French ban on Muslim headscarves is upheld by human rights court

[Shawnster]

Europe's leading human rights court upheld the France's ban on Islamic headscarves in the case of a Muslim social worker who was sacked because she refused to take hers off.

 

Christiane Ebrahimian lost her job at a psychiatric department of a hospital in Nanterre because patients complained about her refusal to remove her head covering.

 

She lost her appeal at the European Court of Human Rights today. 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3335020/French-ban-Muslim-headscarves-upheld-human-rights-court-woman-sacked-refusing-remove-loses-appeal.html#ixzz3shCfHxl9 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Edited November 27, 2015 by Shawnster

[kejedo]

A headscarf is not a burqa, which is in the picture. (picture does not match the story).  I have had quite a number of students who wore head scarfs to our mixed gender class. If the headscarf slipped, they generally left it on their shoulders, maybe because the classroom had become comfortable and less formal. Most of my Islamic students were Sunni MUslim, but one man was more extreme and insisted his wife wear a full burqa. I also had students (who generally wore headscarves in public) work in McDonalds restaurant, and, as I understand, took off their headscarf when they got to work, for safety reasons like cooking with fire. It is interesting that the headline said Islamic headscarves, because many people wear headscarves. I, personally can do a very interesting bad-hair day headwrap, that does not have the V front like religious turbans. This is an interesting topic, because I see many people here in NY sporting religious jewelry, such as crosses, star of david, and the 'jupiter' stone ring that many Hindu people wear. A country going totally secular is quite intriguing. Does anyone know if all these vestiges are "banned," and how it is enforced? I worked at an after school program with the middle school here, where I live now, and the grant for the program said 'totally secular.' (I believe,) because the supervisor told the entire staff, no Christmas or anything "Holiday." A coworker promptly forgot this and sat in front of the group of twelve-to-fourteen-years olds and said, "I know Santa's real. I have a personal relationship with him." Anyhoot, by the time that program got cut, I had my teacher's license in place (having moved from another state,)  and was working as a regular instructor, so I am not sure what rang the death knell for that after school endeavor. 

Edited November 27, 2015 by kejedo

[Adelin]

well I do not like this burqa, it scares me

(especially as a patient, the most dreadful thoughts would pass through my mind if I would wake up with a doctor dressed like this by my side LOL)

 

but I would not have anything against this headscarf

Edited November 27, 2015 by Adelin

[Adelin]

from wikipedia:

In July 2003, French President Jacques Chirac set up an investigative committee (commission Stasi) to examine how the principle of laïcité should apply in practice. It consisted of 20 people headed by Bernard Stasi, then ombudsman of France (médiateur de la République).

The Stasi Commission published its report on 11 December 2003, considering that ostentatious displays of religion violated the secular rules of the French school system. The report recommended a law against pupils wearing "conspicuous" signs of belonging to a religion, meaning any visible symbol meant to be easily noticed by others. Prohibited items would include headscarves for Muslim girls, yarmulkes for Jewish boys, and turbans for Sikh boys. The Commission recommended allowing the wearing of discreet symbols of faith such as small crosses, Stars of David or Fatima's hands.

It seems that the words underlined above are the reason for banning headscarves and allowing discreet wearing of crosses.

 

Anyway, I don't understand what was the problem of that patients.

Edited November 27, 2015 by Adelin

[Trina]

I don't like the burka worn either, you can't even tell if it's actually a woman or man... But on the decision to uphold I feel that this is stoking the fire on ridding the earth of religions. Some time ago there was something about not being able to wear or display the cross so I'm not surprised but I'm happy to see the world progress on to the end of the bibles prophecies.

[Hartley]

Many people do not like others covering their face. This includes motorcycle helmets ski masks and other items that can conceal identity. My only objection to removing a helmet is on a cold night at the servo when I have to contend with cold fingers and the frozen helmet buckle, but I am expected to remove it before filling up, even if it is blowing a gail. While a lot OF talk centers on burkas and muslims, it is the concealment of identity that causes the main problems.

[Greg Dent]

Here in Ontario they will not allow men to wear turbans on a construction company. It went to the supreme court and the Provence won the case. You cannot wear the hard hat on top of the head wrap so you cannot wear it on a job site. How do they drive a car like that? Its impossible.

[MzT]

Oh, after reading the article, it seems the issue was the niqab - the veil that completely covers the face. I can see why mentally ill patients wouldn't want to work with her. I don't think I would feel comfortable either. If she was wearing a hijib, I doubt it would be an issue.

Edited December 1, 2015 by MzT

[Shawnster]

Adelin said:

from wikipedia:

In July 2003, French President Jacques Chirac set up an investigative committee (commission Stasi) to examine how the principle of laïcité should apply in practice. It consisted of 20 people headed by Bernard Stasi, then ombudsman of France (médiateur de la République).

The Stasi Commission published its report on 11 December 2003, considering that ostentatious displays of religion violated the secular rules of the French school system. The report recommended a law against pupils wearing "conspicuous" signs of belonging to a religion, meaning any visible symbol meant to be easily noticed by others. Prohibited items would include headscarves for Muslim girls, yarmulkes for Jewish boys, and turbans for Sikh boys. The Commission recommended allowing the wearing of discreet symbols of faith such as small crosses, Stars of David or Fatima's hands.

It seems that the words underlined above are the reason for banning headscarves and allowing discreet wearing of crosses.

 

Anyway, I don't understand what was the problem of that patients.

 

That's still a big loophole.  Who defines what is conspicuous or not?  If a person can see the cross or whatever, is that conspicuous?

 

My 10th grade English teacher wor a huge cross.  I'd say a good 4 inches long or so.  It was quite conspicuous.  

 

I can see if someone was forced to comply with this law due to their wearing "conspicuous" objects of worship then that person could come back and retaliate against all other religions by claiming someone's earrings or necklace were "conspicuous."  I mean, if you can see it and clearly make out what the image is, it must be conspicuous, right?  

 

When dealing with subjective terminology an unintended consequence is the leaving open to interpretation and allowing extreme application of the law or rule.