tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post3974894024084299652..comments2024-03-28T02:32:17.979-07:00Comments on EU Law Analysis: Headscarf bans at work: explaining the ECJ rulingsSteve Peershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-21627433307648188972017-03-29T04:13:52.781-07:002017-03-29T04:13:52.781-07:00That wasn't what the ECJ was asked, or what it...That wasn't what the ECJ was asked, or what it addressed in its judgment. Since the EU adopted a law on religious discrimination in employment, this issue was bound to come up sooner or later when interpreting that law, and the ECJ is there as a forum for interpreting EU laws. Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-35716152926807086872017-03-28T18:00:47.535-07:002017-03-28T18:00:47.535-07:00It is my understanding that strictly speaking, Isl...It is my understanding that strictly speaking, Islam requires its adherents to dress modestly. How that is interpreted is an issue that includes both cultural and personal aspects (cf. also the wide variety of headscarves worn by those who do wear them and statements such as this that illustrate that the requirement for a hijab is not universal in Islam: http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_351_400/quran_does_not_mandate_hijab.htm ). The actual question thus seems to be more in the vein of whether the ECJ is really the proper authority to declare when someone has to feel they are dressed modestly.Oliver Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-30990902314550922312017-03-20T01:46:22.690-07:002017-03-20T01:46:22.690-07:00That's because the EU and the ECtHR are differ...That's because the EU and the ECtHR are different bodies, guided by different principles. While the former is a court of HR and interprets the convention, the ECJ rules under the treaties and it's own case law, having regard to HR, but does not have to give primacy to them, they must always strike a balancing act between freedom and the ability to trade and perform economic activities Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-74745303446167825512017-03-20T01:42:30.936-07:002017-03-20T01:42:30.936-07:00That's expected considering the nature of EU l...That's expected considering the nature of EU law as opposed to HR Law. EU law is first and foremost about trade and economy, it's expected that they would apply proportionality in a way that still benefits the company.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12981819588935507268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-80379977167880513392017-03-16T09:17:47.041-07:002017-03-16T09:17:47.041-07:00What strikes me though is that the ECJ, unlike the...What strikes me though is that the ECJ, unlike the ECtHR in Eweida, seems to focus only on the "discrimination" aspect and not so much on the "freedom of religion" aspects. In Eweida, the ECtHR insists on the fact that "Ms Eweida’s desire to manifest her religious belief (...) is a fundamental right: because a healthy democratic society needs to tolerate and sustain pluralism and diversity; but also because of the value to an individual who has made religion a central tenet of his or her life to be able to communicate that belief to others". Since the ECJ "only" assesses the existence of an indirect discrimination, it seems to alter the outcome of the proportionality check.Sébastien Platonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-32990307366939764362017-03-16T09:13:27.005-07:002017-03-16T09:13:27.005-07:00It seems to me that there are some differences bet...It seems to me that there are some differences between the present cases and Eweida. In Eweida, British Airways allowed "items of clothing considered by British Airways to be mandatory in certain religions and which could not be concealed under the uniform". Therefore authorisation was given to male Sikh employees to wear a dark blue or white turban and to display the Sikh bracelet in summer if they obtained authorisation to wear a short‑sleeved shirt. Female Muslim ground staff members were authorised to wear hijab (headscarves) in British Airways approved colours. The fact that there was a specific treatment for certain items of clothing may have somehow contributed to make BA's policy inconsistent. Sébastien Platonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-6731287887365561582017-03-15T18:46:37.778-07:002017-03-15T18:46:37.778-07:00Most religions have a symbol or clothing of some s...Most religions have a symbol or clothing of some sort that *some* people believe must be worn - but conversely some Muslim women don't wear the hejab and some Sikhs don't wear the kirpan. If the argument is direct discrimination the comparator is then athiests and agnostics. Does that fit with the logic of the Directive I wonder?Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-83837313320626376752017-03-15T17:17:25.831-07:002017-03-15T17:17:25.831-07:00By its very nature, a ban on religious symbols or ...By its very nature, a ban on religious symbols or dress discriminates against a few religions that expressly require this, as compared to others that don't. For example the hejab (Islam) and kirpans (Sikhism). In effect, it allows employers to ban workers who believe and practise their religions, if this requires certain symbols, dress or hair to be manifested by the practitioner. The only safe worker is one with no views, and no religion, or one who is too afraid to display it! Seriously at odds with ECHR rights. Perhaps a spot of reality and religious training required at the ECJ?Orang Minyakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11684602753451134940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-57844232455985656332017-03-15T03:01:14.097-07:002017-03-15T03:01:14.097-07:00There's no further clarification. Would an emp...There's no further clarification. Would an employer really have to ban staff from wearing pro-vegetarian badges, for instance? Since the EU law is about non-discrimination on grounds of religion, it would have made more sense to refer to a neutrality policy relating to religious belief. Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-63319210104848399612017-03-15T02:57:57.038-07:002017-03-15T02:57:57.038-07:00Moral panic about Muslims - or belief that they de...Moral panic about Muslims - or belief that they demean women. Some genuinely believe in secularism applied across the board however. Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-91861640834770210802017-03-15T01:42:19.926-07:002017-03-15T01:42:19.926-07:00Why would someone want to ban a headscarf?Why would someone want to ban a headscarf?Francisco Gómezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16633082243396740921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-14589694982633060732017-03-15T01:32:42.327-07:002017-03-15T01:32:42.327-07:00I would like to know whether there is an understan...I would like to know whether there is an understanding of what 'philosophical' means in this context, and whether there is a potential for abuse on this particular point.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09313909221917785452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-4930934755712848582017-03-15T00:12:25.157-07:002017-03-15T00:12:25.157-07:00the bar for the justification of the (indirect) di...the bar for the justification of the (indirect) discrimination seems rather low though. A simple (unilateral) company policy is sufficient to ban all religious symbols for all customer-facing employees. <br /><br />The impression is that the freedom to conduct a business simply trumps the freedom of religion, quite different from the ECHR approach in Eweida.<br /><br />Marco Roccahttp://marcorocca.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com