EU court says public employees may be barred from wearing head scarf
reuters.com
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.
TL/DR like most people do -
Woman says her right to freedom of religion had been infringed.
EU says that a public service would also be justified if it decided to authorise, in a general and indiscriminate manner, the wearing of visible signs of belief.
The court said authorities in member states had a margin of discretion in designing the neutrality of public service they intended to promote.
However, this objective must be pursued in a consistent and systematic manner and measures must be limited to what is strictly necessary, the court said
Not about headscarves or anything in particular, just about any religious paraphernalia
I fully support that honestly.
I fully believe religion has no place outside of private property whether that's your place of worship or your own home.
Outside of those two places no one other than your fellow believers gives even the slightest fuck about your religious beliefs.
I'm not from the EU and don't have the context to really understand the history of this decision, but this just seems so unnecessarily divisive.
It's a different approach to religious neutrality in government than the one used in the US, but I'm not convinced it's an invalid one.
(In the US we have difficulties over government employees refusing to do their legally required job because "it's against their religion" to process paperwork for people they disapprove of, e.g. The Gays.)
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.
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.
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
That is a very false dichotomy.
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.
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.
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'"
And maybe that rule is the stupid one.
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.
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.
Still a false dichotomy here.
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.
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.
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.
Oh, I wholeheartedly agree that any rule that infringes on the freedom of expression of people should be able to be challenged and I agree that there are rules that only exist to please old "but in my time people still had manners" people and that those rules should go away immediately. Yet, that's not what the court was asked to decide here. The EU-court doesn't really decide on cases themselves usually, but it gets asked by lower courts to rule on matters of interpretation. So they didn't rule if the "no hats" rule should go, they were asked if such a rule - if it exists - is applicable to religious hats or if the right to religious freedom protects such symbols. So they rule on half-theoretical questions that are often narrower than the case itself.
A little addition:
The "no hats" rule in this case wasn't a "no hats" rule, but a "no religious symbols are allowed to be worn by anybody" rule. The court saw such a rule as justified because it did not discriminate against specific religions or symbols.
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”
"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...
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.
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.
Sorry, what is the USSC?
United States Ship California
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.
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.
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.
Refusing to do part of the job would be an impairment of government function. A headscarf does nothing to impair function of the employee to do their job.
Rather by banning it there creates a undue barrier to the participation of women of this religious backgrounds in government by not realizing the modesty principles of their culture. It is more akin to not allowing a woman to work in a field unless she does so wearing nothing but her underwear.
It shows a sign the government endorses one religion over another. More importantly, we should not allow any religion in governmental offices and duties. Keep your stupid religion in your church. I don't want to see or deal with it when I'm dealing with the already shitty government experience. I don't need to deal with your mental illness, too.
Like it or not religion is a formative part of people's lives. If letting someone essentially wear a hat to work is "favouring on religion over another" then I can only posit that comes from a place of extreme pettiness. Where I am we have a large number of Sikh folk and I have gone into government offices and been served by agents wearing turbans a number of times. Not once has it ever been commented on. Not once have they ever mentioned their religion to me nor I commented on it to them. Neither would have been particularly proper because between the both of us in that professional setting it is quite strictly none of our business. I can't say that what the agents were wearing ever in any way altered my experience.
It is the attitude of killjoys and sour grapes to strip people of the things that make them feel confident in the way they conduct themselves when out in the world or at their workplace. Your feelings about a piece of cloth are not most important. You only have to deal with a government agent once in a while in a professional capacity and your very temporary discomfort is not to be highly weighted. For the person forced to give up the things that make them feel supported and comfortable they feel that lack every single day. It is a crushing and disheartening experience.
Why do I need to accommodate someone's mental illness? Being religious is a choice, not a genetic trait you can't change. You can choose to just stop. It's not my job to accommodate someone's imaginary friends.
The "hat" isn't the issue. A hat is hat. What the hat represents is the problem. If you believe in imaginary beings that watch and control you, you aren't fit to perform duties in government offices. You need to be in therapy and a hospital.
How is it any different than if someone wants to look at porn at work? Porn is very formative for many people. Why is imaginary friends ok but not imaginary girlfriends?
Being religious is not a mental illness. A lot of people grow up inside the culture and a belief held that dearly is not one you can change so easily. Life is difficult and what helps people navigate it particularly given it's remaining mysteries isn't really your problem. People draw their comfort from many sources and stripping them of it isn't ethical. Nor is it entirely right to look at atheism as not a set of religious beliefs themselves in the context of government work. If a government agent started rattling on about how someone's beliefs were stupid and that they thought little of them for holding them it would be just as alienating and threatening to the person seeking help as if some religious person decided to use their captive audience to proselytize to an atheists.
