| Bushra Wins! |
|
|
| Tuesday, 17 June 2008 | |
MPACUK Comment: Discrimination in all its forms is unacceptable. The
Zeitgeist is Islamophobia and given this fact we applaud young Bushra
Noah's determination to seek justice. A lot of nonsense has been said
by people who "wouldn't get their hair cut from a hairdresser who's
hair you can't see". Well there are a lot of bald hair dressers out
there such as Trevor Sorbie and you don't see customers fearing they
are about to shave their heads. The attacks on Bushra are nothing other
than Islamophobia unleashed against a young Muslim female trying to
earn an honest living. BBC article follows:
Muslim stylist wins £4,000 payout
The owner of a hair salon has been ordered to pay £4,000 compensation to a Muslim stylist who was turned down for a job because she wears a headscarf.
Bushra Noah accused Sarah Desrosiers of religious discrimination when she failed to offer her a job at her Wedge salon in King's Cross, central London. An employment tribunal panel dismissed the 19-year-old's claim but upheld her complaint of indirect discrimination. Ms Desrosiers said she needed stylists to showcase alternative hairstyles. During the hearing Ms Noah, who lives in Acton, west London, told the tribunal that she was "devastated" that she was not offered the job of assistant stylist "due to my headscarf". Urban image Ms Desrosiers, 32, told the panel that Ms Noah lived too far away, but was persuaded to give her an interview in May last year. When the applicant arrived for the interview she claimed the Canadian salon owner was clearly shocked by the fact she wore a headscarf. Ms Desrosiers told the tribunal she was surprised it had not been mentioned earlier and expected her staff to reflect the "funky, urban" image of her salon. The panel found that Ms Noah had been badly upset by the 15-minute interview . She was awarded £4,000 damages for "injury to feelings". In its judgment, the panel stated: "We were satisfied by the respondent's evidence that the claimant was not treated less favourably than the respondent would have treated a woman who, whether Muslim or not, for a reason other than religious belief wears a hair covering at all times when at work." It added: "There was no specific evidence before us as to what would (for sure) have been the actual impact of the claimant working in her salon with her head covered at all times." Speaking after the ruling the salon owner said: "I never in a million years dreamt that somebody would be completely against the display of hair and be in this industry. I don't feel I deserve it." Ms Noah refused to comment on the matter. Source : BBC           Readers have left 39 comments.
shan:
Quote
What next if you sell meat then the person selling meat should show parts of his body,so that we can see which part we would like.
It seems the employer forget that there are laws against discrimination based on gender-colour or beleifs or perhaps he thought she's a muslim its open season on them. When i go to a hairdresser i do not look at his hair,but how he cuts my hair.
(1)
2008-06-17 10:23:29
liberty:
Quote
"The attacks on Bushra are nothing other than Islamophobia unleashed against a young Muslim female trying to earn an honest living."
The only person in this case trying to earn an honest living is the hairdresser; and for an unsuccessful job applicant to be awarded compensation for hurt feelings is reprehensible. Religious discrimination played no part in the employer's decision, only the unsuitability of the applicant. I was going to add that repeated accusations of 'Islamophobia' serve no purpose but it does tend to stifle debate and line the pockets of unsuccessful job applicants.
(3)
2008-06-17 14:44:38
Mujaahid:
Quote
Did she? They threw out her claims of discrimination and the panel basically stated they could not measure the long term damage a Muslim employee would have on the business. This is completely unacceptable - they have upheld the right to discriminate in terms of employment opportunity and they have insinuated that a Muslim employee may inadvertently impact business.
(4)
2008-06-17 15:49:27
RSD:
Quote
This is a peculiar case because it is clear that Bushra Noah repeatedly sought an interview for a job with the salon, and that initially she was not granted an interview in the belief that she lived too far away (presumably to be able to get to work). Given Ms Noah's enthusiasm to secure a job in this salon it seems odd that she had not determined prior to the interview what the dress code was for the salon and what the expectations of the staff were in terms of displaying new styles of hair. When I was getting out looking for a job my teachers & careers advisers always said do some basic research first about the proposective employer.
