوري
12-02-2007, 08:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
do you also think jews should be forbidden to wear yarmulke and sikhs should be forbidden to wear turban?
I wonder if being a nudist is a biannual thing or happens all year long?
I'd get the urge to pass out sunblock in the summer and some bloomers and Pantaloon to the vecchi lest they die of exposure in the winter...

Such a fine line to insanity and I worry about the committee of addleheads who sit there and pass laws... We are soon to be a soceity of naked vagabonds and dirty hobos who exchane sponge baths in a caboose for tall tales!!! :-\

cheers
Reply

Suomipoika
12-02-2007, 08:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Dresscodes on employees I have no problem with. But forcing someone to effectively not practice a part of their religion (this goes for all religions) in a secular country is just plain hypocrisy.


I see where you are coming from but the fact is a hijab is part of Islam - nudism is not a religion but technically it would be covered by freedom of expression. However, society widely accepts that people should wear some clothing.
And we all know what society is responsible for.
Except thats not really true. The people affected by this can find another job. It might sound cruel, but everybody else has to choose based on their ideology whether working somewhere and if butter on bread is more important than what they believe in.

Personally I have really big problem with placing religions over other ideologies as the one that gives you freepass to bend the rules.

Societies (atleast in Europe) are also slowly starting to accept that religious symbols and garments dont belong to the school or work place.

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
do you also think jews should be forbidden to wear yarmulke and sikhs should be forbidden to wear turban?
I think employer can set up dresscodes he or she chooses to, people who want to work there have to choose whats more important to them, ideology or job.
Reply

Amadeus85
12-02-2007, 08:50 PM
I dont think that people who made this law were thinking about jewish yarmulkas or christian crosses or sikhs turbans. They made it because they are islamophobes (those who fear of islam).Their major intention was to ban muslim hijabs in public places. It's not the first of such attempts in Europe and not last i think.
Reply

snakelegs
12-02-2007, 08:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Suomipoika

I think employer can set up dresscodes he or she chooses to, people who want to work there have to choose whats more important to them, ideology or job.
well, at least you are consistent.
i guess an employer should be free to discriminate against someone who practices their religion? (we are talking about religion, not ideology)
Reply

Suomipoika
12-02-2007, 09:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
well, at least you are consistent.
i guess an employer should be free to discriminate against someone who practices their religion? (we are talking about religion, not ideology)
Yes, the very sameway employers are free to discriminate against any other ideas people have besides religions.

What if someone starts a religion that is not illegal but practising it is clearly against good taste? Is it okay to set up rules then that discriminate against it, or are just the mainstream religions where the employer has to bend the rules?
Reply

snakelegs
12-02-2007, 09:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Suomipoika
Yes, the very sameway employers are free to discriminate against any other ideas people have besides religions.

What if someone starts a religion that is not illegal but practising it is clearly against good taste? Is it okay to set up rules then that discriminate against it, or are just the mainstream religions where the employer has to bend the rules?
good question. is there a list of approved religions? i don't know. is there a list of what is "good taste"?
i don't have the answer.
Reply

wilberhum
12-02-2007, 09:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
good question. is there a list of approved religions? i don't know. is there a list of what is "good taste"?
i don't have the answer.
Just as important, maybe more important than who is on a list of approved religions, is who creates the list.

See now if I created the list, it would be really short, like zero.

What would be the justification to be on the list?

It seems to me that the only ones qualified to create the list would be theists.
So each group would only contain one entry.
Because they know there is only one true religion, there’s.
Reply

niler
12-02-2007, 09:41 PM
i thot uk was better in terms of religous tolerance dan us?
Reply

islamiii
12-02-2007, 09:49 PM
Coz west is so coward they think a women in hijab is a terrorist .
how stupid is it?
Reply

aamirsaab
12-02-2007, 10:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Kind of off topic, yet kind of not.
Can a Muslim work in a hog kill plant? Can a Muslim be the one that slits them open to drain the blood?
Since pork is forbidden, so is anything related to it. In essence, a muslim should not be working in a hog kill plant. Though, there are exceptions in extreme cases.