But if you still insist on pathologizing the one coming across here as deranged is you. Your complete lack of empathy for your fellow humans sounds like it has it's root in a particular form of narcissistism or other type two personality disorder. Being an atheist is fine. Being an asshole about it and demanding everyone be exactly like you to be considered worthwhile to participate in their society makes you no different than the religious assholes who insist the exact same.
I never said anything about atheism. It's interesting and telling how you jump to that conclusion.
Yes believing in imaginary beings is a form of mental illness. The fact you can't understand that is also telling as to what your issues are with what I'm saying. Being religious is absolutely and without question a form of mental illness.
Life is difficult and drug addiction, alcoholism, rape, domestic abuse, self-harm, etc helps people navigate it and comforts them... So by your twisted logic we should all condone those forms of mental illness as well. Gotcha, that makes perfect sense.
You clearly suffer from the mental illness of religion, so you aren't exactly the best person to be arguing for it, are you? A heroine user is going to put forth the same arguments as you do for heroine... But somehow you are right and they are wrong? Lol
The thing with religion is, if you have the intelligence and aren't otherwise mentally impaired, you can look at the evidence critically and come to the logical conclusion. It becomes a choice. Unlike drugs, etc... Where you have a biological dependency driving you, making it harder to quit. An otherwise healthy human can choose to quit religion without much difficulty, so that's really on you at that point.
But I digress. We don't allow drug users, etc in government positions, so why do we allow religious nutcases? Keep your shit out of government. Go work in a church.
I would not be welcome in a Church. I grew up essentially an atheist and do not believe nor ever have believed in the God prescribed by the Christian, Jewish or Muslim faiths. I am now closer to agnostic. As a queer kid from an extremely Christian town I have my own complicated relationship with Christianity as an outsider and my own history of inflicted traumas. Yet, I hold no issue with those who do not attempt to force their beliefs on me because those people who have harmed me do not represent everyone who has a religious belief. How people comport themselves towards others and their empathy and kindness towards their fellow humans matters to me more than what particularly they individually believe exists.
I recognize that for those people who hold beliefs that they do in fact believe them. They aren't simply pretending to entertain you and that means that their dogmas have perceived consequences. Religious beliefs aren't something people can change like their socks. It often lies very close to their personal conception of what it means to be human. To shake that belief they require a lot of evidence that makes a high degree of sense to them and disbelief often causes them to be at odds with their own families and communities.
It is enlightening to see that your definition of "religious nutcase" is someone who has any religious beliefs at all regardless whether they ever attempt to spread them or impact you in any way. I imagine you likely have experienced some sort of religious related trauma yourself but that does not make reacting to everyone with a belief system the way you are right now okay. You also seem to place people who experience mental illness or addiction as a category that makes it ok for you to dehumanize people. You place yourself as the only viable model of intelligence... Something which isn't healthy. You may just be very young in which case you might grow out of these beliefs naturally over time but if not then you should really be seeking some therapy.
As for addictions and mental illnesses, people's individual struggles are not my business either. Some people do struggle and it's not my place to judge them on their quality of life, only the quality of their work.
Exactly as I thought. You don't even understand your own hypocrisy with regards to which mental illness are ok and which aren't. Even when they are pointed out to you directly you refuse to acknowledge them.... Just like a religion. No amount of logic or facts will shake your belief in your ridiculous nonsense because you simply lack the ability to self analyze and react to facts with reason and rationality.
I'm literally arguing with a religious zealot for all practical purposes, whether you admit it or not. You are the religious person I'm talking about.
I would argue that the zealotry is yours. I am not arguing for the removal of whole subsects of people from positions of government as though atheism ( or whatever term you want to use for your complete absence of belief since you refuse to identify as an atheist) is the only approved belief set of the state and that we should be expunging all others.
I don't see much value in going through an itemized list of mental health issues to see which ones meet your personal approval either. If an illness causes no physical or mental harm to other people then it's not a concern. Criminal behaviour is a category apart and I don't endorse harm done to others intentional or otherwise. Mental illness is not a mandatory prerequisite for people doing terrible things to each other and a lot of people we convict do not actually show signs of a defined mental illness. Indeed there are a lot of mental illnesses make people more likely to be a victim of violent crime rather than particularly predisposed to committing it. A mental illness isn't an excuse for people being an asshole to other people. Having a mental illness is also not a carte blanc invitation for other people to be assholes towards you.
