74
“United in diversity” :3
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023
74 points (79.8% liked)
Memes
45739 readers
1114 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The hijab thing is to some extend understandable beacuse of work safety. Although that only applies for jobs with machines and such. This definitely needs more clarification
According to the court, the ban is justified if the employer needs “to present a neutral image towards customers or to prevent social disputes” (emphasis added). Is that a fair justification in your opinion?
Quite so. It implies a specific religion which is quite the opposite of a neutral image. Just like a cross necklace would be. Religion has no place in a workplace.
It is clear that what the court and private companies intend is to appease and target bigoted demigraphics for purely economic benefits, which the decrease thereof constitutes a “social issue.” We know quite well that in the heart of the European continent, this policy is targeting hijab more so than any other so-called religious symbol. If the authorities genuinely want to prevent “social disputes” they could've tackled social inequalities and the discrimination against asylum seekers and refugees, as well as addressing Islamophobia instead of chucking the root problem in the dustbin.
Perhaps liberal Nation-States may not entertain my second argument, but the veil is primarily a cultural element and not a religious symbol. Comparing it to the cross is a bad-faith analogy. The veil in fact predates Islam and was (and is still) present in many civilizations in different forms, including China and India. Its usage was also common in Europe before the 20th century, though now it is pretty much reduced to ceremonials and rituals. Would such a ban on religious symbols include the traditional indian outfits as well?
I am also quite intrigued to know how does a piece of clothing affect the workplace environment. Does removing it automatically imply neutrality? Is this all it takes to deem one “neutral”? And this brings me to ask how exactly does neutrality affect the workplace, should a religious ornament imply otherwise?
And say that veiled women refused to remove their veils, this means that a significant fraction of citizens are subsequently barred from professional and civic activity. How would this marginalization aid the resolution of those “social disputes”?
Yes it is. Of course a cahsier or a car salesperson shouldn't be forced to appear "neutral" but i think political figured and anything law (judges police etc.) Should always appear as neutral as possible
The neutrality of law enforcing authorities is beyond the scope of this discussion, since the court's ruling concerns private enterprises.
By your logic, I hear that you actually disagree with the court's ruling.
i guess?
lets put it like this: anything government, law etc. = should be as neutral as possible
anything private = should not be forced to hide their beliefs
in my opinion anyway
Fair enough
Wearing religious symbols may also be forbidden for some official jobs like for police or other types of officers. The reasoning being that they should act and appear neutral, as servants of the state and nothing and no one else.
I'm not Muslim. I am balding. Can I wear a headscarf to conceal my hair loss? My scarf certainly would not be a religious symbol, but it would be indistinguishable from hijab.
What if I have extensive scars, to the point that children are frightened, and everyone I meet instantly presents a look of disgust and revulsion? Can I hide my face behind a veil? Again, certainly not a religious symbol, it's an accessibility device that I have found essential for social interaction among people unaccustomed to such disfigurement. My veil could easily be confused for niqab.
I am Muslim. Every time I have to conduct any official business with the government, I am reminded that my government supports the suppression of the symbols of my religion.
No, there are practical considerations in many jobs that justify restrictions on certain types of clothing without regard to religion. But if the only justification for the restriction is "religious people wear that", that prohibition is unreasonable.
There is probably a dresscode. It's that simple.
It's not that simple. There has to be a valid purpose for a dress code. "Oppressing Muslims" is not a valid purpose.
And I already mentioned a valid reason. I think no religion has a place among a secular state's officers and I think they are well within their right to ban religious symbols. As long as they don't do so selectively that is.
Practice your religion in your freetime or look for a job elsewhere.
Or, we do the sensible thing, and expect the people in our society to tolerate each other. So long as the "symbol" is not interfering with the performance of their duties, there is no compelling reason to prohibit it.
If it offends someone that the clerk issuing their driver's license is wearing a headscarf, or a crucifix, or carrying a kirpan, the problem is not the state, nor the dress code, nor the clerk. The problem is the whiny little bitch offended at the idea that the state would dare to employ someone with a different personal worldview.
Same goes for non-state employers, which is what the ruling is actually about. If your customer has a problem being served by your employee for wearing a turban or a yarmulke, the real problem is that you're treating this person as your customer, rather than as a hateful, trespassing bigot.
The takeaway from this ruling is that the state recognizes, respects, and protects homogeneity over diversity. It supports and promotes sameness over individuality. It caters to the whiniest bigots among its populace, and to hell with any religious minority, or anyone who even looks like they might be a member of a religious minority.
The reality is that bigotry is a mental health issue. Rather than cater to their disease, Europe should be encouraging bigots to seek professional help. There is a fairly simple treatment option becoming popular in Canada that has achieved startlingly good results for the treatment of bigots. It's nearly 100% effective, with no significant side effects in the treatment of chronic bigotry.
There are no practical considerations to not carry around swastikas either. And yet here we are due to some terrible people claiming them as symbols of hatred. I don't mind the shape of a swastika, I mind the ideas it conveys.
Is it reasonable to place hijab or niqab in the same category as swastika?
Is it reasonable to place "Muslim" in the same category as "Nazi"?
Frankly, I think that idea is extraordinarily offensive.
You already know my answer and I know yours. I believe we can leave it at this.
I actually do not know your answer. I haven't figured out of you are supporting a ban on Hijab, or arguing against it. The only thing I know from your comment is that a hijab ban is only reasonable if we consider "Muslim" in the same light as "Nazi". It is only reasonable if "Muslim" is so despicable of a concept that it is deserving of the same level of contempt and oppression that EU leadership has for the Nazis.
We can certainly leave it at this. I know I find the idea deeply offensive. I can't speak for you.
I have nothing against headscarves purely as a clothing, but I have a lot against organized religion they are more often than not a part of. As it stands, it's a symbol tightly connected with systemic oppression and countless crimes against humanity. In this regard I find the two mentioned groups quite similar. It would be nice to decouple the symbol from its current meaning, but I don't think we have such a luxury.
Oh, the irony.
As I belong to a group outright killing which Islam considers fair game, I don't find it particularly ironic.
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - Thomas Paine
You don't get to call for systemic oppression and then complain that you are being systematically oppressed. Well, I mean, you can. But I'll just roll my eyes and quote Paine at you.
We can to go one step further: Muslims don't get to systemically oppress and then complain about being systemically oppressed. I believe we are done here.