It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Veiled threat

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   
A Veiled Threat

A MUSLIM woman has complained after allegedly being told to remove her face veil during a job interview at a Territory hospital.

Territory Anti-Discrimination Commission officers have launched an investigation.

Acting commissioner Lisa Coffey has refused to discuss the case - or even confirm that a complaint had been lodged.

But the Northern Territory News understands the young woman went for an administration job at Royal Darwin. A doctor asked her to remove her veil during the interview. She refused - and filed an official complaint.

The case comes at a time when several western countries are following France's lead in banning the wearing of the hijab in public.


Talk about Political Correctness Gone Insane. Why is there so much silence on this issue and why are politicians scared to comment? If something like this is tolerated, where are we headed? Are we going to start making excuses why we should change our culture and way of life to accommodate a minority?


"It's against their religious beliefs," he said. "It can seriously hurt their inner self.


[edit on 21/6/2010 by Dark Ghost]




posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Well she could be anyone under that veil.... Could even be a guy, Sod her.... PC gone bonkers.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   
how about telling her, "thanks, but no thanks." good luck finding a job.

Is it too late to draw a line?



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Can an OB/Gyn inspect her genitals, as long as they do not see her face?
Is it ok for a doctor to check for breast cancer as long as they do not see her face?

To be PC is BS.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   
We're not adapting to their faith, their values, their morals and their laws in OUR country.

Why don't they adapt?

ETA: I think that story is a joke, if the woman took offense to someone wanting to see her face before he decides to give her a job and pay her then maybe shes in the wrong country. I wouldn't say I'm against the burqa, people should have the right to wear what they want, but there's a time and a place.

[edit on 21/6/2010 by serbsta]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
A Veiled Threat

A MUSLIM woman has complained after allegedly being told to remove her face veil during a job interview at a Territory hospital.

Territory Anti-Discrimination Commission officers have launched an investigation.

Acting commissioner Lisa Coffey has refused to discuss the case - or even confirm that a complaint had been lodged.

But the Northern Territory News understands the young woman went for an administration job at Royal Darwin. A doctor asked her to remove her veil during the interview. She refused - and filed an official complaint.

The case comes at a time when several western countries are following France's lead in banning the wearing of the hijab in public.


Talk about Political Correctness Gone Insane. Why is there so much silence on this issue and why are politicians scared to comment? If something like this is tolerated, where are we headed? Are we going to start making excuses why we should change our culture and way of life to accommodate a minority?


"It's against their religious beliefs," he said. "It can seriously hurt their inner self.


[edit on 21/6/2010 by Dark Ghost]


The politicians are scared to comment, because of the situation with Pauline Hanson.

It doesn't MATTER which religion the person IS in... The fact that she wants a job... (at a hospital) that she knows she has to wear a uniform.

If that female whent to a bank and the bank staff asked her to show her face, what right (religionist laws) does the person can refuse?

It's a nother country with a nother set of laws for that country. If a religionist person moved to the country.

In this case, it is Australia. "Home of the Free" - Freedom. That IS what Australia is built on...a democracy. Australia is a democracy... Enough Said!!!



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   
That article is very confusing. It talks about the woman wearing (and being asked to remove) a hijab (that doesn't cover the face), and then talks about "the veil", and how according to traditional islam, a woman can't "show her face" to anyone but her husband and male relatives (which isn't really true).


I'd be interested in knowing exactly what the actual situation was. Burqa or Hijab? Because I can't think of any justification to be asked to remove your hijab.

If it was burqa, yeah, maybe. If being interviewed to be a nurse (or a doctor or a teacher), face-to-face communication is sometimes important. In an administrative job (as mentioned in the article)? Not so much.

If it was a matter of "Check if she is who she says she is" (which is a fairly silly reason, if you ask me...why would a guy interview for a position pretending to be a woman?), she could've had some other woman check her.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by babloyi]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Confusing or not...why not just remove it and be done with it. This interview was for prospective employment, not for any form of persecution.

Maybe when she gets hungry enough she will be willing to do what it takes to find a job in the country she chose to live in. I am not too certain, but I think it is possible she moved to Australia for certain freedoms not extended to her in her country of origin...as a woman.

So be it! I'm sure the next woman, who got the job, was not so pointed in putting her thousand year old religion before her last months bills.

Got to go back to work now...



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
That article is very confusing. It talks about the woman wearing (and being asked to remove) a hijab (that doesn't cover the face), and then talks about "the veil", and how according to traditional islam, a woman can't "show her face" to anyone but her husband and male relatives (which isn't really true).