I wonder if this had been a Muslim man applying for a job in a famous butchers whether he would receive much sympathy if he was turned down because he refused to handle pork? I suspect not. In Ms Noah's case there seems to be an element of sexism and the idea of this poor little girl's feelings. The argument about bald men / women being hair dressers is slightly specious in so far as these are people who have either lost their hair or choose to cut it all off. Nevertheless they do bare their heads. Ms. Noah considers the public display of female hair inappropriate and therefore doesn't go out without it being covered. As the salon is presumably committed to the public display of female hair there does seem to be an inherent conflict. Anyway the panel did not find that the salon had discriminated against Ms Noah on the basis of religion but her inability to comply with dress code. She got £4,000 for her "hurt feelings".
(5)
2008-06-17 20:36:01
Andy:
Quote
Precisely the sort of story that makes MPAC look silly. The Tribunal found that she was NOT treated less favourably due to being a muslim.
(6)
2008-06-17 21:02:41
Mujaahid:
Quote
Sorry Andy, but I must disagree. When a recruitment policy discriminates against people of religion then there is cause for complaint. The salon's policy directly discriminates against Muslim females in making it a requirement to expose ones hair. When said panel make ridiculous statements about the impact a Muslim employee may have on the business then it is fair to say that there is an undercurrent of anti Muslim racism - little wonder then that charges of discrimination were dismissed.
(7)
2008-06-17 21:29:29
joe:
Quote
now, lets imagine an Essex girl applying for a job as a receptionist at the local Islamic center wearing HOTPANTS! isn't this just another example of forced acceptance of stealth jihad and that we have to adapt to your culture or at least thats the way the BNP will see it another own goal to Muslims here. Why dosnt she apply for a taxi job in Saudi and sue them? so employers beware of Muslims with their pathetic demands for Jizya.
(8)
2008-06-18 00:47:47
Hamcat:
Quote
Are you people serious? She obviously exploited an opportunity to extort cash from an innocent business owner. How would YOU feel if she'd done it to you? Sarah was absolutely right not to hire her and I hope that Bushra Noah never sees a penny. In fact, she should pay compensation to Sarah.
Also, kudos to fellow poster "liberty" for telling it like it is.
(9)
2008-06-18 01:10:55
RSD:
Quote
Majaahid, had this woman been from any other cultural group where traditionally women cover their hair the outcome would have been the same. There is absolutely no evidence that this young woman was discrimated upon the basis of her religion, there are many Muslim women who choose not to cover their hair. What for instance would the situation be a Seventh Day Adventist or Jew who refused to work on the Sabbath / Saturday, do they have a right to employment even if the same salon opens on a Saturday, but not a Sunday?
Ultimately faith is a matter of choice and we choose the degree to which we exercise our observance. This society provides for us to have the right of choice in religion. But it is our choice and we make those choices based upon our preferences and beliefs. This almost automatic response of claiming Islamophobia everytime there is a negative response is the same as Jews who automatically cite anti-semitism every time someone criticises Israel and Zionism. If faith groups want respect for their beliefs they must extend that to others. The test is, "Would it be acceptable to us if a young woman applied for a job with a Muslim organisation and then presented herself at interview dressed in a manner that offended Muslim sensibilities, would we be prepared to offer her a job without any change in her dress?" I think the answer is that she wouldn't be offered the job, and that we would think that we'd regard her expectations as absurd. The same applies to Ms Noah.
(10)
2008-06-18 09:55:56
shan:
Quote
As i stated it is open season on muslims,thius goes for joe public and government bodies.
A muslim female is given 15 years because her husband wanted to commit a act of terror and she did not inform the police we are told,a white racist who planted a bomb and sent anthrax like powder to people is given 4 years. You can judge for yourself it the system is racist or biased in these cases.
(11)
2008-06-18 10:19:40
shan:
Quote
I say well done to bushra for standing up for her rights to equality before the law.
