The European Court has decided that companies in the EU can prohibit the wearing of religious symbols at work if an employer can demonstrate a legitimate desire to pursue “a policy of political, philosophical and religious neutrality with regard to its customers or users, in order to take account of their legitimate wishes,” as per the court’s statement.
In the statement, the court acknowledges who this rule really affects:
“… it should be noted that, according to the findings of that court, the rule at issue in Case C‑804/18 concerns, statistically, almost exclusively female workers who wear a headscarf because of their Muslim faith, and the Court therefore starts from the premiss [sic] that that rule constitutes a difference of treatment indirectly based on religion”
This ruling came about after two Muslim women in Germany were barred from work after wearing hijab. One of them worked as a special needs caregiver, the other as a salesperson in a drugstore chain (as explained here).
The court takes some time to try to explain that an employer cannot just use his “desire” as a justification. They then provide some verbal gobbledygook to explain how this can be objectively measured:
“In those circumstances, in order to establish the existence of objective justification and, therefore, of a genuine need on the part of the employer, account may be taken, in the first place, of the rights and legitimate wishes of customers or users. That is the case, for example, of parents’ right to ensure the education and teaching of their children in accordance with their religious, philosophical and teaching beliefs recognised in Article 14 of the Charter or their wish to have their children supervised by persons who do not manifest their religion or belief when they are in contact with the children with the aim, inter alia, of ‘guaranteeing the free and personal development of children as regards religion, belief and policy’…”
It’s great that the court is so concerned about the rights of parents. This is coming from a part of the world where in many countries, homeschooling your children is not allowed (including Germany, the EU’s most powerful nation).
I didn’t realize that it’s only through people’s dress that children can be hypnotized into believing certain things. Obviously, what is taught in schools, including sex education, is different… right?
So what about no dress? In Europe, not wearing clothes is not a particularly big deal. In Germany, for example, it isn’t uncommon to see people bathing nude in rivers and lakes, even in cities. This doesn’t just happen in nudist colonies. We’re talking about populated areas, areas where children also may be swimming and are confronted with genitalia in their faces. Is this neutral?
I’m not sure if the court’s decision is some kind of backlash from [some of] Europe’s former practice of making sure that everyone knew who was Jewish back in the 1930s by putting stars on their arms, but one thing is clear—they can’t seem to get over the intolerance that runs rampant but at times discreetly in their society. Sure, there are tolerant, kind Europeans, but this is about law. The laws are showing us that their logos and anthems branded with terms like “liberty, equality, fraternity” and “unity, right, and freedom” are just terms.
Secularism is not neutral. Never was, never will be. The sooner people come to terms with that, the sooner we can have an actual conversation about multi-religious societies. For now, we’re stuck in this feedback loop of superficial falsities, weaving some confused web of lies about it what it means to let people practice their faiths in a supposedly free society.
- Here’s a sense of the way things are going: Take a look at page 38 from this booklet—suggested education material for the Berlin-Brandenburg area in Germany (found on a local government website). Those are pictures of girls loving girls and boys loving boys. It’s a game in which the children are instructed to tell stories about each picture and how the children depicted got to know each other. It’s explained that the game should help kids see homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. as “a natural part of childhood (adolescence and adulthood)” (p.37). This is for 6 to 12 year-olds. ↑