I'd be interested in knowing exactly what the actual situation was. Burqa or Hijab? Because I can't think of any justification to be asked to remove your hijab.

If it was burqa, yeah, maybe. If being interviewed to be a nurse (or a doctor or a teacher), face-to-face communication is sometimes important. In an administrative job (as mentioned in the article)? Not so much.

If it was a matter of "Check if she is who she says she is" (which is a fairly silly reason, if you ask me...why would a guy interview for a position pretending to be a woman?), she could've had some other woman check her.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by babloyi]


It does not matter what she was/is wearing. The religion that the person is part of is NOT, I repeat *NOT* "The Law" for the country that she is in.

I don't care IF she is a Muslim, the fact IS... is that she is in a country that has it's own set of laws for it's country.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
I'll tell ya what might be hurting their 'inner self'....is that crazy religious idea that women should be hidden and submissive and are less than men and are nothing more than animals that they are trying to bring out of the stone age into this modern shining day.

....and it might be hurting my 'inner self' to have to watch women walking around like shrouded death.

No matter what I wear or don't wear, I'd rather see people looking resplendant and shining.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Just to clarify: my beef is with Political Correctness, not Islam. If this was a orthodox Jew who refused to remove his skull cap and then cried because he didn't get the job, I would condemn that too.

The thing is that as of late Muslims in particular have displayed trouble fitting into our society. I know we keep getting told that we should respect their faith, but when it clashes with our customs then it becomes a problem. Continually we are being told that WE are the problem and WE need to change our mindset. Are we the ones living in an Islamic theocracy though?

BTW, I have met and spoken with a female that emigrated from Iran. She wears Western clothing, doesn't have a scarf or burqa and seems to fit in pretty well. Guess what? She has never experienced discrimination when finding a job. Not once in the 15 years she's been living here. I wonder why?



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I think it is more about pushing the envelope myself.

In the pagan community, some wear their pentacles and wait for someone to try to tell them to take it off...but most of us know that it's just as effective inside one's clothing, hidden and close to the skin.

It's about forcing acceptance...and there's a fine line there. One one hand, if people don't do it a bit, people will be stuck in the closet forever.

One day, I sat in the midst of my boss and his boss and my coworkers and had to listen to them going on and on about firing a girl that 'thought she was a witch, wiccan or something.'

Now this woman has put it on the table, whomp, there it is...and she was rejected. So, since it matters so much to her that she has to fly THAT flag so high, hopefully she will look for a job that is more accepting of fundamentalist dressing muslims.

Most muslims would walk in, and get the job if they were qualified, as the issue would never come up. I did, and I obviously was hired by a bunch of pagan haters.

If I'd walked in with a pentacle on, dressed in black and carrying tarot cards and a crystal ball, I'm sure they would have just laughed and said "NEXT"



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by daddymax
 


Originally posted by daddymax
Maybe when she gets hungry enough she will be willing to do what it takes to find a job in the country she chose to live in. I am not too certain, but I think it is possible she moved to Australia for certain freedoms not extended to her in her country of origin...as a woman.



reply to post by gordonwest
 


Originally posted by gordonwest
It does not matter what she was/is wearing. The religion that the person is part of is NOT, I repeat *NOT* "The Law" for the country that she is in.

I don't care IF she is a Muslim, the fact IS... is that she is in a country that has it's own set of laws for it's country.


Woah!
Talk about issues.....
Excuse me, I may not be all that well versed in australian law, but last I heard, freedom of expression and freedom of religion is NOT illegal, while discrimination against someone based on their religion IS illegal.

What exactly is wrong with someone wearing a hijab? How is it against "the laws of the country" to be wearing one?

[edit on 21-6-2010 by babloyi]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 



Originally posted by babloyi

Excuse me, I may not be all that well versed in australian law, but last I heard, freedom of expression and freedom of religion is NOT illegal, while discrimination against someone based on their religion IS illegal.

What exactly is wrong with someone wearing a hijab? How is it against "the laws of the country" to be wearing one?

[edit on 21-6-2010 by babloyi]


Of course freedom of expression is not illegal, that's not the issue here. The burqa and other forms of covering ones facial features is not directed by Sharia law but is certainly preferred in accordance with its regulation. The whole issue becomes a real issue when people who choose to wear a burqa place the laws/attitudes of their home nations in front of the laws/attitudes of this nation.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by serbsta
 



Originally posted by serbsta
reply to post by babloyi
 

Of course freedom of expression is not illegal, that's not the issue here. The burqa and other forms of covering ones facial features is not directed by Sharia law but is certainly preferred in accordance with its regulation. The whole issue becomes a real issue when people who choose to wear a burqa place the laws/attitudes of their home nations in front of the laws/attitudes of this nation.


