Top Menu

Shocking Revelation about the EU Headscarf Ruling

Islamic headscarves may under certain conditions be banned in workplaces, and this ban does not neccessarily constitute “direct discrimination”, the European Court of Justice ruled last Tuesday (March 14th). Many Muslims are worried about this decision. In an increasingly hostile environment for Muslims, this ruling might lead to bans against “Islamic headscarfs” in companies all across Europe. But the court has violated its own principles. G4S and Micropole, the companies that fired the Muslim women carrying the headscarf are NOT neutral to religions, as both the companies, and the court claims.”

The ruling is based on two cases. One has to do with a Muslim woman that worked at G4S Secure Solutions in Belgium, an international Company.  The other has to do with Micropole, a French company. I will focus on G4S.

G4S Secure Solution

The court writes in its press release that the policy of G4S allegedly is to have strict religious neutrality. Especially in its external contact with its customers.:

“the management of G4S informed her that the wearing of the headscarf would not be tolerated because the visible wearing of political, philosophical or religious signs was contrary to the position of neutrality G4S adopted in its contacts with its customers”

“The court agrees with G4S that they can ban the headscarf, as long as they pursue this neutrality in a “genuinely… consistent and systematic manner”, as it writes in its formal judgement:

As regards, in the first place, the condition relating to the existence of a legitimate aim, it should be stated that the desire to display, in relations with both public and private sector customers, a policy of political, philosophical or religious neutrality must be considered legitimate.

An employer’s wish to project an image of neutrality towards customers relates to the freedom to conduct a business that is recognised in Article 16 of the Charter and is, in principle, legitimate, notably where the employer involves in its pursuit of that aim only those workers who are required to come into contact with the employer’s customers…

It must be held that the fact that workers are prohibited from visibly wearing signs of political, philosophical or religious beliefs is appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that a policy of neutrality is properly applied, provided that that policy is genuinely pursued in a consistent and systematic manner

But when looking at the case one can easily find that someone has done a sloppy job. I don’t know if the lawyers representing the woman or the court have been sloppy, but someone has made a lousy job.

G4S is NOT neutral.

Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet

G4S celebrates Christmas in Europe and all over the world. As can be seen on their international Twitter and Facebook pages. You can even find some cute animated holiday greetings sent out to customers: CLICK HERE!

I have to remind the reader that Christmas is defined as a religious holiday. The French word NOEL, Christmas, is defined as a “religious holiday” by Cambridge dictionary. Christ is by the way the name of the Savior, Jesus Christ.

The Dutch and Belgian celebrations are even more directly connected to Christian faith. Two years after the woman was fired from G4S, the company posted this holiday celebration on their Facebook page:

This is a regional Christmas celebration and an old Dutch tradition.

Santa Claus is called Saint Nicholas, or in Dutch Sinterklaas, potrayed as a bishop and a Christian Saint. Next to him we have Zwarte Piet that traditionally is the companion of the saint. Zwarte Piet is a blackface figure, i.e.a white person that is painted black. Zwarte Piet is said to be black because he is a Moor, i.e. a Muslim, from Spain. Zwarte Piet was earlier seen as a “servant” or “slave” of the white bishop and saint.

Zwarte Piet is a local tradition that many view as racist. However, that is not the subject of my article today. G4S is clearly not neutral, Sinterklaas and his servant the Muslim is a CHRISTIAN tradition.

Holiday celebrations

Lets continue to look at the G4S on social media. Here are some examples. Keep in mind the words of the court:

“provided that that policy is genuinely pursued in a consistent and systematic manner”

G4S regularly wishes Happy Holidays during Christmas. It is a part of their externally oriented PR to send Christmas Greetings and decorate its office when it is Christmas.

Two days earlier you could see this post on Facebook. Belgium once again.

Internationally G4S is not neutral either.  We have already seen the animated Holiday Celebration.


Here are some examples that shows that G4S celebrates Christian Holidays, like Christmas and Eastern Holidays.

 

They have sent out Ramadan greetings in Saudi Arabia.  This does not contradict what I write. Quite the opposite. There but not in Belgium and in Belgium but not there. Hardly neutral.

Micropole

The other company is French: Micropole SA. It is not neutral either.

 

The Hijab

The ruling by the court can be criticized in many ways. But the the matter is a complex one. Two principles collide, the principle of private ownership and the principle about religious freedom. However, in an environment filled with racism and hatred against Muslims it is very important that the courts act consistently when dealing with cases like these.

