| Good hair day |
|
|
| Saturday, 21 June 2008 | |
|
Previous challenges to such policies have been difficult to sustain, but this lays down a precedent. So, not just a victory against blatant employer Islamophobia, but also something that working people will find useful if they want to challenge their employers on discriminatory dress codes. However, the radical firebrands at HP Sauce have been moved to eructate as follows:
This is posed as a "moral question", no less. The tradition that this argument draws on is that embodied in the legal defense of segregation. Why should businesses have to run the risk of losing business by being forced to employ blacks? Why should they have to even allow them in the store if it'll drive away good white customers? Why can't they bar customers at their own discretion? The citation of the holy profit, of the inviolable rights of property owners, is precisely in that usage. (It is, of course, still the case that those who want to preserve the legacy of segregation in the labour market argue against affirmative action and similar legislation as a form of 'reverse discrimination' - thus implying that the prevailing inequality is meritocratic). The interesting thing about this is that such arguments were answered by civil rights legislators, who accepted the narrow terms of the discussion. They pointed out that public accomodations, shops and so forth, were not merely private property but of such a kind that they both were and had to be open to the public. This property is inserted into market relations, which is a sphere of social life that ought not to be restricted on the basis of race or any other irrelevant factor. The tormented souls at HP Sauce are appealing to a conception of property rights that has historically been tailored for the defense of white supremacy, and which would sit as comfortably in the literature of the BNP today. Source: Lenin's Tomb           Readers have left 15 comments.
William:
Quote
She lost the claim for religious discrimination of course so the rest of the article is just wasted keystrokes. The tribunal found that there was NO "Islamophobia", never mind "blatant".
Why are you giving publicity to this divisive rubbish?
(1)
2008-06-22 00:28:15
markuk:
Quote
What would have happened if she got the job and her customers were male. Would it be ok for a muslim woman to rub her hands through a strange mans hair while washing it and then cutting it? Is this ok? It seems that religous beliefs given far to much respect.
Why should i or anyone religous belief be be any more important than say someones tase in music ? Why shouldnt the hair dresser be able to say i dont want to emply you because i dont take your religion serious i think its all rubbish and you want to force me to accept your scalf because you believe its important in your life. After all the muslim is basically saying her religious beliefs are the most important thing to her and screw your business, because you should respect my beliefs more that your business.
(2)
2008-06-22 02:54:27
Taz:
Quote
What would have happened if she got the job and her customers were male. Would it be ok for a muslim woman to rub her hands through a strange mans hair while washing it and then cutting it? Is this ok? It seems that religous beliefs given far to much respect. — markuk
(3)
2008-06-23 11:34:09
markuk:
Quote
Im saying the business is more important to the owner of the hairdresser and if she believes this is bad for business well why shouldnt this muslim woman respect it and say well she is giving me a job so i suppose i could comprimise and take the scarf off in work.
I always seems to be everyone else that makes consessions for religion. Surely you have to agree that its not the end of the world taking this head scarf off? Some people dont get jobs because they dont talk enough in the interview. Does this mean you should be able to sue the employer because they discriminated against quiet people. Or the could say they were too cocky. Richard Dawkins is exactly right when he says give me a reason why religious beliefs should be taken so serious,
(4)
2008-06-23 14:18:31
RSD:
Quote
Are we expecting the Employment Tribunals and other courts to adopt the default position that if someone asserts they have been a victim of racism or sectarianism (in this case Islamophobia) that the defendant / respondent must prove otherwise, rather than the plaintiff / complainant having to prove their case. Currently this is not the case, and Bushra failed to prove that the respondent had discriminated upon the basis of religion or race. The respondent did not dispute that she had determined not to give Bushra a job because she would not remove her scarf, but she did not make any statement which led the ETA to conclude that this was related to Islamophobia rather it would have been applied to any person who had chosen to wear a similar head covering.
