Ridiculousness in the Netherlands.
Posted by Godefroi on June 15, 2007
THE HAGUE, 14/06/07 – The municipality of Diemen may not freeze the welfare benefit of a Muslim woman who wears clothing that covers her entirely. She cannot be asked to remove her burqa to improve her chance of getting a job. Nor is she required to accept work that is contrary to the Koran, according to a ruling by an Amsterdam court.
The woman started wearing the burqa in the summer of 2005, and decided to apply for benefit a year later. In March, the Diemen local authority stopped the benefit payment for three months because of “culpable actions” by the woman that formed an obstruction to finding work.
The woman applied for work at call centre company Telfort, the Bedrijven Vereniging Amsterdam Zuidoost and at Aurora, a telework centre. All three rejected her because the burqa represented a safety risk, gave insufficient scope for normal communication and for other practical reasons.
The court judged that it was not the woman’s fault that she was rejected. Also, it would be “disproportional” for the local authority to insist that she should remove the burqa to improve her chances of finding a job. In the verdict, the court took into account the fact that the chances of the woman finding suitable work were by no means exhausted.
The Muslim woman was offered a job at call centre Annie Connect, selling lottery tickets by phone. But she justifiably refused this, said the judges. Although every welfare benefit recipient is obliged by law to agree to generally accepted work, it is “a generally known fact that Muslims are not allowed to gamble”, the court stated. The job at Annie Connect was therefore not generally accepted work.
I predict that this issue will be the next large-scale (a la cabbies vs. wine & dogs) lawsuit fiasco to happen here in the U.S.
We are becoming so fearful of the accusation of bigotry or discrimination (Islamophobia anyone?) that we have forgotten that the ability to discriminate, to determine based on a set of criteria that one thing is better than another, is the heart of reasoning and rational thought. This fact will not stop our PC courts from ruling that because one’s religion mandates only showing one’s eyes and hands, that everyone else will be responsible for the welfare of the “oppressed” person, because of our religious “freedom” laws.
From our First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Excerpts from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of
such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin…
(j) The term “religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.
So if an employer feels that his or her business would be better served by people who are clean-shaven, or whose faces are completely visible, fails to hire a devout Muslim man or woman because of his beard or her niqab, that employer is in violation of the Civil Rights Act. Right? Obviously that business owners preference does not constitute “undue hardship” on the business. Right? Wouldn’t it then behoove the State to provide some kind of welfare for those who can’t obtain employment because of their religious practices? And, of course, the State can’t refuse benefits, because it would then violate the law that put the religious person in the welfare line in the first place!
What has happened in our culture is that we have
lost rejected the idea that we are responsible for the consequences of our own choices, and have instituted one that it is the government’s role to pick up the pieces when those choices lead to hardship.
It’s been said that once the people in a democracy realize that they can vote themselves money out of the treasury (welfare?), that democracy is doomed. I pray that the U.S. will wake up and change before it’t too late.