Interesting Ruling From European Rights Court

[jaF0]

"Nov. 28 (UPI) -- The European Union's Court of Justice ruled on Tuesday that public administrations may ban overt religious symbols, like headscarves, in order to create a neutral environment as long it does not single out a particular religion.


The bloc's top court said such a rule must not discriminate in favor or against any specific religion and must be limited "to what is strictly necessary."


The decision stems from a Belgian woman who charged that not wearing an Islamic headscarf violated her religious freedom, leading to the administration in the municipality of Ans to ban all overt religious signs from being worn.



In order to put in place an entirely neutral administrative environment, a public administration may prohibit the visible wearing in the workplace of any sign revealing philosophical or religious beliefs. Such a rule is not discriminatory if applied in a general and indiscriminate manner to all of that administration's staff," the court said."


https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-...stice-religious-symbols-ruling/5981701181377/



So, in addition to Yarmulkes and Sikh Turbans, wouldn't 'philosophical' include MAGAt hats?

 

[ll74]

Seems a little skewed against some religions for the most part, as many don't wear incredibly overt things. I guess wearing a necklace of the cross or star of David could be included here.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Well, I'm pretty sure MAGA hats aren't that big in Belgium.

Is the wearing of political gear something in Europe? You don't often hear about it.

 

[jaF0]

MAGAt hats was just tossed in. What is philosophical? What about sports gear, team logos, etc?

There is a rise of the right (Wilders, et al.) ... is there some symbol that goes with that?

How many Amish in Europe? Their entire wardrobe is distinctive.

 

[Paul_Chance]

LOL - well, I'm pretty sure there aren't a lot of Amish in public administration in Europe, but, the article does say the ruling was a follow on to a 2021 ruling that allowed for the discretionary banning of overt religious and political symbols as long as it was neutral in application. Neither ruling is an actual ban, but rather a ruling that the local administrative state may implement such a ban if they so choose.

More of a ban on not banning banning.

 

[jaF0]

I'm not sure if it applies only to work places, or in general.

But it's kind of similar to the ruling that Boston could not ban a Christian flag. So they flew it for a few seconds, then changed the rules to ban all non-government flags.

 

[Paul_Chance]

I'm not sure if it applies only to work places, or in general.

But it's kind of similar to the ruling that Boston could not ban a Christian flag. So they flew it for a few seconds, then changed the rules to ban all non-government flags.

Yeah, similar.

It's a government workplace specific ruling. Which is understandable. We have similar workplace bans here - but in government related workplaces and in private industry. As long as they're neutral and reasonably work related.

 

[Bray123]

There are quite a lot of Christian nuns around who wear overtly religious clothing (including headscarves), but if the ruling is pertaining only to people who work in governmental departments, they won't be affected. Unless it includes schools and hospitals.

Personally, if you want to wear a symbol of execution it doesn't worry me.

 

[jaF0]

This is where a policy like this gets into problems. If we're only talking workplaces, most religions don't involve wearing gear in public. Basically Muslims, Sikhs and Jews and not all Jews all year. Not sure about Buddhists. I can spot a Pentacostal woman a mile away, but their gear isn't specifically religious as far as I know, more cultural. And I don't know how many of them are in Europe.

So, I'm not sure how it can be non-discriminatory.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Given that the rulings simply allow individual nation-state entities (government units, however they are formed) to apply a restriction, if they want to, I imagine the application is more nuanced than the simple article lets on. The non-discriminatory nature is defined by it's neutrality. "The City of X forbids it's employees from wearing visible articles of religious significance."

So, in practice, the orthodox Jew could elect to wear a hat, meeting the requirements of his faith (head cover) without the obvious religious significance (the yarmulke can be worn under a hat.

The Islamic woman, if she is from a sect that requires the hijab, could bypass it by wearing a simple headscarf to cover her hair.

The Sikh turban can be removed when not required. (The turban is a command of custom, not a religious duty - the religious duty is to not cut your hair, and the turban is a required custom to keep the hair neat and to easily identify each other. For example, Sikh men are permitted to remove their turban in order to wear a helmet (either military or for sporting purposes).

It is a litigation minefield though in the US, but the EU does not have the same mines.

The wearing of non-visible religious items (e.g. a Cross, a Crucifix, a Star of David) is easily concealed under clothing. Catholic Nun's are not required to wear their habits at all times, unless in the convent.