There is a surprising – and encouraging – gap in the government’s new Equality Bill, which I columnized on yesterday. Discrimination on the basis of age, race, gender and sexuality will be outlawed – but not discrimination on the basis of religion. When I saw this, I gave a loud atheist cheer. A religion is a set of man-made superstitions, and I reserve my right to discriminate against anybody silly enough to choose to believe them.
You don’t choose your race, sexuality, or gender, and they don’t affect how well you do your job. But you do choose your religion – and there are instances in which it will make it impossible for you to do a job properly. If you are a burqua-wearing Muslim, you can’t enter Miss Great Britain. If you are an Orthodox Jew who refuses to look women in the eye or make physical contact with them, you can’t be a beautician. If you are an evangelical Christian, you can’t work in a gay club. Go work somewhere else, or change your silly beliefs.
Recently a 19 year old Muslim girl called Bushra Noah applied for a job at a hairdressers where the staff showed off their hairstyles, for obvious reasons. She refused to - she wears a headscarf – so she was told the job just wasn’t for her. She sued, and was rewarded £4000. This is ridiculous. If you choose to wear a headscarf, that’s absolutely your right – but it means you are choosing not to work in a trendy salon.
Of course there are instances of much uglier discrimination. In July 2004, the BBC conducted an experiment: they sent out nearly identical job applications to over fifty British employers. The applicants with Anglo-Saxon names were twice as likely to be asked to interview as those with Muslim names. This obviously repels me. But is this religious discrimination – or racial? If those application had Hindu names, would they have been accepted? Are there all these bigots out there saying, “I hate those Muslims – but I love Sikhs?” Of course not. This is anti-Asian prejudice irrespective of faith, and it should be dealt with by laws banning racial discrimination.
Besides, granting “religious rights” would actually undercut all the other rights in the Equality Bill, because religions often command discrimination against women and gay people. I gave an example last year in a column about the police:
“Last year the Labour government introduced new equality legislation making it a crime to discriminate against gay people in the workplace [but] the government simultaneously introduced laws guaranteeing “religious rights.” These have been pounced upon by religious homophobes, who insist that their “right to religious belief” includes their right to loudly hate gay people who happen to work alongside them… Whenever homophobia is exposed in a police station, the offending officers now plead that they are just following their religion and that is the end of that. Religion has become a get-out-of-jail-free card for homophobic officers… While obviously individuals have to be free to be homophobic in their homes in their spare time, when they are working for us, they have to treat us all equally.”
If you are for human rights, then you have to be against amorphous and toxic “religious rights.”
Well, as a card-carrying Tory I'd never thought I'd live to see the day I agreed with Johann Hari!
People who hold wacky beliefs put themselves up there to be shot down and deserve no protection from the opinions of others. Cases of racial discrimination and threatening behaviour are already covered by the law. Long Live Free Speech!
Posted by: Matt Woods | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 12:18 PM
Me,I've always worked on the simple principle that if someone, no matter who wishes to discriminate against me for what ever reason, I just knut the fool. Usually works and has a remarkable effect of helping to eliminate their prejudices. Well, at least voice them so vocally.
Other than that yes I agree, just because someone believes in the sky pixie shouldn't give them the right to be above the law and to legally exercise their prejudices on other members of society because of their beliefs or lifestyle.
Posted by: flipped | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 12:43 PM
So by this reasoning, I'll start discriminating in job interviews against people with long hair. After all, it's their choice - they could have had it short and spiky, or curly for that matter. But I think long hair looks stupid. I'll tell that to the next candidate for interview I see.
Posted by: Paul | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 01:52 PM
What about the employer's "choice" if the candidate's is so precious? Don't you just love relativism?
Anyway, a lot of the chattering class have a problem with atheism (look at the glee with which Dawkins is frequently shouted down by people who should know better). The main reason for this is the close identification of race and religion. Atheism requires you to speak your mind on religion and call it – all of it – the ridiculous abuse of intelligence that it is. This is easily misconstrued, especially by liberal fanatics, as calling other races moronic; which it isn’t.
I have no problem at all with calling someone of any ethnicity who makes a deliberate choice to ignore reality in favour of myths and manipulative lies a gullible idiot. Indeed, let’s clarify: the “choice” is probably more frequently made for children by their parents; and should be grown out of along with Santa in any reasonable society.
And Lord – excuse me – how seriously these fools take themselves! I only read today about the current Archbishop of the Extended Sibilants taking issue with a group of… (are you ready?)… “rebel Anglicans”! Just see if you can read that phrase again without laughing. It’s easier to take the rebels in Star Wars seriously.