format_quote Originally Posted by Suomipoika
Except thats not really true. The people affected by this can find another job. It might sound cruel, but everybody else has to choose based on their ideology whether working somewhere and if butter on bread is more important than what they believe in.
The thing is, and you rightfully say this later on, religion is being slowly kicked out of jobs all together as society is no longer accepting it. This leads to the predicament where the only jobs available are solely linked to trading or be your own boss style of work, which obviously limits the job prospects

Personally I have really big problem with placing religions over other ideologies as the one that gives you freepass to bend the rules.
Wearing a religious symbol is hardly bending the rules. If it's for health and safety regulations, then fine so be it. But if it is matter of preference, stuff it to be quite honest.

Societies (atleast in Europe) are also slowly starting to accept that religious symbols and garments dont belong to the school or work place.
And as a result, polarisation occurs.


I think employer can set up dresscodes he or she chooses to, people who want to work there have to choose whats more important to them, ideology or job.
The predicament lies in the fact that the ideology is a way of life not a simple do this and that. There are many religious folk who cherish their religion, who are in debt to their religion in a spiritual sense so much so that by parting with it simply to greet customers or pack a bag is just too much. Too much change over a small insignificant thing ticks people off.
Reply

snakelegs
12-02-2007, 10:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by islamiii
Coz west is so coward they think a women in hijab is a terrorist .
how stupid is it?
how stupid is it to think that all people in the west are exactly the same?
Reply

Pk_#2
12-02-2007, 10:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
how stupid is it to think that all people in the west are exactly the same?
she meant, the majority*

Ahh don't have a go at her, *smiles*

UK is better than many places I have heard about, so am grateful!! Buh there are some weird people out here, pray for em everyone LOL
Reply

chosen
12-02-2007, 10:53 PM
do you really believe that people in the west, o rin my case.the united states believe women in hijaab are terrorist...firstly I am from NYC...have you ever been to new york???? On the subway any day of the week you can hear 15 languages being spoken...we dont care where your from..as long as you dont fall asleep on our shoulder while sitting next to us....
Reply

Suomipoika
12-03-2007, 12:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
The thing is, and you rightfully say this later on, religion is being slowly kicked out of jobs all together as society is no longer accepting it. This leads to the predicament where the only jobs available are solely linked to trading or be your own boss style of work, which obviously limits the job prospects
I can sympathize with this, however...

Wearing a religious symbol is hardly bending the rules. If it's for health and safety regulations, then fine so be it. But if it is matter of preference, stuff it to be quite honest.

The predicament lies in the fact that the ideology is a way of life not a simple do this and that. There are many religious folk who cherish their religion, who are in debt to their religion in a spiritual sense so much so that by parting with it simply to greet customers or pack a bag is just too much. Too much change over a small insignificant thing ticks people off.
If religious symbols arent that big of a deal when there isnt safety hazard, how about political or anyother symbols? What about offensive symbols? There have been plenty of symbols banned in workplaces over preference.

Ive probably said this on these boards before, but my problem with this issue is that I feel like second-class citizen. I doubt religious people are the only ones who take their way of life very seriously however if someone doesnt base their values and way of life on religion, practising that way of life can be denied at the whim of the employer or the school, but again when someone bases theirs on religion, they can or should be allowed to bend the rules. Feeling unequal also ticks people off.
Reply

aamirsaab
12-03-2007, 10:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Suomipoika
...
If religious symbols arent that big of a deal when there isnt safety hazard, how about political or anyother symbols? What about offensive symbols? There have been plenty of symbols banned in workplaces over preference.
Political or religious symbols would be covered under freedom of expression as would offensive symbols. I as an employer would have no problem if one of my employees were wearing the star of david or a cross symbol - as long as they are doing the job they are employed to do then there is no issue as far as I am concerned.

