Mainstream Faith Hijab ruling poses thorny issue of legislation for all EU member states By Angela C. Batton Last updated Aug 17, 2021 0 Share religious belief“. Her employer said this was necessary to avoid workplace disputes that had arisen in the past. Here the court had no more doubts. He noted that banning only “tall and visible” symbols risked the rule specifically targeting those whose beliefs require them to wear items such as scarves. A rule targeting symbols of one faith, he advised the national court, could only be acceptable in exceptional circumstances where neutrality is absolutely essential to get the job done. The court noted that while EU law allows employers to maintain a policy of religious neutrality, it does not prevent individual member states from adopting more protective rules for religious freedom at work, restricting the rights of workers. employers to impose such obligations on their workers. German courts, which will now have to apply this ruling in individual cases, are therefore free to grant additional protection to religious freedom if they feel this is what the German constitution requires. The story continues Religion and the workplace There are two contrasting approaches for people of religious identities and different points of view to share a workplace. One is to protect the right of everyone to be fully themselves at work and to wear symbols of religion or belief if they so choose. The second path considers coexistence to be best achieved by requiring everyone to refrain from expressing their beliefs at work by adhering to a policy of visible religious neutrality. Restricting religious symbols at work restricts the religious freedom of employees. Moreover, what is considered “neutral” in any society will bear the imprint of the history and culture of that society. Complying with a “neutral” standard will likely be more difficult for minority groups. Yet encouraging religious expression at work is controversial. Most of the mainstream religions have teachings on topics such as gender and sexuality that people can legitimately find offensive. Commentators have expressed disappointment at the European court’s ruling, accusing the court of not taking religious discrimination seriously – and even of bowing to prejudice. The regulation of religion entails particular difficulties. Religion is both about what you believe and who you are. It is difficult to protect religious identity without giving the impression of privileging religion over other forms of belief. If a religious employee can wear a crucifix or a hijab at work, can an atheist employee wear a “There is no God” t-shirt? Can a vegan employee wear a sticker that says “Meat is Murder?” “ Decision for the whole EU In cases like these, the EU Court faces the delicate task of interpreting legislation that applies to 27 member states, all with different values and approaches to religious freedom. Since EU anti-discrimination law can only be changed with the agreement of each member state, if the court is wrong, the EU risks being stuck indefinitely with its interpretation. In France, the approach has often been to seek coexistence by pushing people to refrain from expressing their religious identity in shared contexts. In the UK, by contrast, the approach has been to facilitate religious expression. Each approach has its detractors on the right and on the left. Many in France see the French way of doing things as oppressive and exclusive towards minorities, and tainted with elements of colonialist thought. On the other hand, some in the UK feel that cohesion has been poorly served by approaches that emphasize religious differences. Statistics on the most effective approach to producing mutual respect, friendship between religious lines and religious beliefs consistent with liberal democratic values are mixed. With views so different among nations and no historical precedent, it would have been wrong for a multinational tribunal to decide that it had identified the ideal approach and would impose it on the 27 member states. The European Court was right to allow States to continue to experiment with different ways of dealing with this situation. States that wish to encourage religious reluctance in shared contexts can do so. Those who wish to offer greater protection to religious expression at work can do so as well. It was also fair to place some limits by ensuring that the bans did not target a single denomination. Too often in Europe secular principles have been cynically embraced by those with exclusionary agendas. Marine Le Pen’s National Rally, for example, seemed to discover a love for secular principles only after realizing that they could be used as a stick to beat French Muslims. For a multinational court, faced with virtually unamendable legislation and a rapidly changing and unpredictable situation, that is about as much as it was prudent to do. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The conversation Ronan McCrea does not work, consult, own stock or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has not disclosed any relevant affiliation beyond his academic position. Source link 0 Share FacebookTwitterGoogle+ReddItWhatsAppPinterestEmail Angela C. Batton Prev Post US judge supports university requirement for Covid vaccines Next Post New Chief Justice appointed for 11th Judicial District You might also like More from author Mainstream Faith Netflix’s ‘My Unorthodox Life’ Inspired Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Women… Mainstream Faith Will liberal hypocrisy over vaccination mandates wake up the alarm clock? Mainstream Faith ‘Shubh Mangal Saavdhan’ showed people want to discuss taboo topics Mainstream Faith First Faith-Based Nature Series ‘Riot and Dance’ | Entertainment News Prev Next Leave A Reply Cancel ReplyYour email address will not be published. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.