RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
Swiss court: you can’t be fired for wearing a headscarf
By swissinfo.c
The 29-year-old had gone to court, supported by the Swiss Islamic Central Council, after an industrial laundry centre in Bern fired her after she started wearing a headscarf at the beginning of 2015, the SonntagsZeitung and Le Matin Dimanche reported on Sunday.
The company, citing health and safety regulations, gave the woman an ultimatum: lose her headscarf or her job. Although the company’s work regulations stipulated that employees must only tie their hair back, the company fired the woman a few days later.
The district court for Bern-Mittelland has now ruled the dismissal improper and awarded the woman three months’ wages and compensation of CHF8,000 ($8,050).
The judges pointed to freedom of religion and belief, as anchored in the Swiss constitution, which protected the right to wear a headscarf – including during employment in the private sector.
Önder Günes from the Federation of Islamic Organisations in Switzerland welcomed the decision. “The criterion for doing a job should be ability and not clothing,” he said.
For him the verdict was important in order that Muslim women could also enter the labour market.
However, for Saïda Keller-Messahli, president of the Forum for a progressive Islam, the decision was a step in the wrong direction.
“The headscarf is an accessory of the Islamists,” she said, adding that the dress code of Islamists shouldn’t fall under the protection of freedom of religion since Islam did not demand the wearing of a headscarf.
The most recent case of a court ruling on wearing a headscarf in a private firm was in 1990, when a machine manufacturer in eastern Switzerland fired a Turkish worker for the same reason. There too the court ruled the dismissal to be improper.
SOURCE: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/religious-discrimination_swiss-court–you-can-t-be-fired-for-wearing-a-headscarf/42537420#
Categories: Europe, Europe and Australia, Switzerland
“Swiss court: you can’t be fired for wearing a headscarf” – ? how long was this woman working when she suddenly decided to wear a scarf? “The headscarf is an accessory of the Islamists”, in this instance it is deliberate sectarian antagonism, relying on trumped up laws, penned by Christians (on behalf of the jews), prior to the spread of the Qur’an, (also on behalf of the jews). Why didn’t the judges of the district court for Bern-Mittellandt take note of ‘Islam did not demand the wearing of a headscarf’.? The Christianised West is proving to be the’saftie’ in the face of the jews under cover of the Bible and Qur’an.
all this is besides the point. The main point is the freedom of any person to wear what they want to wear.
Do not assume that a Muslim woman wearing Niqab is from some distant country. In fact there are many White native European women who choose Islam and then choose to wear Niqab or hijab. This is their choice and should be their right. I don’t understand why women see those who use burka’s as a sign of oppression when I’m sure women who use burka’s see women who are in bikini’s showing their whole body to all is a sign of oppression. It’s all about perspective. As a Muslim woman I do not prefer to be on display in front of a large group of men. It is for our privacy and comfort that we are behind them. I believe Facial Coverings are of no harm in nature, in turn, they can prevent some airborne illness, as well as prevent germs from circulating due to coughing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with covering your face, If she made if beyond security checks to get into the facility, than she obviously is of no harm. This is stigma, and they are enforcing law due to a religious practice, although I would practice such behaviours as sanitary and self-privacy. both of which anyone is entitled to uphold how they see fit.
You cannot have a multi-ethnic society and then impose restrictions on people’s ethnicity. If their religious requirements are to wear a niqab/veil/yashmak/burka they must be free to choose to do so. It’s not for the government or school teachers to dictate what should be worn in school or anywhere else. If teachers need to identify pupils whose faces are covered there is always the simple expedient of wearing an ID tag, if you go into any government department they give you one to wear so that you can be identified, it’s no big deal. The government is a servant of the people, they are not dictators. Have you never heard of religious freedom? The government is there to see that in a democracy people of different faiths or none can abide by the tenets of their faith without interference. The women I see going about with a bit of black cloth ties round their heads never seem very subjugated. They are in groups with other, unveiled, women, and chatter away to each other in local accents as they shop.
But wearing religious garb must be left to the discretion of the wearer. If it offends the teacher on the grounds that covering the face is incompatible with his/her ability to teach a class then some compromise must be reached. That is what this whole question revolves around. Who is prepared to give ground? It could be argued that the pupil is welcome in the class but the face must be recognisable. If the pupil insists that their religion demands a complete cover-up then it is a simple matter that on religious grounds they cannot be part of the class. If the teacher is comfortable with teaching a covered-up pupil then a suitable compromise has been reached.
Banning the wearing of the burka is every bit as oppressive as enforcing its use. If women choose to adopt this apparel it’s their decision.
Would you ban Scotsmen from wearing the kilt?
Would you ban Sikhs from wearing the turban?
Would you ban priests from wearing the clerical collar?
Would you ban Tibetan monks from wearing their orange robes?
I think that adopting a style of clothing to please your imaginary friend is a bit silly I would never deny you the right to dress as you choose,
“However, Sir Michael Wilshaw once again has chosen to issue punitive dictates to threaten schools through the use of ‘inadequate’ Ofsted judgements rather than enabling them to develop their own sensible and appropriate policies on the wearing of religious clothing at school. Rather than assisting school leaders this will have the effect of alienating many staff and pupils.”
Burqa, Niqab,burkini, sharia laws, halal food, state funded Muslim schools with Muslim teachers, Masajid are for the Muslim community and nothing to do with non-Muslims. There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school.
Muslims in the West are not asking for Sharia to be the law of the land. The Law of the land is the only law applicable and executable in affairs of the individuals.
All they are seeking is to let Sharia be available as an alternative to resolve their spousal and contractual disputes between two individuals. That is their prerogative. Indeed, every human, no matter who it is, goes first to their family members and friends for seeking solutions to their problem some will go to their clergy (all religions) and some will appoint a mediator.
When Muslims go to their clergy, he or she will look up similar situations in the past and guide the couple or business partners to find a solution, since the immigrant Muslims are familiar with the Sharia laws, they may accept it, and if they do, that is good for them.
The problem is that of trust – when the parties agree to the terms per their Imam/clergy, and don’t abide by it, there is no way the aggrieved party can seek damages for the violations. This is what Muslims are asking, to make that binding.
Indeed, it would be binding if they go to the judge and say, we have agreed to these terms and conditions per our religious conviction, and seek the judge to sign the order and the court order becomes executable.
The judge looks to it as mediator resolved decision and signs it and it will become executable. The right wing Americans are downright stupid and making a bid deal about this, as if Sharia will become the law of the land.
What Muslims have is Personal Sharia, that is a private relationship between the individual and God. How they pray, worship, fast, pay zakat, how they bury their individuals, marry per the requirement as a religious rite. All of that is a private matter and does not need any regulation or execution.
Burqa, Niqab,burkini, sharia laws, halal food, state funded Muslim schools with Muslim teachers, Masajid are for the Muslim community and nothing to do with non-Muslims. There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school.
IA
http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.ukIftikhar