Besides the question of the alleged neutrality of the companies in question, there is another problem that I wish to focus on. The court does not make a clear definition of religiously neutral clothes. Some Muslims consider wearing the hijab as an important part of their faith. It is a part of what is sometimes called “Islamic dresscode”. Besides the hijab, that means covering the arms and legs. But trousers are not considered religious clothes. The hijab is. What kind of clothing then can, and cannot be defined as religious?

The court decided that the ban against headscarf is legal “provided that that policy is genuinely pursued in a consistent and systematic manner.”

The decision is inconsistent, and will result in arbitrary decisions by employers. It will be up to the EMPLOYER to decide what they define as religious or not. In an environment with much hatred against Muslims, as well as Jews (I should add), this is potentially dangerous.

Article 6 in the European Convention stipulates that every individual has the right to a fair trial in court. “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ” In this case the EU court has clearly violated the European Convention with a trial that was not even close to fair.

Edited 3/20

, , ,

  • HSkol

    Damned Leftist-Islamic Alliance! It’s almost like they’re so contradictory in their own form and intent that they’re contradictory in their own form and intent … and stuff. Damn them all! Make a Merry Canary a Great Toucan!!!

  • Yes, faux dox loves to let us know he’s ever lurking. He shall smite the Leftist-Islamic Alliance with spates of random upvotes. Such is the way of the Archair Warrior Loon, hopped up on misplaced rage and lumpy crumpets. 🙂

  • HSkol

    Presumed alt-right-delete, pretend doxxer dude just upvoted me here – thankfully. This was a nice revisit. LUMPY CRUMPETS!!!!!!!

  • That’s how it is in the US. I think that’s the idea in some European countries too, but now the neocons and their “muscular liberals” are calling those who advocate that position the “regressive left.”

    They has the ear of David Cameron when he was prime minister, and he actually said in a speech it was no longer enough to simply abide by the law. Muslims had to adopt “British Values” and then he implied those who don’t might be on conveyor belt to terrorism. I’m paraphrasing, but that was the basic idea. I hope that attitude never takes hold here, where some nebulous test of whether you believe in “American Values” might result in government thought police putting you on some list.

    It’s good to know Australia has held firm. I hope you aren’t plagued with neocons there. Now or ever.

  • Khizer

    Hitler almost sounds like those PUA (pick up artist) turds who demand women to be their sex toys and get pissed when women refuse. Reminds of this video mocking PUA’s

    https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fm.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D_pEfhgG3Ocw%26t%3D0s%3AkQuwbclEW5ozamAX9ocL1CqNx0E&cuid=2059999

  • cmyfe .

    [ — to me and to other disbelievers — the hijab remains an advertising gimmick…]

    I’m sure not all disbelievers feel the same way. You are just too sensitive.

    [… that is also used to keep women in their place.]

    What “place” is that? Muslim men are required to have beards, lower their gaze and cover their heads too.

    [Perhaps the meaning is just that women should not unnecessarily tease men they aren’t married to?]

    No it’s not just that. Dress and behaviour code is given to both men and women and they are supposed to follow for the sole reason that they have been told to do so by Allah.

    […they could dress equally “decently” without using a particular piece of clothing that has come to symbolize hardcore adherents of a particular religion.]
    Nope. No one should be made to give up their rights because of certain other people. Doesn’t seem fair.

  • HSkol

    I do appreciate your forgiving heart. I shall now flagellate myself for all wrong-doings … and, sleep … bloodied and in pain … only to arise tomorrow and use swear-words yet again. This is my eternal return. 😉

  • Oh my…I didn’t know you were going to bust out “lumpy crumpet.” Pretty over the top as vulgarity goes, Mr. Skolly. But I’ll let it slide. This time. Zzzzzzzzz. 🙂

  • HSkol

    I’m winding down too. If I’ve provided you any laugh at all, I may rest well this evening.

    (My kids hate my jokes with all the swear words and stuff. You know, like “booger head”, “lumpy crumpet”, “catfish stink bait” and all. I’m a terribly vulgar father. Let us now bless the non-vulgar within our world. Zzzzzzzzzz.)

  • Lol. 🙂

    No need for apologies. I’m appreciating the laughs right now, winding down after a long day.

  • HSkol

    I’d apologize, but I apologize far too much. So, I shan’t apologize. SORRY!!!

  • Lol. 🙂

  • HSkol

    Side note on a polar opposite: Femem is pretty effective at advertising nipples.

