this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023

133 points (97.2% liked)

World News

38563 readers

3024 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

133

EU court says public employees may be barred from wearing head scarf (www.reuters.com)

submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave to c/world

77 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Mr_Blott 35 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001 1 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] fubo 39 points 9 months ago (11 children)

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.)

[–] xkforce 19 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 9 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] captainlezbian 9 points 9 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That is a very false dichotomy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (7 children)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] captainlezbian 4 points 9 months ago

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”

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (4 children)

"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...

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] Not_mikey 3 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] yggdar 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Drivebyhaiku 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Drivebyhaiku 2 points 9 months ago (20 children)

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.

load more comments (20 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)

[–] xkforce 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It is petty isnt it?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

To me not having visible religious symbols when in public service seems very much in line with the idea of secular government

[–] NewPerspective 16 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Why? Who is this good for?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 9 months ago

Those in favour of secular government and separation of religion and state

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Tygr 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

[–] JoeKrogan 10 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] j4k3 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] agent_flounder 9 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] Zahille7 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

You made a good decision.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

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!

load more comments