Religious discrimination within the workplace

[frg001]

To be honest, I find it an affront that the BBC uses tax-payers money to fund a specifically arab channel in the first place.
I have no problem with individual and specific programming, as that is what they are there for, but a whole channel that most of the people who pay the tax can't understand or identify with.

But as for religious garb, then they should either ban all, including the headscarf, or allow all or any.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But who is the authority on what's required? I could easily declare that my faith requires me to wear a silver chalice from my neck. Who has the right to disagree with me and say, "No, we've studied what you believe, and we know that your belief doesn't actually include that."

In addition to what Steininn said, there's also consistency.

If someone claims that they're Catholic and consider the teachings of the Catholic Church to be authoritative, then you can go have a look to see what the Catechism says on the matter when they tell you that their religion demands that they read the news wearing a paper sack on their head.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To be honest, I find it an affront that the BBC uses tax-payers money to fund a specifically arab channel in the first place.
I have no problem with individual and specific programming, as that is what they are there for, but a whole channel that most of the people who pay the tax can't understand or identify with.

I think that depends on how they're doing it. Is it going to be a fiscally sustainable business that pays for itself with advertising and levies from service providers? If so, then it provides benefit to everyone by bringing in cash.

Also, I think that your description of the service as something "that most of the people who pay the tax can't understand or identify with" would be a fair description of the BBC World Service, BBC Canada, BBC America, BBC Radio over short wave, etc., etc.

But as for religious garb, then they should either ban all, including the headscarf, or allow all or any.

I personally think that the BBC should be able to place restrictions on what newscasters and reporters wear on camera, but only to the extent that they're justifiable for legitimate business reasons. Also, I don't think that reasonable accommodation is out of line; it's a much bigger deal to prohibit someone from adhering to the dictates of their faith than it is to prohibit someone from wearing an optional religious-themed accessory.

 

[madcap]

In addition to what Steininn said, there's also consistency.

If someone claims that they're Catholic and consider the teachings of the Catholic Church to be authoritative, then you can go have a look to see what the Catechism says on the matter when they tell you that their religion demands that they read the news wearing a paper sack on their head.

That sounds fine in theory, but there's inconsistency within religions. Not all Muslim women believe they should cover their heads, for example. So which interpretation do you go with? Do you say, "Well, we know you're a less conservative Muslim, so we won't let you wear it?"

I feel like the natural response is, "We should just use common sense," but I feel like that approach leads to favoring some religious practice/faiths over others.

 

[Steinninn]

But clearly it is not demanded that christians should have a cross neckless, so they shouldn't have one on BBC. That is my view.

 

[Steinninn]

That sounds fine in theory, but there's inconsistency within religions. Not all Muslim women believe they should cover their heads, for example. So which interpretation do you go with? Do you say, "Well, we know you're a less conservative Muslim, so we won't let you wear it?"

I feel like the natural response is, "We should just use common sense," but I feel like that approach leads to favoring some religious practice/faiths over others.

But a large croup of muslims women have to wear scarfs, so anyone should be allowed to do it, weather they are muslim or not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That sounds fine in theory, but there's inconsistency within religions. Not all Muslim women believe they should cover their heads, for example. So which interpretation do you go with? Do you say, "Well, we know you're a less conservative Muslim, so we won't let you wear it?"

I think that in cases like that, unless there's reason to believe that the person isn't telling the truth, then they should be taken at their word when they say something is a requirement and not optional.

A liberal Muslim woman may become more conservative and vice versa. Just because she didn't feel that she needed to wear the hijab when she started in the job 5 years ago doesn't mean that she doesn't genuinely feel she needs to wear it now.

I feel like the natural response is, "We should just use common sense," but I feel like that approach leads to favoring some religious practice/faiths over others.

In what way?

 

[Breathe]

It should be all or nothing. Otherwise, it's discrimination.
Either she takes off her hijab, or others are allowed to put items on. I'm not fussed either way - as long as it stays at hijab, and does not turn into niqab or burqa!

