ECJ: Banning the headscarf is legal.

O

Oscurito

The highest court in the European Union, the European Court of Justice has ruled that employers may bar staff from wearing visible religious symbols - such as the Islamic headscarf - at work.

The case arose from the Belgian courts which had dealt with one Samira Achbita who had been a receptionist for the Belgian branch of G4S. After three years at the firm she decided she wanted to start wearing a headscarf at work for religious reasons. She was fired in June 2006 for refusing to take off her scarf. The company said she had broken unwritten rules forbidding religious symbols.

In a landmark ruling this morning, the court stated that “An internal rule [...] which prohibits the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign does not constitute direct discrimination".

RTÉ News: ECJ backs religious symbol bans in headscarf ruling
 


silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,310
sounds good, when you are on company time and all. I wonder how many employers will use it?
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
This just says that a ban isn't against EU law. Member states may have national laws which make a ban illegal.
 
O

Oscurito

By definition, they aren't religious symbols :)
In a landmark ruling this morning, the court stated that “An internal rule [...] which prohibits the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign does not constitute direct discrimination".
 

ruserious

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
29,092
In a landmark ruling this morning, the court stated that “An internal rule [...] which prohibits the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign does not constitute direct discrimination".
Say goodbye to the Repeal the Eight badges so.
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,422
Isn't it funny how all this legislation and palaver has to embrace all religions when the need for it at all is entirely to do with islam?

Just as your typical sociology publication will be a turgid wa.nkfest about "racial and post-racial imaginaries" or some such BS when all the time they are covertly responding to widespread dislike of Islam. And nothing else.
 

Hitchcock

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
8,781
Isn't it funny how all this legislation and palaver has to embrace all religions when the need for it at all is entirely to do with islam?
Are you suggesting it should only do with Islam? Although of course much of the motivation for these laws is driven by Islamaphobia.
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,422
Are you suggesting it should only do with Islam? Although of course much of the motivation for these laws is driven by Islamaphobia.
I'm suggesting there's only a need to deal with islam. Everybody else can - and has - functioned happily in mixed, liberal societies in western europe for decades. But muslims will have their headscarves, then their face coverings, and then their all-in-one bin bags unless a line is drawn for them.

Amazing how hinduphobia and sikhophobia never caught on in Brussels or other western European cities. Now put your thinking cap on and ponder why this might be so.
 
Last edited:

Herr Rommel

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
9,068
Are you suggesting it should only do with Islam? Although of course much of the motivation for these laws is driven by Islamaphobia.
It is what you call dragging a bunch of backwards people kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
 
O

Oscurito

Are you suggesting it should only do with Islam? Although of course much of the motivation for these laws is driven by Islamaphobia.
I think most employers will be sensible about this. If the religious symbol isn't an obstacle to performing the job, then they probably won't make it an issue. The burqa is another matter entirely but then burqa-wearers probably wouldn't want to work in a normal working environment because of the need to interact with men who aren't relatives.
 

former wesleyan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
25,565

blokesbloke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
22,697
Given the ruling by the ECHR that British Airways had breached someone's human rights by now allowing them to wear a crucifix at work, I'm not sure that this ruling really matters.

British Airways Christian employee Nadia Eweida wins case - BBC News

Presumably it means that any employer taking this action would be fine by the European Court of Justice, but may still fall foul of the European Court of Human Rights?
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
Given the ruling by the ECHR that British Airways had breached someone's human rights by now allowing them to wear a crucifix at work, I'm not sure that this ruling really matters.

British Airways Christian employee Nadia Eweida wins case - BBC News

Presumably it means that any employer taking this action would be fine by the European Court of Justice, but may still fall foul of the European Court of Human Rights?
Slightly different case in that British Airways was busy making allowances for Muslim women to wear the hijab, yet banning a Christian woman wearing a small crucifix. This was considered religious discrimination.

I hope British Airways now bans Muslim head coverings in line with the new ruling - while UK is still part of the EU.
(OTOH it is an airline and a possible target for Muslim extremists...)
 
O

Oscurito

Given the ruling by the ECHR that British Airways had breached someone's human rights by now allowing them to wear a crucifix at work, I'm not sure that this ruling really matters.

British Airways Christian employee Nadia Eweida wins case - BBC News

Presumably it means that any employer taking this action would be fine by the European Court of Justice, but may still fall foul of the European Court of Human Rights?
That's a fascinating point. I'm googling at the moment to find out which is supreme or if there's a conflict.
 


New Threads

Top