Just imagine what would have happened if a jew with a beard was not employed in a hairdressers because his beard was not the trendy thing to do . The same bigots making excuses to defend the prospective employer,would be crying anti-semitism and god knows what else they would come up with. If bushra had applied to work in a strip bar or topless bar and then refused to strip or go topless than she would be in the wrong.
(12)
2008-06-18 12:31:13
Mujaahid:
Quote
Dear RSD – in response: All the evidence points to the fact that she was indeed discriminated against because she was a Muslim. A recruitment policy that precludes any group of people is by its very nature discriminatory. If a young woman with a prosthetic leg were denied a job in a shoe shop because she couldn’t showcase the range of shoes and the panel concluded that she may damage the business you’d have no problems seeing that as discriminatory. As for the issue of choice – we are predisposed toward belief; choice comes into play when we reach the age of reason – we choose to follow our natural inclination or not. To punish someone for following that which comes naturally is discrimination. The wearing of a hijab or a beard for that matter moves from the rather nebulous construct of choice (Joe’s ridiculous hotpants scenario) to the submission toward that which comes naturally. As for Joe’s ridiculous comments – Saudi is hardly the benchmark for a liberal democratic society and constant recourse to such arguments is surely a sign special pleading.
(13)
2008-06-18 13:52:26
Troubled man:
Quote
"Islamophobia is the last acceptable form of racism."
As a proud Islamophobe I'd just like to point out that Islamophobia is nothing to do with race and is therefore not racist. Hope that helps clear things up. Regarding the main issue - people who create jobs should be able to employ whoever they want based upon what ever criteria they choose.
(14)
2008-06-18 14:52:23
RSD:
Quote
Jefferson Azevedo is a nasty racist who sent out hoax anthrax letters, a hoax bomb and many other highly offensive letters. This man killed no one and did not contribute to anyone's death. There is no evidence to show he intended to kill anyone. He upset a lot of people and caused a nuisance. He got 4 years imprisonment.
Yeshi Girma who knew that Hussain Osman intended with his co-conspirators to construct and detonate actual bombs received 15 years imprisonment as the sentence for her failure to inform the police of his plans and then helped him flee afterwards. Had she informed the police it is entirely possible that all the bombers could have been intercepted and the attempted bombing not occurred. Yeshi Girma in this respect is culpable of having assisted the planning of the murder and mutilation of many people of many creeds. It is fortunate that Osman Hussein was not an effective bomb maker. There is no comparison with these two cases that supports the idea that Muslims are being targetted for special treatment or that there is "open season" upon them. There may be an element in the sentencing of making an example of Yeshi Girma so that in future people that know about their friends, brothers, sisters or husbands intention to kill and fail to inform the police will face a severe sentence.
(15)
2008-06-18 14:58:05
Mujaahid:
Quote
Troubled man: anti-Muslim racism is now an accepted term in that all the hallmarks of racism such as stereotyping etc are directed against Muslims. You might consider reading up on the issue before displaying your ignorance.
RSD: Based on your reasoning we should be looking at possible sentences for all who knew of Azevedo's extremism and remained silent! The comparison is very valid and highlights selectivity on the part of the justice system - an anti-Muslim prejudice. The fact that you cannot or are unwilling to see the inconsistencies in treatment toward Muslims is quite disturbing.
(16)
2008-06-18 16:25:46
shan:
Quote
Well rsd arguing in favour of racists and bigots,that says everything about you hatred of muslims and islam.
The chappati flour bombs were not meant to kill anyone either,the accused said it was a hoax to scare people after 7/7,they did not intend to kill anyone either. I suppose the word of racist-nazi bigot is better than a muslims,in your opinion. Her husband got 30 or 40 years,even he did not kill anyone neither did he intend to kill anyone according to him,his wife with misplaced loyalty kept quiet we are told,gets 15 years. Yet a racist nazi bigot gets 4 years and rsd as usual with a lot of hot air tries to play down his acts. Troubled man islamophobia is not based on race but hatred based on relgious beleifs.