The shame of it is, we keep on treating these berks with an entirely unmerited gravitas and extending them utterly inappropriate, indeed dangerous, leeway. Bring on the intelligent backlash, I say. For instance, one commentator recently suggested that, rather than Bush/Blair-style belligerence (or Cherie-style “understanding”), the most effective treatment for those persuaded that their God will give them virgins/raisins in return for self- and mass-slaughter would be the kind of derisive, hooting dismissal that would, at the moment, no doubt get you into serious do-do with both the Ists and their apologists.
Good idea. But why restrict it? In the interests of egalitarian treatment for all religiously dumbfounded nincompoops, let’s have a licence to give ‘em the good-natured heckling they deserve at every opportunity. Let the cry of “Get real!” be heard at each encounter with the deluded and deluding; as opposed to these brain-jerk responses of “Oh, of course, your religion… Quite understand… “Help yourselves” that do such insidious damage.
Posted by: Rob dePlume | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 02:14 PM
I'm not convinced by this argument, particularly regarding the case of Bushra Noah. If Ms. Noah intended to do people's hair while telling them that they were infidels and should cover up, then you would absolutely have a point, as you do with the homophobic policemen you mention, but to refuse to hire someone because of complex social, cultural and religious reasons (many of which may be to the detriment of Ms. Noah, such as the potentially sexist requirement to wear the veil) seems to me to be absolutely the sort of discrimination that should be banned. If Ms. Noah had lost her hair as a result of contracting alopecia (sp?) should she also have been refused employment then? I would hope the answer is no.
Discrimination on religious grounds should be allowed only in relation to those attempting to foist their religion upon others, the only person who should be able to decide if personal recongition of faith would prevent someone from doing a job should be the individual themselves. As much as I hate homophobic fundamentalist Christians, if one worked in a gay bar, and noone ever knew it, it's difficult for me to think that it would be a bad thing.
Posted by: Ciaran | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 02:15 PM
Newsflash: "those attempting to foist their religion upon others" = the religious in most cases. Indeed, for "foist" read "kill you if you don't convert" in certain instances.
Posted by: Rob dePlume | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 02:21 PM
Rob: While it can mean "kill you if you don't convert" in certain extreme circumstances, I assume you are not suggesting this was the case in the example given above, or indeed in the overwhelming majority of cases in the modern UK?
I certainly haven't been threatened with murder recently, or even been asked to grow a beard/wear a cross/have multiple wives...
Posted by: Ciaran | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 02:32 PM
"When I saw this, I gave a loud atheist cheer. A religion is a set of man-made superstitions, and I reserve my right to discriminate against anybody silly enough to choose to believe them"
Fair enough, so long as you accept that others have the right to discriminate against you, if they don't like your opinions.
Posted by: Sean Fear | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 02:47 PM
Ciaran, on the “kill the non-convert” subject you only have to read a certain book to see that this is a basic tenet. And, whilst I’m glad that you haven’t been threatened with murder lately (to your knowledge, that is), some New Yorkers and Londoners and Glaswegians could possibly tell you different
OK, agreed, it’s complex – the requirement to wear the veil is pretty sexist and a double-whammy for the woman in question. But the lady presumably made the “choice” to continue within that system?
Compare this with the splendid “choice” exercised by a local department store (if they had one, that is) to engage a woman with Tourette’s in their Mature Fashions department. Or the “choice” that employee apparently doesn’t have when it comes to involuntarily effing (and worse) at people shopping for underwear in an otherwise staid and traditional milieu.
I have to say, honestly, that I find the lady’s language less offensive than another frequent local experience, that of the sight of women peering out from the burqa. I have the choice to shop elsewhere; whereas I can’t choose a burqa-free route into town.
One recent item on this topic was the disclosure that a certain set of polygamists amongst us has the right to claim benefits for each wife up to a multiple of four. That’s a “choice” I don’t have (and wouldn’t exercise if I had) because I’m happily married – and bigamy is a crime for me; whereas if I “chose” the religion in question I’d be “better off” on both the financial and conjugal fronts, apparently…
Meanwhile, despite my absolute conviction that religion is an evil nonsense, I “choose” to serve my Muslim neighbours a halal option when we have a barbecue and remove my socks if I pop across to the Mdina. But that’s just good manners crossed with a slight but significant survival instinct: if I thought I could get away denouncing their beliefs along with everyone else’s, I would (‘cause I’m fair like that). Plus I’m pretty confident my neighbours don’t actually want to kill me. I think.
