I remember the big brouhaha that went on around here when the banning of the burqa in France was front page news.
Well, this time it’s happening in the US, and even though it’s been in the news for a while, no one has mentioned it yet. All of a sudden it’s a wee bit different. Or perhaps not even worth discussing?
I must admit I found it fascinating to see how members of the American society were judging what was happening in Europe (IIRC, the situation in Germany was also touched upon). And I also admit I’d like to see what’s being said now that the problem has crossed the pond. Except I see nothing. The general consensus was that banning it would be inappropriate. Now there is no… issue (no talking about it == it doesn’t exist?) Well, this European would like to hear your opinions this time.
So… is a hijab appropriate in a US public institution? The answer is an emphatic yes, if I read the previous threads. Yet it’s being banned.
You haven’t seen anything because this is the first we’ve heard of it. This is a lot different than the government banning the hijab in France. Oh, and if it makes you feel better, we have had discussions on whether or not women who wear the full veil should have to take off their masks when getting their photos taken for their driver’s license. We also had a discussion about Sikhs and the U.S. military so the issue does come up from time to time.
Odesio
IIRC, the case in France involved the gov’t banning wearing of religious headgear in some public places, in the case in the link, a private American medical group was doing so in (debatable) defiance of the US Civil Rights law which says employers must allow their employees to wear religious gear if it can be reasonably accommodated. So the two situations aren’t really as equivalent as the OP suggests.
I’m not really qualified to say whether or not the medical group was violating the law but I suspect so, (though I guess you can argue that in some medical settings strict dress codes are needed for hygine reasons), and that the medical group will cave pretty quickly when faced with the threat of legal action.
First of all, let’s not conflate a headscarf with a burqa.
However, I think these folks are being short sighted by enforcing a hyper-technicality of the dress code when they are clearly stepping into a religious argument. I also believe they will lose in court, since they probably can’t provide any reason why the headscarf will interfere with the job this doctor would be doing.
If she actually wanted to wear a burga while treating patients, that might be another thing altogether. I would not want to be treated by someone whose face I couldn’t see, or whose body language I couldn’t read.
Schools, IIRC. And in France, the banning was specifically because they wanted to prevent overt religious displays. That would NEVER fly in the US given our constitutional prohibition against preventing the free exercise of religion.
It’s also worth pointing out that the medical group already had a “no hat” policy in place from who knows when. They didn’t ban headscarves.
Maybe they have a medical reason–like workers shouldn’t be wearing (potentially contaminated) clothing from outdoors around the hospital. The article doesn’t even say the medical group’s name, let alone telling us what their reasons were.
Umm…they repeat the groups name 10 times in a one page article. It’s “CareNow”
:smack: I conflated that name with CAIR.
But that aside, the other side of the argument is, certainly, not presented.
I don’t think this is a public institution. From what I can gather, it is a private employer to whom she was applying for a job (or possibly thinking of applying, some of the articles are not clear). Since she does not yet work there, the immediate question would be whether or not they will discriminate against her in hiring on the basis of her religion – since no decision has been made, this cannot have happened yet. The second question, should she get a job, will be whether she can or cannot wear a head scarf while practicing medicine with a private employer.
I truly do not see how this situation is the same or even remotely comparable to the creation of a parliamentary comission to study how to ban the burqua in public spaces or the cry of the head of state for the burqua’s total abolition in the first such speech to parliament in a century and a half. I mean, other than that it involves a muslim woman’s headgear. Possibly you could clarify this matter.
Hijab is appropriate in public spaces. This story does not in any way reference or impact the wearing of hijab in public spaces.
Really? I just did a search and I can’t find any mention of this that predates the CAIR press release from two days ago.
Indeed. It IS a private employer, there has been no government action. So the thread title is a mistake, there has been no ban in “a public institution”.
And as others have said, it’s hard to comment on something we have not yet heard of. We depend on the news media to learn of these things and we’re not all plugged it 24/7.
In this case, with the limited information available I believe that unless there is a specific reasonably-founded requirement of the workspace vis-a-vis no headgear whatsoever worn, a simple hijab (headscarf type) could be accommodated; OTOH if there is such reasonable requirement, well, tough. BUT likewise, IMO an employer would be within its right if acommodating a hijab-wearer, to declare specifications for the acceptable headcovering, if there is a reason for restricting what headgear may be worn.
I am aware that the hijab is not the same as the burqa, but I think it’s safe to “conflate” them in this instance, because where a hijab is banned, a burqa is sure to be banned too. In this instance, a hijab can be seen as a “lesser burqa”.
Whether the clinic in question is “private” or “state owned” has little relevance here. It may be privately owned and run, but as long as it is dealing with the public I see it as a public institution. I use “public” here to designate a place that accepts “customers” from the general public (as opposed to “by invitation”). Wal-Mart is also privately owned, but from this point of view is a public institution.
The fact that in France there was some governmental commission discussing the issue does not change the facts, IMO. The ways in which the two societies (French and American) regulate themselves are different, but the facts remain the same. In the US, there will be eventually a Supreme Court ruling that will settle the issue one way or the other. In both cases, a law will be created. The only difference (in this case) is how the law came to be.
I’m not sure how much media coverage this story is getting over there, but it is getting coverage here. Perhaps the scandal in the neighbor’s house is always more interesting than the one in one’s own backyard. Be that as it may, it was in the news for over a day with zero reactions in these boards.
I disagree vehemently. There’s a big difference between a representative of the government banning something and a private entity banning it. Even if that “private” entity is open to the general public. One is an official act of the state while the other may or may not be legal.
