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