Posted by: Rob dePlume | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 03:10 PM
"I reserve my right to discriminate against anybody silly enough to choose to believe them." If I were an employer who was very religious, is Johann then happy for me to apply this to atheists. It is after all, just a difference in beliefs, and Johann seems to be happy to discriminate against those who have beliefs contrary to him.
Posted by: Sasha | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 04:11 PM
"If I were an employer who was very religious, is Johann then happy for me to apply this to atheists."
If one considers that discrimination on the basis of religion should be lawful (and Johann Hari makes a strong case for it), then it must follow that a religious employer should have the right to discriminate against applicants who do not share his beliefs, including atheists.
Posted by: Sean Fear | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 04:18 PM
Ciaran, it was not only the headscarf but Ms. Noah's ungroomed, unstylish appearance in the eyes of Western culture that was the problem -- she did the equivalent of walking into a mosque in a stripper's outfit and demanding to be given the cleaner job they advertised(it shouldn't matter how the cleaner looks... or should it? Hmm...). Her mustache not was not waxed, she wears no make-up and her choice of clothes and accessories suggest that she really isn't interested in the alternative fashion that the salon represents either.
Well, I'm pretty sure that with this resounding success for religious privilege under her belt, Ms. Noah could be the new face of Vogue and the coming Queen of the catwalk, if only she can get close enough to sue... ;-D
Posted by: Cinnamon | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 04:41 PM
Well if any other Muslims want a job as a hairdresser then I suggest that they are employed on a commission only basis (no discrimination there)thereby removing any chance of having to shell out £4,000. Now if as a customer I choose NOT to have my hair cut by this scarf wearing type then that's MY choice and the mind police can't touch me and after a while they will get the message and leave voluntarily.
This tactic I would recommend to any CUSTOMER confronted by such people and eventually it would become obvious to them that they are making themselves unemployable.
Posted by: toomsk | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 05:06 PM
The independent is no such thing: it is a paper that stifles criticism of those who want to stop a bill that favours discrimination agaisnt white people and men becoming law - and insults them all by accusing them of being bigots, racists, sexists and removing their posts. There is a huge gap in the UK between the REAL people and the liberal PC elite media mob in London - Those working in the press and the media represent no-one any more except their pompous overpaid selves.
Anyhoo... Small businesses should have the right to employ who they want - and to discriminate in any way they want. No religious person or anyone else should have any right to complain and make a compesnsation claim as they do. Some people love this compensation culture and go out of their way to take offence. Mentioning no names (muslims are of course reasonable people who would never dream of doing this...)
I doubt very much white men are treated fairly by the BBC and many, many other institutions obsessed with diversity (ie racism and sexism against white men). In fact, their policies of so-called 'positive action' prove how racist and sexist they are - all legal of course.
Religious people have the right to be religious; businesses have the right to NOT employ them if they can't keep their religions private. Businesses should also have the right NOT to employ anyone for any reason. It is small businesses that are the backbone of the economy - not institutions, corporates or the media.
We should shut down the compensation industry so even if muslims do win cases like this they'd get £1 token damages. Wasn't there a muslim who was allowed to refuse to handle bacon at a teso checkout? Why? People and businesses are terrified of being sued - we need to remove the incentive for people to claim compensation. We need to allow businesses to employ whoever they like - and discriminate however they like.
Some say the BBC is sexist against men and racist against whites - I do wish someone would do an experiment with applications there. Who would get the interview? Mrs Mgagwe or Mr Smith. You decide...
We certainly do not need an 'equality' bill (HA that's a good one) that legitimises racism against whites and sexism against men. It is an INEQUALITY bill. The discrimination bill! A great labour achievement - so popular that Labour is roaring ahead on 25% in the polls.
Johann - you need to feel what being discriminated against fro beingh a white man feels like. YOu have NO empathy at all and are a statist socialist stalinist, like all the diversity mob.
Posted by: SMEE | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 05:21 PM
Sasha and Sean - the issue is whether a prospective employee's religion (or lack of it) affects their ability to undertake a certain sort of work. This is made clear in Johann's article with reference to Miss Great Britain, beauticians and staff employed in gay clubs.
