July 12, 2016

Austrian court rules in favour of workplace hijab ban

Victor LaszloRebel Commentator
 

An Austrian court ruled that preventing employees from wearing Muslim face coverings doesn't qualify as discrimination. A truly unusual show of reason in today's world.

From the Independent.co.UK:

Preventing an employee from wearing a veil is not discriminating against them, one of Austria’s highest courts has ruled.

In the landmark decision, Austria’s Supreme Court (OGH) said that if clothing prevents communication, an employer may legally dismiss them.

The decision was made in the case of a woman who already wore an Abaya, which is an Islamic overgarment, and headscarf, but who was fired after she told her boss she wanted to wear a veil covering her face. 

Logic would dictate that no dress code can prevent someone from believing whatever they want to believe, therefore it cannot be discriminatory against believers.

Logic also dictates that life is full of choices and each choice precludes other choices. 

Freedom means the ability to make choices. For example, the freedom to be a Sikh in Canada means that a person can dress and believe in the Sikh precepts. But it does not mean he should be exempt from motorcycle helmet laws. Neither does it mean the RCMP should change the traditional uniform in order to accommodate his turban. The freedom to choose the RCMP uniform, the motorcycle helmet or the turban is freedom defined. One makes a choice, which has consequences for other choices.

Yet Muslims sometimes feel that their arbitrary decision to wear incompatible clothing for the job (often made after getting the job and working at it for some time), should force the company to change their policy even if that policy is set by safety regulations, as was the case in an Ontario UPS warehouse.

Or like the case in the UK where a woman applied for and got a job at a hair salon and then insisted on her "right" to wear a full head cloth covering all of her hair — when showing off a great hairstyle was a central requirement for employees of the store. She sued for discrimination as well as lost wages. 

And then we have the French law banning the face cloth altogether, a law, to borrow from Shakespeare, "more honored in the breach than in the observance" 

This video is from 2011 when the law first came into effect:

The result, however, was that Muslim groups organized, and when police tried to enforce the law, riots started.

2013 riots over attempts to enforce the anti face cloth laws:

From 2014:

Austria will likely soon learn that the sharia is not something governments choose. It is something they will get if they are not prepared to fight large numbers of people ready to use violence to Isalmify Western nations.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-07-13 11:32:14 -0400
“Freedom means the ability to make choices. For example, the freedom to be a Sikh in Canada means that a person can dress and believe in the Sikh precepts. But it does not mean he should be exempt from motorcycle helmet laws. Neither does it mean the RCMP should change the traditional uniform in order to accommodate his turban. The freedom to choose the RCMP uniform, the motorcycle helmet or the turban is freedom defined. One makes a choice, which has consequences for other choices.”

This is it Victor, very sensible & bold statement. Moreover, the turban for a sikh is NOT a part of his religion but a tradition.
A practicing sikh (called ‘khalsa’) observe & bear five symbols of his religion, namely; a boxer style underwear, a steel bangle, a small dagger, a wooden comb, and unshorn hairs. All collectively called five K’s. Nowhere in their scriptures or tenets it says that sikhs have a wear a turban.
Sikhs lied to & misguided the Canadian government in believing that turban is a part of sikh religion and they’ve gotten away with it since the days of turdo sr.
commented 2016-07-13 01:51:42 -0400
WOW , common sense does exist in some places it seems. Kind of shocking.
commented 2016-07-12 21:53:38 -0400
Keith Barnes is spot on. it is a flag, a show of unity, a way to easily spot fellow invaders in a crowd and finally … a big middle finger to the host country.
And I use the term host in the host/parasite paradigm.
commented 2016-07-12 20:25:51 -0400
Ban cultural incompatability and be done with it – once we send the Ilamist Jihadis back to the sand box and the cultural marxists back to China and Cuba, Canada will be a cohesive nation again.
commented 2016-07-12 19:35:08 -0400
Ban the Burqa and ban the Berks who wear it also.
There is not one word in the Quaran that says a woman has to cover her face. If you look at videos of male Muslims in their home city’s, most of them wear western cloths, it is only when they come to the West that they wear traditional clothing. This is nothing more than a statement, ‘Look we are here, we are going to stay, step aside and make way for us’.

If we give in to these people, we shall be signing our own death warrant.
commented 2016-07-12 18:48:37 -0400
Cover your face if you want, but don’t expect me to do business with you or be a good neighbour.
commented 2016-07-12 18:19:44 -0400
Since 9/11 – IN THE NAME OF ISLAM: 31,325 Attacks, 198,825 Killed, 279,250 Injured.
commented 2016-07-12 17:26:29 -0400
What a sick, barbaric and oppressive religion.
commented 2016-07-12 17:17:15 -0400
Soon, we will be overrun by bag hags wearing hag bags. Then, when will we know if the bag hag is carrying either weapons or a suicide jacket hidden under her hag bag?
commented 2016-07-12 17:11:31 -0400
I don’t discriminate against people, I discriminate against the Burka and any face covering. I would really like to see it banned. A prerequisite to entering the country, don’t expect to wear that identity cover here.
commented 2016-07-12 16:52:01 -0400
Imagine young kids who have developed a sense of fear seeing these goblins coming toward them or roaming around the neighbourhood in their black bag and mask. Every day is Halloween for some musloids so you better have some treats ready for them.