Ive probably said this on these boards before, but my problem with this issue is that I feel like second-class citizen. I doubt religious people are the only ones who take their way of life very seriously however if someone doesnt base their values and way of life on religion, practising that way of life can be denied at the whim of the employer or the school, but again when someone bases theirs on religion, they can or should be allowed to bend the rules.
I see what you are saying but in the real world productivity and quality of service is not affected by a religious symbol thus there is no valid reason to remove it, other than if it is for health and safety as I stated earlier. There have been cases in the UK; a christian wearing a celebacy ring was expelled for not taking it off - a small ring that I couldn't even see her wearing and several hijab cases. Bare in mind that this is people's education we are talking about. Now is it right for a religious person to remove their garment or religious symbol just because a few people 'dont like it'? If yes, then people are certainly not as tolerant as they think

In the case of those who are non-religious they have no prerequisites or ''rulings'' to follow. That's the whole issue with the removal of religious symbols, which is complete hypocrisy in lands where freedom of expression and tolerance are so widely paraded.

Feeling unequal also ticks people off.
This is exactly what religious people are feeling currently with these new rules being enforced. The only way out is through tolerating the religious symbols, especially since it is a secular, tolerant country. Though, admittedly, this seems to be changing radically.
Reply

KAding
12-03-2007, 01:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by islamiii
Coz west is so coward they think a women in hijab is a terrorist .
how stupid is it?
Ehm. I've never before heard that argument. It just stupid to think that is what drives many Europeans to be against the hijab :okay:.
Reply

Suomipoika
12-05-2007, 12:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Political or religious symbols would be covered under freedom of expression as would offensive symbols. I as an employer would have no problem if one of my employees were wearing the star of david or a cross symbol - as long as they are doing the job they are employed to do then there is no issue as far as I am concerned.
The point I was trying to make was that as long as productivity isnt affected surely a person would have the same right to display political and offensive symbols as religious symbols? For example if there is an employee whose productivity is same than that of his peers, would and should the employer be allowed to ban his political symbol he knows belongs to an extreme far right group and which he finds is racist, offensive and inappropriate in his establishment?

I see what you are saying but in the real world productivity and quality of service is not affected by a religious symbol thus there is no valid reason to remove it, other than if it is for health and safety as I stated earlier. There have been cases in the UK; a christian wearing a celebacy ring was expelled for not taking it off - a small ring that I couldn't even see her wearing and several hijab cases. Bare in mind that this is people's education we are talking about. Now is it right for a religious person to remove their garment or religious symbol just because a few people 'dont like it'? If yes, then people are certainly not as tolerant as they think
Except that what is offensive varies from person to person. Thus seeing a religious symbol might very well affect quality of service to certain customers. What if someone was a Hindu who wore his religious symbol, the lucky swastika to his work place? Now which one is more wrong, asking him to remove his religious symbol, or to force the customers, who especially in the case of city services have no other place to go, to look at what is widely thought to be the symbol of the most evil thing that humanity has offered?

In the case of those who are non-religious they have no prerequisites or ''rulings'' to follow. That's the whole issue with the removal of religious symbols, which is complete hypocrisy in lands where freedom of expression and tolerance are so widely paraded.
That is quite an assumption and generalisation, how can you be so sure there isnt people who have very strickt dresscode not based on religion? I know all sorts of moral codes or "rulings" people follow for example people who dont eat or wear certain animal products or products produced in unethical way all because they think its evil, not because God says so.

This is exactly what religious people are feeling currently with these new rules being enforced. The only way out is through tolerating the religious symbols, especially since it is a secular, tolerant country. Though, admittedly, this seems to be changing radically.
Irony is, that by doing that we will end up in a situation where there exists a double standard between those who are religious and those who arent.

