EU High Court (Kinda) Allows Employers to Ban Headscarves on Eve of Dutch Election

EU High Court (Kinda) Allows Employers to Ban Headscarves on Eve of Dutch Election

I’ve been trolling all night for stories to write up, and I have a few. But this one came across as I was preparing some of the others, and since it’s one of the bigger topics of the morning, I figured we should get it out of the way first.

In a nutshell, the European Court of Justice has ruled that employers are allowed to ban workers from wearing religious, political or philosophical clothing while at work. This pretty much boils down to Islamic forms, since headscarves are what initiated the case in the first place

Employers are entitled to ban workers from the “visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign” – including headscarves, Europe’s top court has ruled.

But the ban must be based on internal company rules requiring all employees to “dress neutrally”, said the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

It cannot be based on the wishes of a customer, it said.

It is the court’s first decision on the issue of Islamic headscarves at work.

The ECJ’s ruling was prompted by the case of a receptionist fired for wearing a headscarf to work at the company G4S in Belgium.

There is a slight caveat, as the BBC post above alludes to. Here’s a snippet from the ruling itself, courtesy of Reuters

“An internal rule of an undertaking which prohibits the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign does not constitute direct discrimination,” the Court said in a statement.

“However, in the absence of such a rule, the willingness of an employer to take account of the wishes of a customer no longer to have the employer’s services provided by a worker wearing an Islamic headscarf cannot be considered an occupational requirement that could rule out discrimination.”

So, if there is a rule forbidding headscarves already in place by a firm or business, then telling an employee they cannot wear one doesn’t constitute discrimination. However, if some old lady comes in and says she wants the Muslim chick who works the counter to take that shit off her head, and the employer forces her to do so without a previous rule having been in place, then that action does constitute discrimination.

That sounds like a pretty fair ruling, although some would argue that the employer should have the right to tell the Muslim employee to take it off even in the second example. I can live with this, though.

The thing that strikes me is curious, though, is how this decisions just came out on the eve of the election in the Netherlands. Geert Wilders seems to be surging as of late, even though he is unlikely to be able to form a coalition government even if his party finishes first in the polls, since all other major parties have ruled out a team up with him. Still, this ruling coming out the day before the election just seems curiously timed. Like maybe it was an attempt to give a boost to pro-European Union forces like Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

Oh, and did I mention Rutte has some problems of his own, this morning?

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte secretly agreed to accept hundreds of thousands of refugees from Turkey each year as part of an EU-Turkey deal but did not inform other EU leaders, a book by a German journalist says…

In particular, they gave consent to the idea of Europe taking between 150,000 and 250,000 Syrian refugees from Turkey each year even after the massive inflow of asylum seekers and migrants to Europe would have subsided and the principle, under which the EU should accept one Syrian refugee for each asylum seeker returned from Greece to Turkey, would not work anymore.

However, this particular ‘deal’ never made into the official text of the agreement and remains a “gentleman’s agreement” between Merkel, Rutte and Turkish authorities, Alexander writes in his report, citing unnamed officials that “were directly involved in the negotiations” between the three leaders on the night before the summit.

This part of the agreement has never been revealed, neither to the other EU leaders nor to the German public, the journalists say in his book.

The EU is cancer and one ruling doesn’t change that.

Ethan Ralph

Founder, Owner, & Editor-in-Chief of Political fiend, gamer, & anti-bullshit.

  • Mr0303

    I think the EU started to realise that the general public’s perception of Islam is what is going to break them. Even Merkel spoke out against the burkini, but those are just cynical political moves to keep their power. I hope most people see that.

    • Maintenance Renegade

      People see it, and they’ll just be seen as flip flopping confirmed idiots who are admitting how bad their policy has been.

  • ExiledV2

    I oppose this simply because such a proscription also would apply to conservative Christian and Jewish dress as well. Why should Godly people be penalized for dressing modestly?

    Now, if they specifically stated that all but Christian or Jewish headscarves were forbidden, I would be in favor of the proscription.

    • Silence Dogood

      Can we get some examples of conservative Christian dress codes? Mormons don’t count for two reasons – they’re not considered Christians and their religious garb is hidden under their clothes. As for dressing plainly… ugly clothes are ugly, but not a simple of oppression and bigotry. As for Christian headscarves, I’ve only seen elderly women wear those during High traditional masses… which aren’t popular almost anywhere on earth, except maybe the variant practiced by the Orthodox Christians, who mostly seem to be based in Eastern Europe and Russia. As for the Jews, well, they’re not much of a concern in Europe since the ones that adhere to strict dress codes don’t work for publicly held businesses – they work for Orthodox Jewish owned businesses – how else are they supposed to uphold their convoluted purity laws?

      • ExiledV2


        There are many faux-Christian women in the USA who go around with their head uncovered – which proves they are not true Christians, and are prostituting themselves and sluts and hoydens. All Christian women should engage in modest dress. I refer here:

        • Silence Dogood

          So, cults. You do know these versions of Christianity aren’t recognized by the original Christians, the Catholic Church, right? They’re just adopting Jewish traditions because it says people should do this in the Old Testament, but any theologian worth their salt will tell you right of the bat that the New Testament is all that matters (adhering to the Old Testament shatters the image of a loving, merciful god as he’s basically an inconsistent, hypocritical, paradoxical cunt in the OT). Also dafuq is a hoyden? Go out and see a movie or something and get off the farm m8.

          • ExiledV2

            No, the Catholic Church has always done head coverings. It’s just Americans who have gone Catholic-lite that have given the impression that’s not so.

            “Also dafuq is a hoyden?”

            A girl or woman of saucy, boisterous, or carefree behavior; a girl or woman who acts immodestly.

          • Silence Dogood

            Thanks for the definition, but you do know that we live in the 21st century right? Join us. 😉

          • ExiledV2

            Abandoning tradition is a liberal concept, not a conservative one. What was good in centuries past is good now.

          • Silence Dogood

            No, there’s this thing called “gradual progress” which is what happens over time as we naturally acquire more knowledge and improve our method. All you are is a cultish luddite who reject even the most incremental change because it threatens your simple, black and white, fictitious understanding of reality. You can live your life ANY way you choose – but where you’ll get your skull caved in is where you try to impose it on others. A little lesson the Muslims will be learning before too long I’d wager. 😉

  • Dave The Sandman

    2017…..the year that killed the EU once and for all.


    • Lost Question

      probably not, like any great bureaucratic beast it will die slowly thrashing all the way as the politicians and bureaucrats that make it up attempt to do everything they can think of (including things like name calling) all to keep their cushy, high paying, low responsibility, low risk positions

  • Silence Dogood

    Not surprised by these globalist, anti-white idiots trying to breed Europeans (and Christianity by extension) out of existence. The sad/funny part is they confuse the Syrians with Mexicans and think they’ll be “grateful” and support their EU elite masters. Except they won’t; they’ll form enclaves, refuse to learn the language, continue to elevate crime levels (rape and assault, mostly), support terrorism in one way or another and eventually use the democratic process to undo the accomplishments of the West and impose Sharia, as Islam demands. On a positive note, yay for the ECJ actually making a decision that upholds the importance of secularism.