 

[Autodidact]

But who is the authority on what's required? I could easily declare that my faith requires me to wear a silver chalice from my neck. Who has the right to disagree with me and say, "No, we've studied what you believe, and we know that your belief doesn't actually include that."

Good point. Take the required dress for Muslim women. Depending on which Muslim you talk to, it's anything from this

to this:

 

[ChristineES]

If the person can wear a scarf, then I don't know why someone can't wear a cross or a Star of David- after all, it just jewelery.

 

[madcap]

In what way?

In the way that we declare which religions are "normal" and which aren't. We might decide that it's okay for a woman to wear a head scarf because it's fairly common and we're used to seeing it. Someone else of a different faith might want to wear a full headdress of some kind, and that would seem excessive to us ... simply because it's less familiar.

I don't know why I keep saying "we". I don't work for the BBC.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Good point. Take the required dress for Muslim women. Depending on which Muslim you talk to, it's anything from this

to this:

Some Muslim women don't think even a hijab is required. I've heard interpretations of the verse that's cited in support of hijabs, burqas and the like, and they take it to just mean "don't dress immodestly".

If the person can wear a scarf, then I don't know why someone can't wear a cross or a Star of David- after all, it just jewelery.

Jewelry that advertises a particular religious affiliation, though. In that respect, I can see why the BBC would want their reporters not to wear them: I imagine they have an interest in appearing balanced and unbiased in their reporting of the news, and any special affiliation on the part of a journalist is potentially a source of bias, especially if it's so central to their identity that they feel the need to advertise it.

I think the same argument can be made against Muslim women wearing the hijab or other instances where particular outward signs of one's faith are required, but I think the fact that the hijab is an actual requirement to the women who wear it puts it in a different category than optional jewelry.

In one case, you're talking about the mere inconvenience of tucking your jewelry under your shirt. In the other case, if the item really is a requirement of her faith, you're talking about actually preventing the woman from reading the news altogether.

Do I think it's important for reporters to appear unbiased? Yes.
Do I think the issue is important enough to mildly inconvenience a reporter? Yes, generally.
Do I think the issue is important enough to force a reporter to resign? Not so much.

In the way that we declare which religions are "normal" and which aren't. We might decide that it's okay for a woman to wear a head scarf because it's fairly common and we're used to seeing it. Someone else of a different faith might want to wear a full headdress of some kind, and that would seem excessive to us ... simply because it's less familiar.

However, I also think that wearing a full headdress (assuming that you mean something completely covering the face) is in a different category altogether, because it would interfere in reading the news and the job at hand much more than a headscarf or piece of jewelry.

 

[frg001]

The BBC, like any organisation or business should be allowed to set a dress code. If you cannot adhere to it then don't apply for a job. Simple.

This all reminds me of an incident here in Sweden. A local swimming pool had rules in place of what you could and couldn't wear in the pool. All very normal... Nothing too revealing obviously, but nothing more than standard swimming trunks/shorts for men, and bikini, or all in one for women... They were taken to court for not allowing a muslim woman in with rather more clothing... To be honest I don't know how it concluded, but the very fact that it wasn't just thrown out as ridiculous irritates me.

 

[ChristineES]

It almost seems as though you believe anyone who is part of a Abraham Religion will be seen as biased if people know about it. Isn't that generalizing? Isn't that even bias in itself towards theists? George Harrison (the rock singer) always wore some sort of Hindu ( a non-Abraham religion) symbol, and I never saw the man as biased in the slightest. And if I was a fan of Bob Dylan and wore a Bob Dylan t-shirt, would someone see me as biased? Would I be biased if I prefer Bill Cosby over Robin Williams or vice versa?
(my comments are mostly tongue in cheek and shouldn't be taken too seriously)

 

[Elessar]

I'm against restrictions being put against any sort of religious wear or symbol at any time absolutely, so, obviously, I would be against this petition - but I would want *everyone* to be represented. I wouldn't be allowed to read the news for the BBC, anyway, because I *do* believe I should wear my kippa all the time. Just because there are more liberal Jews, or Messianic Jews, doesn't mean I'm one of them. I feel it necessary, so I do so. And G-d trumps the BBC.