(17)
2008-06-18 16:37:01
Colin the Athiest:
Quote
If everyone kept their religious beliefs to themselves, stopped flaunting their religion in public (I like the French idea) then these ridiculous events would not occur. Religious attire (Muslim, christian, sikh or whatever) when looked at from the rational non-religious viewpoint is not acceptable and if I was to employ someone who refused to dress according to the needs of the organisation they would not be employed. In life there are choices. This young lady made a choice and it is outrageous that someone else is paying for it.
(18)
2008-06-18 21:14:37
Mujaahid:
Quote
Colin's answer is typical of secularist ayatollism - they seek to subjugate all to their specious ideology and then have the audacity to tell all others to keep their beliefs to themselves but are loathe to follow their own advice!!
(19)
2008-06-18 21:47:48
Colin...:
Quote
Well Colin, Islam is not Christainity, where you have it on sunday and they kick ass in pub, and even have talks on accepting gays to marry. And do whatever it takes to fill a church.
Muslims are proud of their way of Islam, and Islam is a way of life, and personally, Christains don't flaunt it as much because there's not to flaunt. Except on Sunday, where they all dress up to see who got some new gossip, or who wears what and so on. Ask yourself why churches are empty. Even nowadays on sunday. She excercised her right and she won. End of the story!
(20)
2008-06-19 03:49:42
RSD:
Quote
Shan: The claim that the attempted bombings were some kind of hoax was an incredible and deperate attempt to defend the indefensible. Had it been merely a hoax why would the so-called hoaxers have needed to use materials that could have been used to make an effective bomb. The racist hoaxer used inert materials and there was no detonater in his mock bomb. Anyone who had prior knowledge of the racist hoaxers plans should be held culpable, but as far as I am aware the hoaxer acted alone. The sentences do not indicate any selectivity on the part of the CPS but the availability of evidence, and if no evidence exists to indicate an alternative perspective then we can only assume that no other parties were involved in the hoaxers actions. Yeshi Girma was convicted based on evidence and active participation at certain points. Creating fantastic alternatives to assuage discomfort does not address the fundamental issues, and frankly augments the claims of Islamophobes.
(21)
2008-06-19 09:42:19
shan:
Quote
Colin the con artist who hides behind atheism but supports zionism-racism and bigotry.
if you are atheist then you are a extremist radical atheist and we need to make laws to protect society from extremists like you,who wish to force their views on others. Did the job title state hairdresser required,anyone wearing scarfs need not apply,if yes then the prospective employer is not guilty of hidden discrimination,if she did not then why not.
(22)
2008-06-19 10:36:00
Troubled man:
Quote
"Troubled man: anti-Muslim racism is now an accepted term in that all the hallmarks of racism such as stereotyping etc are directed against Muslims. You might consider reading up on the issue before displaying your ignorance."
I think you'll find that Islam has nothing to do with race - therefore "islamophobia" has nothing to do with race. It's really simple to understand. "Islamophobia" is not racism. In reality dislike of Islam isn't even a phobia as a phobias are irrational. -- "Ask yourself why churches are empty. Even nowadays on sunday." Because finally after millennia of subjugation at the hands of popes and bishops the people are breaking free from the mental chains of organised religion. Go on try it - take your brain for a walk.
(23)
2008-06-19 10:51:56
shan:
Quote
As i said earlier,rsd will take the words of a racist/nazi but not of a muslim.
since it comes down to beleiving one terrorist but not another,it clearly shows your own inbuilt bias and hatred of muslims and islam. I would consider you genuine in your views, if in your eyes terrorists were treated in the same manner,but as we can see terrorists like the israelis and racist/nazis are better than muslim terrorists as they do it for fun and do not mean to kill anyone.
(24)
2008-06-19 12:11:20
markuk:
Quote
I said that im not posting anything again on this site, but i have to ask this question.
