A test of tolerance

[TheEarl]

Now, here's the question.

The big bit of news and discussion in England of late has been about the hijab, the full veil which some Muslim women wear. It began with a cabinet minister making an observation about how he'd generally ask women wearing hijabs in his office if they wouldn't mind removing them so he could look at their face when they were talking to them. It has now spread to a nationwide debate on whether the hijab should be allowed in certain situations.

On the one hand, it is a part of these women's culture and at first glance it would seem tremendously intolerant to ask them to remove it. On the other, a hijab is an all-concealing garment and makes it very difficult for people to communicate. There is an ongoing case where a Muslim teacher has been suspended for refusing to teach without her hijab. It can also hide just about anything, as the Sun (a newspaper which is the very watchword of tolerance) demonstrated by sneaking various things thorugh airport security in a hijab.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that there are situations where it is inappropriate. Teachers and nurses especially require their faces to be seen as part of their jobs, to communicate with children/patients. Just as you wouldn't hire someone who dressed in extremely overt Goth clothing and piercings to be a receptionist for a big company, I don't think someone who insists on a hijab in the classroom should be hired as a teacher. There is also the occasions when a person needs to be identified, such as in an airport. A passport photo is useless if you cannot see a person's face.

What's the opinion of the board?

The Earl

 

[S-Des]

This subject is very tough for me. I'm all for religious tolerance, but teaching your women that they must cover their faces for their life really rubs me the wrong way. There are common sense considerations as well (the ones you pointed out, plus simple things like someone being pulled over for a traffic stop, but refusing to show their face). I find the entire question difficult to deal with. In the end, safety is going to win out and there will be laws. I wish it didn't have to come to that. It just feeds into people's paranoia that they are not respected.

 

[Pure]

that's a tough one, Earl. my 'multicultural' streak wants tolerance of face covering. OTOH, the muslim communities in some areas are ghettoized and the religious garb may not help the problem.

can you picture, however, someone in NYC saying that the Jews in the Hasidic area should not dress however they please? or that the Amish communities in PA should stop with the plain clothing?

on balance, i have to say, 'there should be no restrictions, except where safety is concerned [directly and clearly]; that does not include teachers.'

---
NOTE there is an issue of face covering, the 'niqab' iirc.

there is a separate issue of the burka, a full body covering.

 

[R. Richard]

I would like to point out that, in the US at least, it is a crime to appear in public in a mask that covers/disguises ones features. The law has existed for a long time and well before the current Muslim situation. [The reason I know is that I saw a woman arrested for trying to go to meet her friends while wearing a mask. When stopped she got nasty with the police and they got nasty with her.]

 

[TheEarl]

that's a tought one, Earl. my 'multicultural' streak wants tolerance of face covering. OTOH, the muslim communities in some areas are ghettoized and the religious garb may not help the problem.

Isn't it just?

I thought I'd raise it here because it's an absolute dilly of a problem for liberalists. Your choice is between restricting someone's freedoms or ghettoisation and resisting plain common sense in some cases. I'd like to see how it pans out in terms of opinions on the board.

For my part, I'm for requiring hijabs to be lifted in jobs which require facial visibility, like teaching, and area where security is an issue, like airports. In general, although I think it encourages ghettoisation, I think the hijab should be legal and acceptable in British culture.

The Earl

 

[oggbashan]

There's a cartoon in today's Times.

It shows hooded and face-scarfed yobs passing a veiled woman and saying 'Disgusting, in'it'.

Most banks and building societies ask motorcyclists to remove helmets before entering.

Concealing the face is a problem in any society. Wearing overtly religious clothing should not be.

The full veil and the burqa are not common in most Muslim societies. A headscarf is more usual.

What is worrying is that some Muslim women who do not have the veil tradition are adopting it as a mark of protest against Western society. It is one thing to continue what is the norm of your culture when in a different country. Traditionally immigrant societies have gradually assisimilated into the UK and have modified their traditional behaviours to adapt. The immigrants have become more tolerant.

It is a different thing to adopt an unusual form of dress as a sign of rejection of the values of the country you live in. It is paralleled by locally born Muslim men dressing in traditional Middle Eastern clothing when their whole life until now has been western. Overt rejection of the values of the country you live in is dangerous.

Og

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

This is not hard.

Private employers should be able to hire and fire who they please, limited only by actions that would be considered criminal outside the work environment, such as requiring kickbacks or extorting sex for continued employment, etc. It's your company, and if you don't want to hire an individual because he or she is in thrall to dark age superstition, it's your right.

Public employers have different rules. They should only be allowed to dismiss or not hire a person if there is a reasonable link between the person's habits/characteristics and his or her ability to do the job. I'm willing to let the call be made on a case by case basis, in a court if need be, gradually building up a body of law on the matter.

Next question?

 

[angela146]

Requiring a muslim woman to uncover her face is like requiring me to uncover my breasts.

You have absolutely no right to see my tits under normal circumstances. If a security screen requires it, (cuz I might be hiding some toothpaste or something) I would expect the screen to be done by a woman behind a screen.

