this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
401 points (97.0% liked)
Europe
8484 readers
3 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐ฉ๐ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It would be religionist, not racist. Islam is followed by many different races. But I get where you're coming from. I'm all for getting rid of all the religious symbolism etc.
I am interested, what exactly constitutes a "religious symbol" for you?
When the right talk about Islam they aren't talking about the religion. They have no problem with the Muslims from Kosovo for instance. They are specifically targeting Arabs and Africans.
Kosovars rarely wear hijabs though. Same goes for Bosnians and Albanians and many Lebanese, Egyptian and Syrian Muslims. So not it isnt about race.
No, you were the one brought up Arabs and Africans. You are the one stereotyping Arabs and Africans as the only Muslims who wear headscarves just to further your argument.
No one here has issues with Arabs or Africans. Headscarves and crosses are just inappropriate for public sector workplaces as they are supposed to be neutral and unbiased in secular societies.
You're ignoring the context of why I brought it up. Right wingers who complain about religious hair dresses don't give a shit about someone wearing a cross on their necklace. They know they can't go after people because of race so they use Islam as a backdoor.
But I am not a right winger. I believe in a secular society, public administration should be religiously neutral and that means no one gets special privileges. Also I have rarely ever seen muslim Africans wear headscarves aside from Somalis. Usually when I think of headscarves, I think of Turks, Chechens or people from the Arabian Peninsula.
Religious seculation also means no oppression based on religion. It's a double edged sword. I'm not saying you are right wing but I am pointing out that right wing demagogues go after Islam. Especially in countries with strong hate speech laws.
Certain restrictions in public sector workplaces arent oppression though. Especially the rules apply to everyone. Its just like certain dress codes are in place such as no street shoes, no revealing clothing and no visible tattoos. If people want to wear religious symbols outside of a government job, they are within their own right and I will protect that right. I also support people being allowed to wear religious symbols in private sector jobs as long as they abide by safety codes (there are forms of hijab and sikh head coverings that abide by safety standards for heightened danger workplaces).
But are any of those things really what it really is about?
The ban is in public sector workplaces such as administration. It is not a ban religious symbols in the private sector. Also the EU court stated that making exemptions to accomodate the religious will complicate matters as it could become a slippery slope in terms of the guidelines expected of a secular and unbiased state.
I quote from the official statement of the ruling court:
"(1) Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation
must be interpreted to mean that a provision of a public bodyโs terms of employment which prohibits employees from wearing any visible sign of political, philosophical or religious belief in the workplace, with the aim of putting in place an entirely neutral administrative environment, does not constitute, with regard to employees who intend to exercise their freedom of religion and conscience through the visible wearing of a sign or an item of clothing with religious connotations, direct discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, for the purposes of that directive, provided that that provision is applied in a general and undifferentiated way.
(2) Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78
must be interpreted to mean that a difference of treatment indirectly based on religion or belief arising from a provision of a public bodyโs terms of employment which prohibits employees from wearing any visible sign of political, philosophical or religious belief in the workplace may be justified by that bodyโs desire to put in place an entirely neutral administrative environment, provided, first, that that desire responds to a genuine need on the part of that body, which it is for that body to demonstrate; second, that that difference of treatment is appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that that desire is properly realised; and, third, that that prohibition is limited to what is strictly necessary."
Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=273313&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3078169
Right. But why was the ban enacted?
It is in the quote text. It says that public sector administration has to be religiously and politically neutral and any overt symbols or clothing of said convictions cannot be allowed by administrative staff.
I even link the entire statement of the court and you didn't even bother to read it.