However I find the decision to award Bushra £4,000 for her hurt feelings somewhat disappointing. Bushra who has an interest in the hairdressing industry should have known beforehand what the attitude towards such a head covering, and it would have taken little research to get a sense of the market that the salon is targetting. Was it therefore reasonable that Bushra should have the expectation that she would be able to obtain a modification of the prevailing dress code to facilitate her employment? IMO the answer is yes, in the same way a Muslim or Jew would find working as a general butcher in UK difficult as it would require handling pork and other prohibited foodstuffs. Had a Muslim man applied to work as butcher in a high street butcher, but insisted that he didn't handle the pork, the potential employer would most likely reject him. I doubt very much that were he to make a claim at the ET, that he would recieve any sympathy and most people including Muslims would laugh at the claim. I would suggest therefore that if there is any bias in the ET it is on the basis of gender and I suspect that this actually plays itself out across UK. Men of all creeds and races are increasingly marginalised. This I suggest has a more sever impact upon minority groups and would support the fact that many ethnic / religious minority men, especially young men, find it very hard to secure employment and access public services.
(5)
2008-06-23 18:56:30
Carl:
Quote
Im saying the business is more important to the owner of the hairdresser and if she believes this is bad for business well why shouldnt this muslim woman respect it and say well she is giving me a job so i suppose i could comprimise and take the scarf off in work. — markukI always seems to be everyone else that makes consessions for religion. Surely you have to agree that its not the end of the world taking this head scarf off? Some people dont get jobs because they dont talk enough in the interview. Does this mean you should be able to sue the employer because they discriminated against quiet people. Or the could say they were too cocky. Richard Dawkins is exactly right when he says give me a reason why religious beliefs should be taken so serious, so perhaps jews should eat pigs - because its not the end of the world if they do? Or perhaps they shoudl wear yellow stars since its not the end of the world if they do? Or perhaps they should not go to certain shops because it might drive other customers away... Of course you would not agree ......;) Unless of course it is Muslims ...i wonder why?
(6)
2008-06-23 20:57:46
Derek:
Quote
Im saying the business is more important to the owner of the hairdresser and if she believes this is bad for business well why shouldnt this muslim woman respect it and say well she is giving me a job so i suppose i could comprimise and take the scarf off in work. — markukI always seems to be everyone else that makes consessions for religion. Surely you have to agree that its not the end of the world taking this head scarf off? Some people dont get jobs because they dont talk enough in the interview. Does this mean you should be able to sue the employer because they discriminated against quiet people. Or the could say they were too cocky. Richard Dawkins is exactly right when he says give me a reason why religious beliefs should be taken so serious, Let us say you are rightt, then is anything open to what ever the market says or just religion that has to take a back seat? Perhaps we should ban women in some shops - simply because we are ...ummm I dont know not caring about what women want all the time, i mean they get far too many concession right, then lets get a bit weirder, ban black people, they get a lot of concessions too, gays next? You cant have one rule for one group and another for everyone else - get it. i hope your not a zionist pretending, so im giving you the benefit of the doubt.
(7)
2008-06-24 01:36:28
shan:
Quote
Rsd-markuk-colin and other racists and bigots,why are you climbimg mount everest and k2 to try and make it look as though the prospective employer has done nothing wrong,instead it is bushra who is wrong.
when looking for a job,you check ther equirements of the job ie what is required cook-butcher-engineer or haridresser,you do not and are not required to apply for the job on the basis of your looks,you are employed on the basis of your ability to do the job. if a person with no hands applied to be a hairdresser and was turned down,the reason is clear for all to see,he or she does not he have the ability to do the job. BTW i love the way racists and bigots try to twist and turn to make the employer look good and make bushra look like she is in the wrong. I am sure Hitler would have loved to have lawyers such as yourselves.
(8)
2008-06-24 11:33:02
markuk:
Quote
How is a woman walking into a shop a concession?
Anyone else can walk into a shop. Gay people or black people dont ask for concessions they ask for equal rights. This muslim woman is asking for special rights. its the same in my job you cant wear hats or headwear at all. So why should a muslim be special? or a jew?.