See, you mention "face-covering", hence my confusion in my original post. The article seems to be somewhat ambiguous on whether it was a hijab (no face covering) or some sort of burqa/veil (face covering). That issue makes SOME difference in the situation, but (as far as I see it), not in the sense you seem to be taking it.

You're talking about "laws of home nation" vs "laws of this". I don't see where this comes up. Those people don't wear hijabs/burqas because of the laws of any nation. They wear it because they believe it is traditional for their religion. Even whether this is true or not is irrelevant.

They are wearing it because they choose to wear it. Perhaps it is something they picked up from the cultural traditions of their original country. Perhaps it is something they decided on later. That is also irrelevant. It is their absolute right to wear whatever they want (except for nudity laws? Once again, I'm not certain about such things in Australia).

You talk about attitudes. There is talk about "integration" in this thread. I agree, that if someone wishes to move to another country, it is nice (although once again, not a law..as far as I know) that they should attempt to integrate with the local population. They should learn the local language, etc. But why should they change their personal behaviours?
If a vegetarian moved to some deep south town in the US, should they give up being a vegetarian just to "fit in" with the local population? Of course not! Would it be alright if at an interview, their interviewer asked them to sample a steak? No!



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
See, you mention "face-covering", hence my confusion in my original post. The article seems to be somewhat ambiguous on whether it was a hijab (no face covering) or some sort of burqa/veil (face covering). That issue makes SOME difference in the situation, but (as far as I see it), not in the sense you seem to be taking it.

It is not specific, but I have reason to believe it was probably a burqa that covered her face. I see women wearing head scarves in every day situations and they do not stand out much. Women with their faces completely covered by the burqa do stand out and get stared at in many cases.

In other words, it is a normal occurrence to see other people wearing beanies, scarves, hats and other items of that nature. It is not a normal occurrence to see people dressed in plain black with nothing but their eyes exposed.


You're talking about "laws of home nation" vs "laws of this". I don't see where this comes up. Those people don't wear hijabs/burqas because of the laws of any nation. They wear it because they believe it is traditional for their religion. Even whether this is true or not is irrelevant.

But you are ignoring the fact that wearing this religious attire conflicts with the laws and social norms of the new country. It is illegal to have your face covered in a bank in Australia. If a motorcyclist goes in with a helmet and refuses to take it off, he or she will be escorted out or law enforcement called to remove them.

In Australia, an important social norm is making your face visible when communicating with another person. This is the norm in all person-to-person interactions. It is considered rude to engage in conversation with somebody whose face is not clearly visible.


They are wearing it because they choose to wear it. Perhaps it is something they picked up from the cultural traditions of their original country. Perhaps it is something they decided on later. That is also irrelevant. It is their absolute right to wear whatever they want (except for nudity laws? Once again, I'm not certain about such things in Australia).

Not in all cases. It can be argued that they feel obligated to wear it or that their partners force them to. Unless a woman is allowed to talk out in public without the fear of repercussions, how do we know she wants to walk around like that? You are just assuming they probably do.


You talk about attitudes. There is talk about "integration" in this thread. I agree, that if someone wishes to move to another country, it is nice (although once again, not a law..as far as I know) that they should attempt to integrate with the local population. They should learn the local language, etc. But why should they change their personal behaviours?

Yes, the choice is theirs. But who do you think will be treated better and accepted more: those who do integrate or those that don't? Integration is not nearly as complex as many people try to make it.

Here is an easy explanation. I invite person A and person B to dinner. Person A is polite, friendly and talkative. After the night is over, I decide to invite the person back for dinner next week because we get along so well and I enjoy their company.

Person B turns out to be impatient, self-absorbed and very short on words. I decide not to invite person B back for dinner. If person A is continually being invited back to dinner by others and person B isn't, do you agree it is likely person B is at fault instead of all the hosts being at fault?


If a vegetarian moved to some deep south town in the US, should they give up being a vegetarian just to "fit in" with the local population? Of course not! Would it be alright if at an interview, their interviewer asked them to sample a steak? No!

The point is that the vegetarian would be making a huge error in judgement by moving to that location in the first place. The onus to fit in and adapt to your new surroundings is on the immigrant, not those already living there. If the vegetarian went there and accepted that most others enjoy eating meat, he will probably not find any trouble. If he starts organising protests and handing out leaflets about Vegetarianism and how evil it is to consume meat, he probably will find trouble.

[edit on 23/6/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


I cannot imagine someone being so touchy as to file for discrimination when they are merely ASKED to do something. The option was given for her to say no right? She could have merely refused to remove the veil and got on with the interview...