Why do mpack block anything at all criticising your prophet mohammed because you say its offensive to others. But you will allow shan to call anyone a racist because they dont say anything positive about suicide bombers. Why are you allowing him to do this?
(25)
2008-06-19 13:28:51
E L Whisty:
Quote
Colin the con artist who hides behind atheism but supports zionism-racism and bigotry. — shanif you are atheist then you are a extremist radical atheist and we need to make laws to protect society from extremists like you,who wish to force their views on others. Did the job title state hairdresser required,anyone wearing scarfs need not apply,if yes then the prospective employer is not guilty of hidden discrimination,if she did not then why not. Well to quote an old Pete & Dud sketch when Dud turns up for the job of lion-tamer and hops on one leg into his office, Pete says "I can't help noticing that you are a uni-dexter". In order to apply for the position of Imam it doesn't need to say "Must be a Muslim". Inherent in some jobs and positions are rules so obvious that they don't need to be stated. Islamaphobia isn't racism but I feel a better description is "Islamistphobia" and I think you will find that word is being used increasingly.
(26)
2008-06-19 14:28:49
shan:
Quote
Markuk i am still waiting for your condemnation of the christian-atheist or pagan extremists who attacked a asian community centre and left threatening messages and symbols.
Finally shan despises terrorism in all its forms and shades, but racists and bigots think when whites or christians committ terrorism its not that bad really,but them muslim terrorists they are the biggest evil since the wheel was invented. E.Whisty when the job description says female required for looking after elderly female,do you think a male will be employed, do check what a imam is. A hairdresser is someone who dresses other peoples hair,hairdressers are not employed to show their hair off,if the hairdressers wanted a model to show of their hair they should have advertised as such.
(27)
2008-06-19 16:24:00
Colin the Athiest:
Quote
Shan, calm down. In all the posts I have ever made here I have never made a bigoted comment or shown any racism whatsoever. However, your foaming-at-the-mouth comments do Muslims and Islam no favours at all. If I wanted to hurt Islam I would encourage you to keep posting.
Colin the con artist who hides behind atheism but supports zionism-racism and bigotry. — shanif you are atheist then you are a extremist radical atheist and we need to make laws to protect society from extremists like you,who wish to force their views on others. Did the job title state hairdresser required,anyone wearing scarfs need not apply,if yes then the prospective employer is not guilty of hidden discrimination,if she did not then why not.
(28)
2008-06-19 18:29:47
RSD:
Quote
Shan, I have not taken the statements of one terrorist over another. I have considered the collected actions of those involved and their intent.
Jefferson Azevedo intended to intimidate people and be a nuisance, and scared people using hoax bombs and poison packets. Azevedo, despite being a thoroughly monstrous person, acted alone and IMO is in need of psychiatric treatment. Yeshi Girma on the other hand was party to a conspiracy to manufacture, deploy and detonate a number of bombs, and she was instrumental in facilitating the escape of Osman Hussein when the attempt failed. The intent was to kill and maim a very large number of people. Had the bombers been successful it would have fueled Islamophobia and given much more credence to police demands for greater reduction in Human Rights which is the last thing we need. If I were to approve of these actions or find excuse for them simply because they were carried out in the name of Islam I would be being extraordinarily patronising and probably racist because I would be treating Muslims as lesser beings incapable of taking responsibility and thus not fit to assume authority. I do not - I expect Muslims to behave to the same exacting standards that they expect of others. All those lovely cuddly white liberals that find excuses for abuses by Muslims, and cloak them in left liberal eloquence, are actually racists who believe Muslims are fundamentally incompetent human beings.
(29)
2008-06-19 19:32:02
markuk:
Quote
If her scarf didn't scare customers off then her mustache defiantly would have done.
(30)
2008-06-19 20:01:28
markuk:
Quote
Shan you have proved yet again you are the rasist. Who said the people were white?
You want the people who put a pigs head on a wall to be white don't you? Your really hoping they are white. Maybe it was the muslims themselves for all you know.
