The top European Union court ruled on Tuesday that public authorities in member states can prohibit employees from wearing signs of religious belief, such as an Islamic head scarf, in the latest decision on an issue that has divided Europe for years.

The case came to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) after an employee of the eastern Belgian municipality of Ans was told she could not wear an Islamic head scarf at work.

  • Mr_Blott@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    TL/DR like most people do -

    Woman says her right to freedom of religion had been infringed.

    EU says that a public service would also be justified if it decided to authorise, in a general and indiscriminate manner, the wearing of visible signs of belief.

    The court said authorities in member states had a margin of discretion in designing the neutrality of public service they intended to promote.

    However, this objective must be pursued in a consistent and systematic manner and measures must be limited to what is strictly necessary, the court said

    Not about headscarves or anything in particular, just about any religious paraphernalia

    • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I fully support that honestly.

      I fully believe religion has no place outside of private property whether that’s your place of worship or your own home.

      Outside of those two places no one other than your fellow believers gives even the slightest fuck about your religious beliefs.

  • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    2 years ago

    I’m not from the EU and don’t have the context to really understand the history of this decision, but this just seems so unnecessarily divisive.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        To me not having visible religious symbols when in public service seems very much in line with the idea of secular government

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Those in favour of secular government and separation of religion and state

    • HamSwagwich@showeq.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Intelligent people who don’t want imaginary friends working in government? Which translates to better service for everyone since the mentally ill will hopefully be discouraged from seeking a job position that is in charge of the public? Go work in a church if you want to pull that shit.

      • interceder270@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I’d like to have them on payroll just to cause people like you to come out of their shell and get fired.

  • Tygr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    The entire world is figuring out you can’t please them all, legally.

    If, legally, religious attire is allowed as an exception, then they must allow those satanists to wear theirs. Solution? Businesses and service providers can no longer restrict clothing, including if someone wants to work in a bathing suit. Or, face an expensive legal battle.

    If long hair on males is forbidden in the schools, then you must be willing to force a Native American to cut his hair. If you are willing to do that, then expect more legal restriction and an expensive legal battle.

    All this stuff is going through the courts in various countries in various extremes. Been interesting to watch over the last couple decades.

  • JoeKrogan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    Personally I don’t see the problem if they want to wear it. It is not harming anyone and in fact it may help people to integrate more and feel more represented if they see people similar to them in a public position.

  • 𞋴𝛂𝛋𝛆@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    2 years ago

    Religion is comic con with fans that kill each other regularly.

    Label every instance of hate speech, and fantasy magic as primitive nonsense in a way that is obvious to the dumbest of people.

    Like, “everyone in this era was illiterate and uneducated so 5k people present was 5k idiots” “drug use was prevalent” “mental health issues like schizophrenia and seizures were demon position because of ignorance and were used as parlor tricks to convince idiots con artists were magic” “religion was not separate from state in ancient times and the political struggles and propaganda are obvious”

    There are so many aspects that people only believe because it was taught as toddlers when everyone is a gullible idiot. The vast majority of people only follow it because of the social network isolation and inability to connect with people in an open and trusting way outside of this context. Fighting the symptoms of religion is nonsense. Educate to remove the duality of “magic is real in religion” and create more physical community connectivity to break down entrenched social network isolation.

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      I hope we as a species get past the irrationality of religion, some day, or at least toss the regressive ones in the bin alongside all the other mythologies of the past.

    • Zahille7@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Speaking of Comic-Con, there was a guy proselytizing in the middle of an intersection this summer at SDCC

      I kinda stopped reading after that first line.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    BRUSSELS, Nov 28 (Reuters) - The top European Union court ruled on Tuesday that public authorities in member states can prohibit employees from wearing signs of religious belief, such as an Islamic head scarf, in the latest decision on an issue that has divided Europe for years.

    The municipality subsequently changed its terms of employment to require its employees to observe strict neutrality by not wearing overt signs of religious or ideological belief.

    The woman concerned launched a legal challenge, saying her right to freedom of religion had been infringed.

    It added that another public administration would also be justified if it decided to authorise, in a general and indiscriminate manner, the wearing of visible signs of belief.

    The court said authorities in member states had a margin of discretion in designing the neutrality of public service they intended to promote.

    However, this objective must be pursued in a consistent and systematic manner and measures must be limited to what is strictly necessary, the court said.


    The original article contains 264 words, the summary contains 166 words. Saved 37%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • noones@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      How many countries do you think that is? Are you saying the EU is right to do it because Iran and the Taliban do the opposite?

  • DessertStorms@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    2 years ago

    Surely this fascistic bullshit goes against the ECHR? I hope there is an appeal already being put together.

  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    2 years ago

    I’d be more sympathetic to this if it weren’t for the entire era of European colonialism. If your country did a genocide for nutmeg, maybe just ignore the head scarf while you get your moped license or access health care or whatever.

  • sexy_peach@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    2 years ago

    Hmm that’s weird. To many (not saying most or all) it’s only a statement of fashion.