If you’re going to redefine words you might want to tell us that right off the bat in the future. Wal-Mart is not a public institution and is free to refuse anyone service so long as doing so does not violate state or federal laws regarding discrimination.
The Supreme Court doesn’t create laws in the United States we delegate that responsibility to a whole different branch of our government.
Honestly, it just isn’t that big of a deal. Certainly not on the scale of France’s problems with citizens who just aren’t French enough for them. Come talk to us when Congress passes legislation banning scarves and head coverings from schools and government work sites and then you’ll have something to compare with France.
Odesio
Well, no, there is an existing law – several of them in fact. It is unlikely that this case will get to the SCOTUS as the only question is whether this is a case in whch it is a reasonable accomodation to allow her to wear hijab – if in fact she gets the job at all. The reason it is unlikely to get to the SCOUTS is that there is a rather large body of law already covering this issue.
I fail to understand in what way the facts remain the same – possibly it was news for a day there and not in the US because of a fundamental failure to understand the facts. Which are that the wearing of hijab (or ceremonial knives, or turbans, or beards, or crosses, or any of the myriad other symbols and signs people claim god wants them to wear) is acceptable and constitutionally and legally protected except where the employer can point to a non-discriminatory reason not to allow them. In a health care setting this usually involves hygiene, which is the reason for instance that nursing caps are no longer worn. The employer must, if it can establish such a reason, offer her an alternative to address her concerns with her creator – a disposable hair covering which is changed between patients for instance has been offered in the past.
In what way this relates to the leaders of the nation declaring that a certain article of dress violates the values of a nation, is not welcome, and must be punished by criminal sanction is unclear to me. Possibly you could explain.
I would be concerned about hygiene, in this case. I’m sure that my doctor doesn’t particularly enjoy washing his hands after touching a patient, or between patients, but he does it because it’s standard hygiene for medical personnel. Doctors are not allowed to wear ties, I believe, because they are too likely to drape over a patient during an exam. I’ve had one episode of MRSA, and that was quite enough for me, thankyouVERYmuch.
Perhaps this doctor could find a clinic that caters to Muslim patients who value religious observance over hygiene.
I know you are chomping at the bit for there to be a double standard here at the SDMB, but people probably aren’t getting upset here because it isn’t a big deal. On the US side of the pond, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to make reasonable accommodations of employees’ religious practices. This woman is going to win, her employer is going to get shot down over this. Case closed, game over. No big deal.
And BTW it is getting covered here; I read about it on the Fox News site (and maybe CNN, too; I can’t remember).
Yes, essentially that is my main gripe. Last time it was a game of “pile on”, the victim being Sarkozy and his evil intolerant minions. I’m no fan of his, by any means. But I do think it is unfair to define the matter in such a way: The evil French government banned the burqa, but when it happens in Texas is no big deal - especially since the clinic is going to lose?
A Supreme Court decision amounts to a law. Heck, at times it can overturn an existing law. Brown v. Board of Education anyone? Roe v. Wade? That’s the kind of “law” I’m referring to, and obviously not to a law passed by Congress.
And like I said, in the end the facts will remain the same: a Muslim woman will be prevented from wearing… er… religious apparel in a public social setting. The state will either approve of this or not. And while it was worth a discussion then, “it’s no big deal” now.
How do you find the cases remotely parallel? The difference between the two cases is that the French government is restricting religious liberties, whereas in the US case the the US government is (through the Civil Rights Act) protecting religious liberties. The violation of religious liberty is, in that case, being done by a private entity (not the government), and it is the US government’s position that some such infringements of liberty are not permissible (although some are; just not the one described in the article you link to).
And I’m not sure what point you are making about the US Supreme Court. It doesn’t arbitrarily invent laws. It determines whether a law passed by the US Congress is constitutional. The idea that you should have a Constitution which enshrines basic liberties, and that the judicial branch of government should have the power of judicial review, was considered by many founders as essential for the preservation of liberty.
Wow. Let’s not get carried away. It didn’t even cross my mind that the Supreme Court invents laws arbitrarily. First, I didn’t even imply it, and second, even if I did, (which I didn’t) it has nought to do with my main problem: the double standard.
Listen, I can only repeat what I said: I don’t care for the “how”'s, I don’t care for the “why”'s. What is happening is that both in France and in the US a Muslim woman can’t wear her religious attire in a public setting. As of today, at least, this is the status quo. When the clinic will be forced to revise it’s policy, I’ll concede that the situation is different. Otherwise, like I said, the facts are the same.
And even until then, I think the story should deserve at least as much attention as the French burqa (and burqini, btw) - which has been discussed at length here. A lot of people on these boards had an opinion about that, now that a virtually identical issue appeared in the States, it becomes “no big deal” and it’s not worth discussing?
No. It is not a legitimate religious requirement. Plenty of Muslim women do not wear them. It’s a cultural thing–it depends on which country they came from.
When not working from home, I dress differently for my job than I do for my private life, and I’m pretty sure most other people do, too. For instance I see a lot of people in dumb-looking uniforms. If you can’t abide wearing the uniform, don’t do the job.
I should add, one of the doctors I’ve seen in the last 5 years is a Muslim woman. She apparently wears a scarf wrapped around her head when going to and from the office, but not in the office.
I also read, somewhere in the last year or so, that a couple of Muslim women wearing some very restrictive head coverings were not allowed into a bank. I absolutely don’t blame the bank for this. They would be indistinguishable from bank robber uniforms.