(31)
2008-06-20 01:32:28
shan:
Quote
Markuk it seems condemning fellow racists and bigots is really hard for you.
If you read my comment above can you tell me where it says white. As colin the atheist or plain colin when he feels like it,your comments on these blogs have shown them for what you are a racist bigot,who cannot condemn the attacks on the asian community centre in cornwall. You lecturing muslims on these blogs is like a paedophile telling a parent not to shout at his children, as it causes them feel hurt.
(32)
2008-06-20 10:18:51
markuk:
Quote
Either way you lose. Because its a muslim community centre. Bu for the sake of someone as backward as you lets assume its an asian community centre. This in itself is racist. But yet again you didnt read that i condemn anyone being insulted because of what race they are if you want to look back. But lets not be silly eh and pretent this is a community centre for all.
Talk about wanting to integrate into society. Muslims have this habit of trying to blue the line between someone fearing islams totalitarian ideoogy and a persons race. Islam has nothing at all to do with race whatsoever. So off you go and call me and islamophobe because if a fear of islam is islamophobic then i am islamophobic and proud of it. But im not racist.
(33)
2008-06-20 17:14:22
harry:
Quote
Hi there
Why didn't try and get a job in an Asian hairdressers? all this stuff about Islamophobia is rubbish!I think this was a cheap shot for money.I have applied for many jobs that I didn't get for whatever reason but I would never claim for "hurt feelings" the whole nation is going soft everybody wants to sue for the slightist thing If I had a company I would want my workers to put forward the image of company
(34)
2008-06-21 10:19:43
shan:
Quote
Markuk it seems you know better than the news channels now,they stated it was purchased to be used as a community centre for asians.
so you decide what is what nowadays then, this is the prime example of racists and bigots, they pretend to be nice and say things like you are ok mate but its them asylum seekers and refugees creating the problems. while inside they despise people of all shades except their type. still you find it hard to condemn the attack that took place in quenchwell-cornwall and try to make excuses.
(35)
2008-06-21 10:25:36
Harry:
Quote
Hi There
Someone made the comments about why are the churches empty on Sundays.If they knew anything about church they would realise in the bible there are references to churches who serve christ will dwindle and those who are doing right will flourish.In our fellowship alone 1500 churches have started and are growing and we are not the only ones you are being lead astray by the media that speaks about the dying Church of England get the facts not the lies of the media
(36)
2008-06-21 10:25:58
markuk:
Quote
A community centre for asians? Sounds a bit racist dont you think?
Im amazed how easy you switch tactics to stick up for muslims. You defend this muslim who never got the hairdressers job because you think the hairdresser was using religous discrimination. Dont you think having a community centre for asin people is discriminating just a little bit? I mean what if we opened a community centre that had white man community centre above the door in pakistan. do you think the pakistanis might feel a bit angry and offended?.
(37)
2008-06-22 03:42:55
shan:
Quote
Markuk still finding it hard to condemn the racist and bigoted attack in quenchwell.
I wonder why that is, could it have anything to do with the fact that you are a racist and bigot,so find it hard to condemn you fellow racists and bigots. As for having centres for diffrent communities they are opened by all people including english people when they live abroad,in a foreign environment. As for having whitemans centre, you wil have to paint your face white to enter,as to date i have no seen a whiteman. I have seen pale faced-red faced or tanned people but i have not seen a WHITEMAN.
(38)
2008-06-23 12:55:09
Vee Ell:
Quote
Ms Desrosiers is entitled to impose a dress code (i.e. no hair-covering) on her staff. To exempt Ms Bushra on account of her beliefs would mean giving her preferential treatment, and discriminating against her non-Muslim colleagues.
I certainly would not have my hair cut by a woman in hijab; I don't want someone who thinks it's wrong to display one's hair, working on mine. If this country is anti-Muslim, how come Ms Desrosiers was subjected to a four-hour cross examination and then made to shell out 4 grand?
(39)
2008-06-25 22:41:34
|
Search MPACUK.org
Latest Discussions
Recommended Books