    (Oh, goodness. Did I really just post that?)

  • HSkol

    Thanks, Jerlerup.

    When secularism is defeated by secularism …

    This embarrasses me.

  • Bill

    Even if these companies did no more than give their staff a day off, with a sign up saying “The office is closed and will re-open on 26th December” they would still be marking a Christian festival – just as they do on various other dates and, of course, every single Sunday.

    If we’re honestly (!) so fanatically laïque that a woman’s motivation in choosing her headgear threatens our secular values, then how the hell can we excuse Sundays? It would take a long time to teach a visitor from Mars how one design of scarf is a threat to liberal values while another is just a way of keeping somebody’s hair in place, but he would notice how the western “business” calendar is just the church calendar with a day for shopping thrown in almost immediately.

    I mean, nobody wants to work all week and nobody is against bank holidays. I just think that if there’s any suspicion that a weekly day off or an annual festival has got any sort of connection to any political, philosophical or religious belief then it should be illegal. Or leave the scarves alone – whatever.

  • AJ

    More of this would follow:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/35060048/i-wear-a-hat-instead-of-a-hijab-so-people-wont-know-im-muslim

    In the end, Muslim women will cover but in a different way. This law is just stupid. It is supposed to break the Muslim woman but it won’t.

  • Just_Stopping_By

    “By all means. But I don’t believe it, and then — to me and to other disbelievers — the hijab remains an advertising gimmick that is also used to keep women in their place.”

    And is a kippa / yarmulke an advertising gimmick used to keep men in their place?

    Also, don’t think you speak for all those who are not believers in Islam. A lot of us are perfectly fine with Muslim women choosing to wear, or not wear, the hijab.

  • Joey Sanders

    “But I don’t believe it, and then — to me and to other disbelievers — the hijab remains an advertising gimmick that is also used to keep women in their place.”

    Well, in that case, explain why I have seen many cases of daughters who wear hijab, but their mothers do not? How come the mother isn’t being controlled by her man? She is oppressed. Right?

  • Joey Sanders

    I agree. Now go back to Harry’s Place. lol. Just kidding.

  • JS

    “And for most of us Christmas is part of an almost entirely secular tradition”

    Christmas has been secularized but many people do attend church or include Christianity (mainly the birth of Jesus) in little ways, like through ornaments.

    The point is that Christmas still carries religious undertones. They are not prevalent, but they are there. It is hypocritical to celebrate Christmas so openly but deny Muslims the right to wear a headscarf. Openly proselytizing one’s religion being against the workplace rules is understandable. Neither the celebration of Christmas or Muslim women wearing headscarves violates that though.

    You may think a Muslim wearing a headscarf is advertising, but to them they are just practicing. So isn’t the problem here being your perception and how you think others are violating it? So you want to ban things that you don’t want to see?

  • Khizer

    BUH IT OFFENDS MEH!!!

  • You didn’t just say that’s how you perceive it. You ascribed motive to those who cover, saying the only reason they do it is to advertise religion. Two different things.

    As for the rest of this, it doesn’t interest me enough to reply. Think whatever you like.

  • SarahAB

    Even setting the issue of G4S’ inconsistencies aside, I don’t see any need, as a rule, for a neutrality so strict as to outlaw religious symbols such as headscarves and crosses.

  • Wearing a hijab, on the other hand, ONLY means that you are advertising your religion.

    No, it doesn’t mean that at all. Muslim women cover because they believe God told them to. That’s the reason, not to make some petty point to other people.

    Hijab is the OPPOSITE of advertising. It’s a lot more beneficial, in many earthly ways, to ditch the scarf, advertise one’s beauty and “blend in” among non-Muslims. Covering is about pleasing God, and making that more important than appeasing/impressing/pleasing other people.

  • ramslauk

    Yes, Christmas is a religious holiday. Christmas — or Yule — is also a pagan holiday, appropriated by the Church because it was impossible to keep people from celebrating it.

    And for most of us Christmas is part of an almost entirely secular tradition: a reason to spend too much money — and to eat and drink too much.

    If you are a religious person, then celebrating Christmas may be viewed as keeping up a Christian tradition, and in that case it may be understandable (if not defensible) that some muslim fanatics consider it haram and blasphemous.

    But for most of us the Christ in Christmas is there because of a tiny part of the holiday’s history in Europe. Wearing a hijab, on the other hand, ONLY means that you are advertising your religion.

    För övrigt: Glad Påsk!

Powered by Loon Watchers