And, oh by the way, a muslim woman would probably be perfectly happy to have a female security guard verify her face against a photo if she were shielded by a screen.

As for cultural repression, if you are going to ding muslims for requiring a women to cover her face, you have to also ding *most* American jurisdictions for requiring a woman to cover her breasts.

I would be arrested for removing my blouse (and bra) on a public street. A man would not. Of course, we would both be kicked out of a restaurant but that would at least be gender neutral.

It should be my decision if I want to bare my breasts (it isn't) and it should be a muslim woman's decision to bare her face... again under normal circumstances.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Although I'm all for women exposing their breasts , like Pure and Earl I have very mixed feelings on this. It's not as though society doesn't ban or frown heavily upon other symbols. For example, the swastika in Germany, or the rebel flag in American workplaces, or 'gang' clothing in schools. Particularly in the caes Ogg cites, where the veil is worn as a defiant symbol against society insofar as the defiance has reached violent proportions.

As to needing to identify women during traffic stops or at airports, I have a simple solution: don't let them drive or travel. Problem solved!

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Requiring a muslim woman to uncover her face is like requiring me to uncover my breasts.

You have absolutely no right to see my tits under normal circumstances. If a security screen requires it, (cuz I might be hiding some toothpaste or something) I would expect the screen to be done by a woman behind a screen.

And, oh by the way, a muslim woman would probably be perfectly happy to have a female security guard verify her face against a photo if she were shielded by a screen.

As for cultural repression, if you are going to ding muslims for requiring a women to cover her face, you have to also ding *most* American jurisdictions for requiring a woman to cover her breasts.

I would be arrested for removing my blouse (and bra) on a public street. A man would not. Of course, we would both be kicked out of a restaurant but that would at least be gender neutral.

It should be my decision if I want to bare my breasts (it isn't) and it should be a muslim woman's decision to bare her face... again under normal circumstances.

Now I would agree with this if we weren't comparing apples and oranges, so to say. If you bared your brests in almost any western or middle eastern city you would be arrested, maybe even stoned in the middle eastern cities. If a muslim woman bared her face on the streets of Chicago no one would give it a second glance, unless she was extremly beautiful. Now in a middle eastern city you both would be stoned for baring your face in public.

So they are not the same. Breasts are breasts and faces are faces and never the .... they will meet in all likelihood.

 

[angela146]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that there are situations where it is inappropriate. Teachers and nurses especially require their faces to be seen as part of their jobs, to communicate with children/patients.

Bad example, in fact it illustrates the reverse. Doctors and nurses wear face masks quite often when dealing with patients. They learn to communicate extremely well. Surgeons wear masks all the time when doing their work when efficient error-free communication is vital. In fact, I would prefer that a doctor wear a mask *more often* so that she isn't breathing all sorts of nasty stuff all over me that she just picked up from another patient (like, for example, influenza).

If the issue is communication, then require the teacher to be able to communicate. BTW: if she's been wearing the thing for many years, she has probably gotten pretty good at communicating with her face covered.

Just as you wouldn't hire someone who dressed in extremely overt Goth clothing and piercings to be a receptionist for a big company, I don't think someone who insists on a hijab in the classroom should be hired as a teacher.

A big company has a right to project it's own corporate culture *to some extent*. Schools, on the other hand, have a responsibility to expose students to other cultures.

Would you require a Jewish teacher (or Jewish receptionist) to remove his Kippah? Well, you might if you were in France, but I would hope you wouldn't in the U.S. (unless you are in a Catholic school - but even then, a lot of Jesuits wear skull caps).

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Although I'm all for women exposing their breasts , like Pure and Earl I have very mixed feelings on this. It's not as though society doesn't ban or frown heavily upon other symbols. For example, the swastika in Germany, or the rebel flag in American workplaces, or 'gang' clothing in schools. Particularly in the caes Ogg cites, where the veil is worn as a defiant symbol against society insofar as the defiance has reached violent proportions.

As to needing to identify women during traffic stops or at airports, I have a simple solution: don't let them drive or travel. Problem solved!

That's very rightwing of you Huck!

 

[Huckleman2000]

That's very rightwing of you Huck!

 

[angela146]

Now I would agree with this if we weren't comparing apples and oranges, so to say. If you bared your brests in almost any western or middle eastern city you would be arrested, maybe even stoned in the middle eastern cities. If a muslim woman bared her face on the streets of Chicago no one would give it a second glance, unless she was extremly beautiful. Now in a middle eastern city you both would be stoned for baring your face in public.

So they are not the same. Breasts are breasts and faces are faces and never the .... they will meet in all likelihood.

Only because our cultures say so. (BTW: you should spend some time in Europe, especially France. There are more naked boobies than you might expect).

BTW: there was a decision in New York in 1992 that female breasts are essentially the same as male breasts and therefore laws that prohibit exposing breasts have to be gender neutral. I'm unable to find the actual decision but I will keep looking.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Only because our cultures say so. (BTW: you should spend some time in Europe, especially France. There are more naked boobies than you might expect).