Atheism does not prevent one from doing any job save those which require religious faith. The Church of England would be entitled to refuse employment to an outspoken atheist who wanted to join the clergy, although the very concept is obviously absurd. However, atheism does not disqualify one from any other type of employment and it would be wrong for a Christian employer to refuse to hire an atheist simply because of his or her atheism, just as it would have been wrong for the salon to refuse Ms Noah employment simply because she is a Muslim.
Importantly, the salon evidently did not refuse Ms Noah employment on religious grounds, but rather because she covers her hair - it just happens to be the case that Ms Noah covers her hair for religious reasons. That may be a fine distinction, but it is an important one which should be recognised. Ms Noah remains at liberty to uncover her hair but chooses not to do so, and thereby disqualifies herself from employment at that salon.
Posted by: James D | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 05:54 PM
James D, I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of his article is that he opposes any form of legislation against religious discrimination (and there's a reasonable case for that, so long as it applies all round).
On your specific point, I entirely agree that the hairdresser ought to have been able to refuse employment to Ms Noah - as her refusal to uncover her hair was indeed relevant to the job in question.
WRT atheism, being an atheist has ever been a bar to being an Anglican clergyman, as Sir Humphrey pointed out.
Posted by: Sean Fear | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 06:20 PM
Religions can be more than a set of beliefs- they are an identifiable culture (take agnostic Jews for example). Surely freedom of conscience is the cornerstone of Liberalism? Why can't people think believe whatever they want to? Aren't you being incredibly prejudiced and illiberal? Live and let live.
Posted by: Elf | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 06:33 PM
I think discrimination on the basis of religion is a great idea. I agree with everything that Hari has said but I do not share his atheistic glee. I try to cultivate a deep faith in what some might call a higher power but I am quite happy to call God. I find jubilant atheism as annoying as any other fundamentalist religion. I believe in God, not pixies. I resent the idea that by discriminating against religion, atheism has somehow won. I only resent it a bit though, my God can absorb irreverence.
Posted by: Jude | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 06:44 PM
"The hypocritical fool who agrees to use inductive reasoning to believe in the existence of energy, photons, and gravity for nature--but who will not use the same inductive reasoning to believe in the spirit, love, or grace of God."
"The mad man who claims to be reasonable and rational and yet blindly believes the irrational hypothesis that the universe was created "by nothing out of nothing with nothing using nothing for nothing only to eventually be nothing" over the rational hypothesis that the universe was created "by something out of nothing for something."
What was that again, religious people are "silly"? Better to be silly than a hypocritical fool I suppose.
Posted by: MyName | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 06:53 PM
"Why can't people think believe whatever they want to?"
Because you are a pineapple.
Posted by: Rob dePlume | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 06:55 PM
"WRT atheism, being an atheist has ever been a bar to being an Anglican clergyman, as Sir Humphrey pointed out."
There's a lot more truth in that than you realise. A friend from long ago entered a seminary after discharge from the army. He left pretty disillusioned after a few years and told me that at least 50 to 60 percent of them were atheists or ended up as atheists. It seems most of them viewed is a an easy and secure career with few responsibilities.
Having spent my childhood in nazareth house I believe that as few if any of the priests or nuns were particularly christian or devout. They also convinced me that it was all a load of crap and was just about wealth and power.
Posted by: flipped | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 06:56 PM
Soooo, a covered Muslim can sued over unfair dismissal by focussing on something other than her apparel, which was the main bone of contention. I guess Sikhs can now go on a two wheeled motorised vehicle sans helmet finally as their religion prevents them from wearing anything on their heads other than the turban. And there will be nothing the law can do. Of course, Sikhs will not - they don't make as great a fuss as certain religions do.
Posted by: Mike Goldthorpe | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 10:15 PM
Unfortunately many people dont choose their own religion, they are indoctrinated from a young age by their community and parents, and never get a chance to say no
Posted by: Rob | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 10:59 PM
Here ****ing here.
Did our government get overthrown while I wasn't looking or something? This policy sounds.. what's the word... 'sensible'?
Posted by: Dave | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 11:57 PM
First, Mike, Sikhs DO sometimes make a fuss. Remember the furore at the Birmingham Rep. a few years ago, when Sikhs stormed the theatre (with impunity) because of their objection to the play Bezhti, by a Sikh woman, which showed Sikh culture in an unflattering light?
I'm with Johann on this. I'd go further: banning religious discrimination can of itself be discriminatory. If an employee flouted her company's dress code, say, or insisted on taking Friday afternoons off, she would risk the sack. But in the same workplace, a "religious" worker can do all of those things.
In the case of a small firm, accommodating a religious employee's beliefs could even jeopardise the whole business.