Seems like everyone is just begging to be offended, it almost seems like people consider launching unnecessary complaints is some kind of RIGHT they have. We see overreactions like this all over the world.

I know the subject of this is the veil but is your avatar a picture of Alyx Vance and Chell from Portal making out? If so that's hot



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 03:50 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Its not discrimination, it’s a matter of dress code. She would not be able to wear such garb in the medical profession anyway; as it is against the policies and procedures in every hospital I have ever worked in. Here in the US it’s also against the law to wear any type of mask in public. This goes back to the fact that most people who commit crimes wear masks to try and cover their identity.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


Originally posted by Dark Ghost
But you are ignoring the fact that wearing this religious attire conflicts with the laws and social norms of the new country. It is illegal to have your face covered in a bank in Australia. If a motorcyclist goes in with a helmet and refuses to take it off, he or she will be escorted out or law enforcement called to remove them.

But she didn't go into a bank. She went into a hospital. If what you say is correct, and it was a burqa instead of a hijab, me, personally, would find such a person not really appropriate to work as a doctor or nurse. But the article says she was applying for an administrative job.




Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Not in all cases. It can be argued that they feel obligated to wear it or that their partners force them to. Unless a woman is allowed to talk out in public without the fear of repercussions, how do we know she wants to walk around like that? You are just assuming they probably do.

And you are just assuming that they probably don't
. Certainly, if they are being pressured into wearing something they would be unwilling to wear otherwise, I'd say something is wrong. Again, however, I don't believe this is the case here. I heard no mention in the article of any spouse going with her to this interview, and she had no reason to fear any repercussions from any spouse, because why on earth would it have come out?




Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Yes, the choice is theirs. But who do you think will be treated better and accepted more: those who do integrate or those that don't? Integration is not nearly as complex as many people try to make it.



Originally posted by Dark Ghost
The point is that the vegetarian would be making a huge error in judgement by moving to that location in the first place. The onus to fit in and adapt to your new surroundings is on the immigrant, not those already living there. If the vegetarian went there and accepted that most others enjoy eating meat, he will probably not find any trouble. If he starts organising protests and handing out leaflets about Vegetarianism and how evil it is to consume meat, he probably will find trouble.

But see, at one side you say that it is easy to integrate, and on the other, you say that they have to change themselves completely. Why should a vegetarian have to "fit in" and have to start eating meat? Why should it be considered a faux pas to say "Sorry, I don't eat meat"? The thing about clothes is that they honestly don't harm anyone else (aside from the bank thing you mentioned?). Why shouldn't a person be able to wear whatever they want?

In the neighbourhood I lived in, there were many immigrants from Africa who wore those long multi-coloured robes and hats while roaming about (don't really know what they are called, but I'm sure you know what I mean). Did I think to myself "Why do these people insist on parading their own customs and traditions in a completely related country?! Why did they come to this country if they insist on wearing those same old clothes?!"? No, I admired the colour and variety they added to the neighbourhood, and moved on.

I dunno...I guess we have differing views on social integration and immigration. Clinging on to a couple of your old traditions when moving to a new country (as long as those traditions don't harm anyone, of course) doesn't make you an isolationist. A country's "culture" and "traditions" don't really suffer at all from the occasional inclusion of an item or two in the menu with the vegetarian symbol next to it (or the kosher symbol, or the halal symbol). It doesn't suffer from a couple more synagogues, or churches, or temples, or mosques. It doesn't suffer from a couple of robes, or headscarves, or funky hats, or flappy skirts in the sea of boring jeans.
In fact, the inclusion of such things ENRICHES that country's culture and traditions.

If one makes a claim of being an open, welcoming and free society, one should rise above the oppressive countries where anything but a particular cut of clothes, of a particular size is frowned upon, where the menu only allows one sort of food, where only one sort of religious building dots the skyline.



reply to post by defcon5
 

Are you sure about that, defcon? Because I'm certain I've seen lots of people in face-coverings, in burqas, even in masks.
Even the masks, there was a point when everyone was wearing one of those...asthama masks? breathing masks? Hygiene masks? Whatever they are called....



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Integration is not expecting others to change their ways and beliefs to conform with your own; it is more about not doing things that go against the social cohesion of that country. Wearing a hijab does not really go against the social cohesion of Australians because it is common for people of all types to cover their heads in different ways. On the other hand, wearing the burqa kind of does. It is very rare to see people who are covered head to toe with only their eyes showing.

Anyway...I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I can see your point of view as I'm sure you can see mine. Not much point in trying to convince each other otherwise


[edit on 23/6/2010 by Dark Ghost]




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join