That I am your archetype for religious zealot I find personally very entertaining given I really don't care on that front. I don't believe there's any justice to be had in an afterlife so making the limited time and place we live kinder is the ethical move. You however seem to have just decided to change your tactics to ad hominem attacks to categorically dismiss me which makes it appear you are operating on a very emotional trigger. Chucking me in a "religion" box is your best attempt to emotionally satisfy your need to not have to deal with anything I say. It's a tantrum reaction. Are you always this sensitive?
This is why you're a zealot. You keep talking about expunging all others, and excluding, and if people don't believe like you do, they are "atheists" or whatever other label you put on them. You don't even see your own biases and religion in your writing and thoughts. YOU are the zealot. I am advocating keeping the governmental functions free from religious influence, nothing more. YOU keep putting words in my mouth. That's what religious zealots do... they twist the facts to fit their preconceived notions of the world and their imaginary friends.
YOU are advocating for mental illnesses that are "acceptable" to you and those that aren't. I'm saying NO mental illness should be allowed, regardless of the source. The fact that you don't understand this indicates that you have that same mental illness you claim you don't have (mentally ill people don't usually know they are mentally ill, case in point with you) and that you don't want to be "excluded" because you aren't fit to hold the position you covet. You SHOULD be excluded until you seek help and cure your problems.
It is petty isnt it?
To me not having visible religious symbols when in public service seems very much in line with the idea of secular government
Why? Who is this good for?
Those in favour of secular government and separation of religion and state
Intelligent people who don't want imaginary friends working in government? Which translates to better service for everyone since the mentally ill will hopefully be discouraged from seeking a job position that is in charge of the public? Go work in a church if you want to pull that shit.
I'd like to have them on payroll just to cause people like you to come out of their shell and get fired.
Get fired? From what? I own my own businesses and I'm independently wealthy lol. Good luck firing me!
The bigots
Personally I don't see the problem if they want to wear it. It is not harming anyone and in fact it may help people to integrate more and feel more represented if they see people similar to them in a public position.
The entire world is figuring out you can’t please them all, legally.
If, legally, religious attire is allowed as an exception, then they must allow those satanists to wear theirs. Solution? Businesses and service providers can no longer restrict clothing, including if someone wants to work in a bathing suit. Or, face an expensive legal battle.
If long hair on males is forbidden in the schools, then you must be willing to force a Native American to cut his hair. If you are willing to do that, then expect more legal restriction and an expensive legal battle.
All this stuff is going through the courts in various countries in various extremes. Been interesting to watch over the last couple decades.
Religion is comic con with fans that kill each other regularly.
Label every instance of hate speech, and fantasy magic as primitive nonsense in a way that is obvious to the dumbest of people.
Like, "everyone in this era was illiterate and uneducated so 5k people present was 5k idiots" "drug use was prevalent" "mental health issues like schizophrenia and seizures were demon position because of ignorance and were used as parlor tricks to convince idiots con artists were magic" "religion was not separate from state in ancient times and the political struggles and propaganda are obvious"
There are so many aspects that people only believe because it was taught as toddlers when everyone is a gullible idiot. The vast majority of people only follow it because of the social network isolation and inability to connect with people in an open and trusting way outside of this context. Fighting the symptoms of religion is nonsense. Educate to remove the duality of "magic is real in religion" and create more physical community connectivity to break down entrenched social network isolation.
I hope we as a species get past the irrationality of religion, some day, or at least toss the regressive ones in the bin alongside all the other mythologies of the past.
Speaking of Comic-Con, there was a guy proselytizing in the middle of an intersection this summer at SDCC
I kinda stopped reading after that first line.
You made a good decision.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
BRUSSELS, Nov 28 (Reuters) - 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 municipality subsequently changed its terms of employment to require its employees to observe strict neutrality by not wearing overt signs of religious or ideological belief.
The woman concerned launched a legal challenge, saying her right to freedom of religion had been infringed.
It added that another public administration would also be justified if it decided to authorise, in a general and indiscriminate manner, the wearing of visible signs of belief.
The court said authorities in member states had a margin of discretion in designing the neutrality of public service they intended to promote.
However, this objective must be pursued in a consistent and systematic manner and measures must be limited to what is strictly necessary, the court said.
The original article contains 264 words, the summary contains 166 words. Saved 37%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Surely this fascistic bullshit goes against the ECHR? I hope there is an appeal already being put together.
Democracy is when religious freedoms are persecuted.
I’d be more sympathetic to this if it weren’t for the entire era of European colonialism. If your country did a genocide for nutmeg, maybe just ignore the head scarf while you get your moped license or access health care or whatever.
Hmm that's weird. To many (not saying most or all) it's only a statement of fashion.