(9)
2008-06-24 14:49:54
markuk:
Quote
so perhaps jews should eat pigs - because its not the end of the world if they do? Or perhaps they shoudl wear yellow stars since its not the end of the world if they do? Or perhaps they should not go to certain shops because it might drive other customers away... — CarlOf course you would not agree ......;) Unless of course it is Muslims ...i wonder why? If we had a busieness in the Uk where they test the flavour of pork and a jew went for the job. Yes the jew should be prepared to eat pork. If he doesnt he shouldnt get the job. Religion doesnt have to take a back seat in your life but when your religion starts encroching on others its not right. If i went to work today with a baseball cap on, they would tell me to take it off and if i refused i would be suspended. Also its the same with the muslim medical staff who object to hygiene rules in hospitals. Women medical students at Alder Hey children's hospital in Liverpool objected to rolling up their sleeves when washing their hands and removing arm coverings in theatre, claiming it is regarded as immodest. Screw the paitents ive got my religion to think about.
(10)
2008-06-24 15:21:14
shan:
Quote
Markuk we are still waiting for your condemnation of the racists and bigots who attacked the asian community centre in quenchwell.
Until then your comments are meaningless coming from a racist bigot.
(11)
2008-06-24 15:52:57
RSD:
Quote
Shan, I take great offence at your allegation that I am a racist, and it is evident that you have either not read or understood my comments.
The fact is that Ms Noah was unable to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the owner of the salon had discriminated against her on the basis of race or religion, and consequently the Employment Tribunal dismissed the claim of discrimination. It did award Ms Noah £4,000 for her hurt feelings. I would dispute the claim that hairdressers are not employed based upon their looks. In all the "top" / prestigeous hair salons I have ever past by, the staff are minimally highly presentable and very fashionable, and above all identitified with the superficial values of this consumerist / glamour obsessed / highly sexualised society. Values which I would suggest are diametrically opposed to those of Ms Noah. My view is that in the last 30 years this society has become almost adolescent in its attitudes, where individuals have rights but few obligations. Ms Noah should have been obliged to do some basic research about the employer and the employers values. Had she done so she would have found out that the employer required all salon staff to bare their heads and show off new styles, which would have conflicted with Ms Noah's values. Instead Ms Noah applied and presented herself for interview expecting that the company's practices to be changed for her. Consequently her feelings were hurt because her expectations were unrealistic. Ms Noah's story is a wonderful piece of media manipulation. Here she is an attractive young woman the victim of allaged religious and possibly racial discrimination. Our hearts instictively go out to her as we are socialised to protect vulnerable women. However if we were to really look at our society we would see that it is Muslim men, especially young men that take the brunt of abuse and discrimination. My public sector employer is a fine example - it almost falls over itself to give ethnic minority women jobs. But it barely affords EM men the opportunity of interviews.
(13)
2008-06-24 19:44:53
markuk:
Quote
Markuk we are still waiting for your condemnation of the racists and bigots who attacked the asian community centre in quenchwell. — shanUntil then your comments are meaningless coming from a racist bigot. So give me proof it was race hate. Until then, shut up.
(14)
2008-06-24 21:02:58
shan:
Quote
Markuk you would have made a great P.R man for the nazis,you would have defended hitler and his cronies valianlty after the holocaust.
The fact that the policei say it was a racist attack has no bearings on what you understand to be the case, are you in anyway linked to the people who carried out the attack as you seem to undertsand their motives more than the police. Th words leave now with a cross and a pigs head were to show how the people would be beheaded like the pig,the cross was to show they would do it christianities name. If it was intended for a religion then why not simply say so,why did the words not say muslims out or muslims leave now.
(15)
2008-06-25 10:18:32
|
Islamophobia Watch [and MPACUK] draws attention to the 
Search MPACUK.org
Latest Discussions
Recommended Books