Im kinda conflicted between the right of the employer to set dresscodes and rules at his work place and between the right of people to be able to practise their way of life, but I guess what I would find to be the ideal situation is along the lines that the employer has the right to ban all symbols and garments, as long as it doesnt interfere with the individuals capacity to practise their way of life. Thus banning crosses is okay, because as far as I know, there is no ruling in christianity that says you must wear a visible cross. But banning the covering of head for muslim woman not, because it would effectively terminate her ability to practise her way of life, however the employer would still have the right to dictate things like the colour and make of the headcovering, IE yellow headcover going along with a yellow uniform.
Reply

angel_nunu
12-05-2007, 12:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aziz
How many Muslim women are really religious in the west/Europe?UK aside I haven't seen Muslim women abroad being so religious.
sorry to interrupt, but you live in bangladesh...how can you possibly have seen all the women abroad and be so close to them to know how religious they are?
Reply

wilberhum
12-05-2007, 10:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Since pork is forbidden, so is anything related to it. In essence, a muslim should not be working in a hog kill plant. Though, there are exceptions in extreme cases.
So then it follolws that a Muslim should not be working for the city government.

Not that I agree with the law, because I don't. It does seam to be another accepted restriction.

But still, I sure would like to know why they passed the law.
Reply

aamirsaab
12-05-2007, 11:12 PM
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by Suomipoika
...For example if there is an employee whose productivity is same than that of his peers, would and should the employer be allowed to ban his political symbol he knows belongs to an extreme far right group and which he finds is racist, offensive and inappropriate in his establishment?
Under freedom of expression, he would not be allowed to do so. This may sound dogmatic but that is the case: freedom of expression is absolute, you either have it or you don't.

Except that what is offensive varies from person to person. Thus seeing a religious symbol might very well affect quality of service to certain customers. What if someone was a Hindu who wore his religious symbol, the lucky swastika to his work place? Now which one is more wrong, asking him to remove his religious symbol, or to force the customers, who especially in the case of city services have no other place to go, to look at what is widely thought to be the symbol of the most evil thing that humanity has offered?
Again, under freedom of expression the symbol would be allowed. However, this scenario is unfair since the symbol is not affecting anyone. If anything, it's proving my initial point about 'if it offends you then ts' because that is what freedom of expression is all about.


That is quite an assumption and generalisation, how can you be so sure there isnt people who have very strickt dresscode not based on religion? I know all sorts of moral codes or "rulings" people follow for example people who dont eat or wear certain animal products or products produced in unethical way all because they think its evil, not because God says so.
I based it on on 20 years of life experience with non-religious folk :). I know that some people do have a strict dresscode simply due to preference. However, there are no laws in place that restrict that. The issue at hand is banning of religious symbols so it's a different story.

Irony is, that by doing that we will end up in a situation where there exists a double standard between those who are religious and those who arent.
I understand but that's the whole thing with being tolerant: it's accepting a double standard for the greater good.

Im kinda conflicted between the right of the employer to set dresscodes and rules at his work place and between the right of people to be able to practise their way of life, but I guess what I would find to be the ideal situation is along the lines that the employer has the right to ban all symbols and garments, as long as it doesnt interfere with the individuals capacity to practise their way of life. Thus banning crosses is okay, because as far as I know, there is no ruling in christianity that says you must wear a visible cross. But banning the covering of head for muslim woman not, because it would effectively terminate her ability to practise her way of life, however the employer would still have the right to dictate things like the colour and make of the headcovering, IE yellow headcover going along with a yellow uniform.
See I have no problem with that thought process. Though I disagree with certain aspects, overall it suggests a fair compromise.

format_quote Originally Posted by Willberhum
So then it follolws that a Muslim should not be working for the city government.
I don't have the relevant knowledge to answer this appropriately but I will hazzard a guess and say that it depends on the circumstance and the position that person has in the gov'ment. It's a very tricky step since by working for the city gov'ment you don't neccesarily agree with every ruling that is issued. As I said though, I don't have the relevant knowledge so I cannot be sure.
Reply

al-muslimah
12-06-2007, 12:00 AM
The day America bans hijab from women thats when WWIII starts.I pray Allah makes those sisters strong and helps them stick to their religion and not compromise it for the Western values.How many times I walked out of my house and some, not all stare at u like a frak so I just stare at them back like BOO!
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-01-2010, 03:48 PM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-26-2009, 03:41 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-20-2008, 08:44 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-02-2006, 09:26 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-20-2006, 07:53 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!