BTW: there was a decision in New York in 1992 that female breasts are essentially the same as male breasts and therefore laws that prohibit exposing breasts have to be gender neutral. I'm unable to find the actual decision but I will keep looking.

And Vermont has no State laws against nudity.

France, no thanks.

 

[angela146]

It's not as though society doesn't ban or frown heavily upon other symbols. For example, the swastika in Germany, or the rebel flag in American workplaces, or 'gang' clothing in schools. Particularly in the caes Ogg cites, where the veil is worn as a defiant symbol against society insofar as the defiance has reached violent proportions.

The German ban on the swastika would not fly in America. The "Skokie" decision was pretty much on point with that one. (Neo-Nazis have the right to parade in full regalia through a predominantly Jewish neighborhood/town).

That one was pretty defiant.

 

[angela146]

France, no thanks.

Why not? Not all French women have small breasts...

 

[angela146]

This is not hard.

Private employers should be able to hire and fire who they please, limited only by actions that would be considered criminal outside the work environment, such as requiring kickbacks or extorting sex for continued employment, etc. It's your company, and if you don't want to hire an individual because he or she is in thrall to dark age superstition, it's your right.

Does that mean that you have to right to not hire Jews? or Catholics?

Public employers have different rules. They should only be allowed to dismiss or not hire a person if there is a reasonable link between the person's habits/characteristics and his or her ability to do the job.

Actually, that applies to private employers too. You need to base your hiring decisions on "bonafide occupational criterea". Employers are not allowed to discriminate based on religion in the work place *unless* the work itself is an expression of religion.

For example, Lutheran churches have the right to require their ministers to be Lutherans.

I'm willing to let the call be made on a case by case basis, in a court if need be, gradually building up a body of law on the matter.

But we need to start with the law that is already in place, including the civil rights act of 1964.

 

[Pure]

It's your company, and if you don't want to hire an individual because he or she is in thrall to dark age superstition, it's your right.

wrong. not only is it immoral, it's illegal to do that.

how about if i don't want to hire someone in the thrall of monthly bleeding.

in Randland, maybe, though it violates the essence of capitalism, trading, etc.

 

[angela146]

BTW: there is a big difference between the US and Europe on these issues.

Could we get some imput from the Europeans on how labor law works regarding discrimination?

Does a French/UK/German/Swedish employer have the right to forbid people from wearing Crosses? Is there a right to not hire people of a particular religion?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

It's your company, and if you don't want to hire an individual because he or she is in thrall to dark age superstition, it's your right.

wrong. not only is it immoral, it's illegal to do that.

how about if i don't want to hire someone in the thrall of monthly bleeding.

in Randland, maybe, though it violates the essence of capitalism, trading, etc.

I'm afraid you are wrong there Pure, in a "Right to Work" state such as Georgia an employer can fire an employee anytime they want - without cause. They can also refuse to hire anyone they want - without cause.

 

[angela146]

I'm afraid you are wrong there Pure, in a "Right to Work" state such as Georgia an employer can fire an employee anytime they want - without cause. They can also refuse to hire anyone they want - without cause.

That's state law. By federal law you still can't fire someone because of their religion, age (over 50), race, gender etc. ... unless there is a bonafide occupational criterion.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

That's state law. By federal law you still can't fire someone because of their religion, age (over 50), race, gender etc. ... unless there is a bonafide occupational criterion.

But state law overrides Federal law in this case. The employer does not have to give a reason, just fire you. Let you go. Goodbye.

"Sorry, you services will no longer be required. Here's you severance and accured vacation pay. Good luck."

 

[angela146]

But state law overrides Federal law in this case.

Um... no... Federal law is always supreme (unless the federal law specifically says otherwise or unless the federal law does not apply).

The employer does not have to give a reason, just fire you. Let you go. Goodbye.

"Sorry, you services will no longer be required. Here's you severance and accured vacation pay. Good luck."

You can fire people at any time but *choosing* which ones to fire is another matter. If you choose to fire a 55 year old employee rather than a 30 year old employee, you had better be ready to support your decision. Otherwise you could find yourself in federal court.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Does that mean that you have to right to not hire Jews? or Catholics?Actually, that applies to private employers too. You need to base your hiring decisions on "bonafide occupational criterea". Employers are not allowed to discriminate based on religion in the work place *unless* the work itself is an expression of religion.

For example, Lutheran churches have the right to require their ministers to be Lutherans.But we need to start with the law that is already in place, including the civil rights act of 1964.

My post is based not on current law but on classical liberal principles, which are those of the Declaration of Independence. Yes, under those principles private employers do not have their rights to hire who they choose diminished by government edict, and there is no need to make rather absurd and arbitrary distinctions like the one you specify.

The fact that an individual is free to do something does not mean I have to apprpove of what they do. Personally, I think an employer would be pretty stupid and mean to not hire a person because she was Catholic. I would probably feel different about not hiring a person who refused to show her face because of what I view as a barbarous custom. But what I think wouldn't matter in a truly free country, unless it was my business, of course.