Also, at some supermarkets, Muslim cashiers are exempted from having to take alcohol through their tills, despite the inconvenience this might cause to customers and colleagues. Would that same supermarket let a vegetarian cashier disrupt sales by refusing to handle meat, or a feminist to put through lads' mags?
The Bushra Noah case has created a dangerous precedent.
Posted by: Vera | Wednesday, 02 July 2008 at 12:07 AM
I'm American.
Love the column.
What does to "knut" the fool mean?
Posted by: kim | Wednesday, 02 July 2008 at 12:41 AM
I'm American.
Love the column.
What does to "knut" the fool mean?
Posted by: kim | Wednesday, 02 July 2008 at 12:42 AM
Good article. But do you really believe "You don’t choose your race, sexuality, or gender, and they don’t affect how well you do your job"?
Of course. That's why there are so many 95 year old female chess champions.
Posted by: Seth | Wednesday, 02 July 2008 at 03:24 AM
The trouble is that liberal lefties, and that includes the European Court of Human Rights, dont know the difference between prejudice and preference, discrimination and distaste. I prefer the established British culture developed over centuries - church spires, country houses, maypole dancing, being free to wear the latest fashion, using the welfare service I and my grandparents and great grand parents have paid for through our taxes - others should pay, country pubs, State occasions, freedom to marry and mingle with whoever I choose as long as it's legal. I find women shrouded in veils and black sacks distasteful, men only places of worship distasteful, pressure on women to marry only into their own faith distasteful, workshy and feckless fathers distasteful. We should not be forced to employ those we prefer not to or find distasteful such as that poor hairdresser recently who had to shell out thousands of pounds to a job applicant who constantly wears a scarf on her head, clearly unsuitable, because she preferred not to.
Posted by: SK | Wednesday, 02 July 2008 at 07:19 AM
Our schools and workplaces are full of bigots - sexists and racists who wish to take over the world and believe all those who oppose them should be crushed and made to think differently.
Are they BNP members? No, if one shows the slightest sympathy for that lot or even suggest race/biology is linked to aptitude or IQ, the thought police will be out to lynch you - we have NO freedom of thought in our dumbed-down education system, as Watson discovered.
No - these bigots are religious people! Yes, your children are being taught by those who follow literally the instructions in old books cobbled together in deserts hundreds of years ago - and use these as justification to hurt and discriminate and claim special treatment - as though they should be immune to all criticism in some invisiable forcefield, just because they believe in a fairy tale. Your children are being taught to hate by these nuts! Their beliefs are, by their very nature, anti-equality and do not afford people not of their religion equal respect. They particularly despise atheists and secularists who expose their lies and inform them how backwards their religions were, are and always will be. We even have a national policy to 'respect' and 'celebrate' this indoctrination and thought crime - and special schools set up for that very purpose!
So what to do? If any religious teacher insults or demeans others or tries to convert your kids, make a formal complaint - would you stand for a fascist or a communist doing the same? Make sure the RE teacher covers atheism and the history of non-belief in a fair way (most RE teachers are uber-proselytisers and religious nuts). Contact the Humanist society for teaching materials and advice.
Personally, as a business owener, I have chosen never to employ any person who cannot keep their religion private (all done legally of course). Work is work; home is home: don't confuse them. Haven't had an employee convert yet though... I have no idea what would happen if my driver came in one day wearing a veil with a little slit for the eyes? What a legal tangle that would be (much loved of greedy money-grubbing diversity-specialist parasitic lawyers of course)...
Religion is the biggest fattest most awful and destructive lie in human history.
Posted by: SMEE | Wednesday, 02 July 2008 at 07:45 AM
*What does to "knut" the fool mean?*
Head butt someone, usually aimed to break the nose, as in "Nut him". Also known as "The Liverpool Kiss" or the "Glasgow Farewell".
Blimey, does that show my age!
Posted by: flipped | Wednesday, 02 July 2008 at 08:56 AM
Its shared experiences that draw folk together. Pity we don't concentrate on them rather than on all the differences.
The greatest current lunacy is the encouragement of religious schools.
The greatest sadness is the encouragement of overtly aggressive behaviour- did anybody else find the recent antics of that otherwise quite nice young scot at wimbledon highly offensive?
Posted by: jaff | Wednesday, 02 July 2008 at 09:13 AM
Sean and flipped, concerning: "WRT atheism, being an atheist has ever been a bar to being an Anglican clergyman, as Sir Humphrey pointed out."
