Belgian City Bans Hijab

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hashim_507
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 70
  • Views Views 8K
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
 
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....
 
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.
 
...
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.
 
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:.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
:sl:
...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.

Willberhum said:
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.
 
Last edited:
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!
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top