That is why I referred specifically to outspoken atheists. I don't anticipate Christopher Hitchens being made Archbishop of Canterbury any time soon. As I explained in my previous post, it is not the belief or lack of it that disqualifies somebody from certain types of employment - it is how that person chooses to act upon their beliefs or lack of them. Of course the church is nothing more than a supernatural protection racket for the gullible and of course many clergymen don't believe the religion they preach. They're not all stupid.
MyName - are you in competition with yourself to see how many logical fallacies you can fit into one post?
Posted by: James D | Wednesday, 02 July 2008 at 10:00 AM
I thought I would let you know about a situation I got into in work which caused some controversy. I work for a Police Force and was more than a little concerned when they appointed the Country's first Force Pastor. I objected to this on the grounds that there was no Force Iman or Rabbi etc and we do seem to have an inbalance of Evangelical Christians in some forces.
Suddenly they denied he was a Force Pastor and retitled him a Street Pastor. But he still wears a badge saying 'Force Pastor' They explained his presence in the Force as encouraging Diversity. Oh come on! I don't half feel sorry for all those Evangelical Christians terrified to go outside of their front doors because they will be attacked for being Evangelical Christians. Yet, still no moves to encourage a Street Iman or Rabbi etc.
Then I did something which I do not really know was the best move to make. I asked would the Force accept a Force or Street Satanist if they volunteered. The reply came back they would not because their beliefs would not be acceptable. Hot water here.
Satanism is a very complex subject, I will not go into it here. Yes, you have deranged individuals who are Satanists but you also have very intelligent individuals who are peace loving who are Satanists. They really should call themselves Luciferans to get away from the stigma associated with the term Satanist.
I pointed out that to paint all Satanists as being vicious, blood thirsty maniacs is the same as saying that all Christians are like the KKK.
My point is, keep your beliefs outside of the workplace unless it is relevant to the job.
Posted by: Sindona Taglioni | Wednesday, 02 July 2008 at 10:10 AM
Rights? What rights? They are legalistic conncoctions of their age. Meaningless. The manner in which you treat people is what gives meaning to our conduct, not the observance of rights as Johann Hari has demonstrated here. Rights are abused and used in the name of self-interest everywhere in our society. I see very little evidence, in comparison, of people acting out of true compassion and altruism. Rights are only ascribed in so far as it suits the governing elite at that time. They are tools of those who would manipulate us for their own selfish purposes. Better that they left us alone in the first place.
Posted by: Arwyn | Wednesday, 02 July 2008 at 10:40 AM
What a toxic, hate filled place this is!
Posted by: Arwyn | Wednesday, 02 July 2008 at 10:49 AM
This is a tough subject, but as someone who is an atheist and supports secular values I find myself agreeing with you Mr Hari.
To Paul who thinks that discriminating against someone because of the way they dress or look is bad; when was the last time you hired someone who turned up to an interview wearing some torn jeans and dirty t shirt? We all discriminate, some of us based on attitudes and sensible things such as the concept of suitability for a particular job. Others based on a prejudice against a look (be that long hair or dirty t shirts) or race.
I think the hairdresser case noted here falls under the former discrimination rather than the latter.
Posted by: Jae | Wednesday, 02 July 2008 at 12:19 PM
Paul said "So by this reasoning, I'll start discriminating in job interviews against people with long hair."
What? Surely if your job isn't suitable for people with long hair it is for Health & Safety reasons and you would be required to wear a hair net...
I think that the issue is specifically that religions can make jobs impractical or unwelcome. For example, how do Muslim's get around prayer time?
5 times every day a Muslim will have to pray, stop everything their doing and pray, but many jobs can't allow for this. Not to forget that having areas where their employees can pray will be detrimental to their other employees and will force wages to be reduced and product/service prices to increase...
On this, I was wondering a few weeks ago just how Iran or Saudi Arabia could possibly operate like any other country. How could they operate a nuclear power station when all the workers take a break at the same time?
How are women with Endometriosis dealt with, are they considered possessed once a month? It must be awfully difficult to have life saving surgery when you're wrapped up in a cloth bin bag...
Oh, and Halal meat, should be illegal, it is archaic and stupid.
Posted by: hexhunter | Wednesday, 02 July 2008 at 12:45 PM
Hexhunter - this idea that muslims must pray every day is a modern influence of pakistani imams. Muslims in this country never prayed 5 times a day until council funded imams promoted this lie. Also, around the world muslims do NOT pray 5 times a day and many drink alcohol and only a small number wear headscarfs and burkas. Islam does NOT demand praying 5 times a day unless you are a pakistani village peasant who follows your imam's orders like a sheep. UK muslims are expert liars.
Unfortunately due to diversity obsessd councils and schools etc we must all now have prayer rooms, allow women to wear headscarfs, and all eat halal meat even though we think it's disgusting and cruel - all meat in schools, colleges, universities, institutions, councils is now halal just for the muslims. Cjheck it. Blame the PC muppets in charge for allowing this sick situation to occur. They should be... (please add your own ideas here...)
Ban the headscarf (like in France). Ban prayer rooms. Ban Burkas. Ban Halal meat. Ban all religious special treatment. Ban the right of religious people to sue for discrimination and claim special advantage or conditions. If you don't like it - please get out of my country. Sounds fair to me.
Posted by: MO the man | Wednesday, 02 July 2008 at 01:12 PM
Amen to every word of that. Johann, I love you.
Posted by: Sarah Datblygu | Wednesday, 02 July 2008 at 02:24 PM
Did wonder, to be honest I've never met a Muslim who even prayed...
I think banning headscarves and burkhas outright would be wrong, but people who wear them would still be required to accept rules which businesses and organisations have on showing your face or wearing a standard outfit.
I think someone should try to turn Burkhas into mens fashion. It'd bring attension to the fact that Muslims who enforce the clothing are sexist and maybe racist(If they think that non-muslims shouldn't wear it)...
Posted by: hexhunter | Wednesday, 02 July 2008 at 02:32 PM
I chose to slack off at school, as such I have poor GCSE results. I therefore did not qualify for four A levels, but rather three. Not enough UCAS points means I can not do my desired degree.
I want to be a doctor, how can it possibly be allowed that my poor results are preventing me from pursing a career in medicine?!
I reserve my right to be stupid. I will be a surgeon, I am taking this to the top I tell you!
Stupid people don’t get hired, because they are not suitable for the job.
If you want to be a hair dresser then take that stuff off your head. If you want to be doctor, then you better get a medical degree. If you want to be a runner, you must have legs. If you are not suitable for the job, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexuality etc. then you don’t get it. It is literally as black and white as that.
As for actively discriminating against silly religious people, and don’t get me wrong they are silly, I do have to disagree. If someone wants to be stupid enough to believe something that is not true then they should be allowed to do that, unless, ofcourse, it interferes with anyone else. Shouting “NONSENSE!” in the face of religious people, whilst being both accurate and fun, is sadly not acceptable.
The major problem with religion is the intolerance that runs in tandem with the beliefs. Homosexuals and adulterers should not be put to the sword. In the same way stupid (religious) people should not be discriminated against. They should be gently and peacefully steered towards the truth, like teaching a child the harsh truth about Santa.
Posted by: Lewy C | Wednesday, 02 July 2008 at 02:42 PM
First off, Rob dePlume, that was awesome.
That notwithstanding, though, the whole, "people choose their religion argument" is pretty weak. Even if we want to concede that you can choose your religion - it's not like just opting for a latte instead of an espresso, is it? If you've been brought up as a God-botherer all your life, and all your ideas about truth, morality etc are tied up with this, I imagine it feels a bit rich to be told that you could simply choose to believe something else. Yes, in theory you can, but only at the expense of feeling that you're denying important aspects of who you are, cutting yourself off from the community you feel at home in and feeling immoral in the process. And if we're prepared to concede that people should do that, then why are we worried about other sorts of discrimination.
If you're comfortable with the self-denial, removal from chosen community and basic dishonesty with yourself, then discrimination on the grounds of sexuality shouldn't worry you too much. And there's always surgery if we're worried about discrimination on the grounds of gender...
Not that religious discrimination laws are inherently great. But saying - all the stuff I like is biological, but the stuff I don't like is a "choice" doesn't really clear anything up.
Posted by: Pete Tiarks | Wednesday, 02 July 2008 at 07:04 PM
Thanks for the ‘awesome’ – my first (well, in this context…)! You’re right – people tend more to get their religion “chosen for them”, by parents, community, etc. The idea of individual “choice” in that respect is a bit existentially demanding (like the old “choice” you might be said to have in responding to a cold hand on your neck in the dark – yeah, right). It’s a “big ask” (just qualified myself for the Banned List, there) for people simply to renounce what may constitute a huge part of their life; their moral fabric, most certainly. Fair enough; but I think we’re using “choice” more as a shorthand for its opposite: the say you definitely don’t get in what gender you’re born with, your height (tell me about it), or the code in your DNA that’s there from the start and will probably switch you off just when you’re not
(Forgive my little joke.) In that sense, people are “born with” the religion of their parents and/or community. It’s deeply ingrained; but it’s ultimately deniable – and should be (or at least questioned), especially when the moral outcomes of those beliefs tend away from the general good of humanity. We’re talking about resisting some pretty hefty programming here: but if the net effect of our efforts is to reduce the numbers of planes flying into buildings, or homosexuals getting necklaced, or witches being burnt, etc., then it’s worth it. And the last thing we need, I repeat, is this eggshell-treading reluctance we have to reject, denounce or simply take the piss out of archaic views and behaviours that have been rendered “sacrosanct” by, on the one hand, dumb acceptance and, on the other, cynical manipulation. And if something as relatively trivial as Freedom of Headgear is caught up in the good fight, well… it’s a small price to pay for the re-establishment of sanity in the world.
Posted by: Rob dePlume | Wednesday, 02 July 2008 at 07:44 PM
Johann objects to Christianity and Islam not because they're religions but because they're not true religions. He and his liberal fellow believers have the true religion, which they want to impose by force on dissenters.
"You don’t choose your race, sexuality, or gender, and they don’t affect how well you do your job."
One of the dogmas in Johann's religion: we're all equal under the skin. That's why he supports mass immigration from some of the most misogynist, homophobic and theocratic countries on earth, believing that a miracle will occur as immigrants set foot on British soil and their pernicious beliefs will fall from them. Not so, as even the Rev. Johann will eventually see.
Posted by: Jump for Joy | Wednesday, 02 July 2008 at 10:22 PM
If I were an employer who was very religious, is Johann then happy for me to apply this to atheists. It is after all, just a difference in beliefs, and Johann seems to be happy to discriminate against those who have beliefs contrary to him.
**************
To paraphrase the words of someone whose name I cannot recollect at this moment, "calling Atheism a belief is like calling bald a hair colour."
Posted by: Dan | Wednesday, 02 July 2008 at 10:40 PM
We seem to be confusing "religion" with "religious-based activities." I'll agree that if someone's religious beliefs prevent them from performing their duties, they shouldn't be hired. But there's really no reason to refuse to hire someone who's perfectly willing to do whatever the job entails. What would be the point in that?
Your example of the woman wearing a burqa at a salon: why is that a problem? The visibility of her hair doesn't impair her ability to cut someone else's. Were she refusing to cut someone's hair because it was a sin, then no, she shouldn't be hired. But I don't see her choosing to cover her own hair as the least bit relevant to her professional duties.
Posted by: The Watcher | Thursday, 03 July 2008 at 02:06 AM
I disagree with The Watcher. I would never have my hair styled by someone whose hair I could not see, or whose personal style I disliked. My friends feel the same.
Ms Desrosiers is perfectly entitled to impose a dress code on her staff; hundreds of employers do.
I'm 63 and immensely proud of my Judi Dench crop. Ms Noah is a fraction of my age, but for my taste, her image is too -- how can I put this delicately? -- too frumpy for me to let her anywhere near my hair.
What's the scenario if Ms Desrosiers HAD hired Ms Noah? If clients had shunned Ms Noah, then Ms Desrosiers, running a precariously small business, would have had to 'let her go'. Then, presumably, Ms Noah would have pulled her 'Is it because I's Muslim stunt' and trousered a fat wad of cash.
Let's face it, the tribunal's decision was governed not by a sense of justice, but by fear. A Muslim website hails Ms Noah as a hero of the struggle against British anti-Muslim sentiment. So, if putting Ms Desrosiers through the wringer is the action of an anti-Muslim nation, what punishment would a PRO-Muslim nation have meted out to her?
Posted by: vera | Thursday, 03 July 2008 at 12:54 PM
"Would that same supermarket let a vegetarian cashier disrupt sales by refusing to handle meat, or a feminist to put through lads' mags?"
As both, I can tell you that yes, they absolutely would.
...yeah, I was kidding.
Posted by: Bud | Thursday, 03 July 2008 at 07:50 PM
Seriously though, vera, I'm not scared of Muslims, and I don't see any evidence to suggest that this countries' courts are doing anything out of fear. I have no truck with the cowards in the media who refused to publish the Danish cartoons, but this kind of thing is not widespread.
Posted by: Bud | Thursday, 03 July 2008 at 07:56 PM