As a Christian, I have to agree with the women in question. It is not right to force them to take off their headscarves. If they cannot wear them, then the trees and eggs should also go. I think it is stupid to make ANY of them go, but the rule should apply to everyone evenly.

At first reading this sounds like a perfectly reasonable request by the Muslims. Fair is fair. All religions should be treated the same way.

However before I would agree to the ban, I'd have a few questions and a couple of points to make.

What is meant by neutrality-of-services ?
Why exactly were the scarves banned for those working with the public.

Are these the headdresses that cover the face?
Are these simply head scarves (which is what it sounds like) that cover the hair but leave the face showing?

If cover the face, than a ban makes sense. If they are working with the public, than the public should be able to see them. It is common-courtesy and good customer service.

If the cover was the type that just covers the hair leaving the entire face visible, than the ban doesn't make any sense. I can't think of a reason why such a dressing would lessen services.

It seems like the former type of scarf, covering the entire face has a logical secular ban.

If it is the latter, where the face is visible, than it seems that it is only banned for spite, for some sort of anti-muslim purpose.

Now if the simple head scarf in the latter description is banned than yes all other religious displays should be banned to be fair.

If the ban is for secular reasons than an equal ban on christmas trees and the like have no merit.

Also I'd like to point out the obvious fact that Christmas trees and Easter eggs are not religious symbols so an equal case is hard to make. One might as well ban Halloween displays for the examples of paganism.

Yup. Fair's fair.

2Man - I'm not sure I agree with your point on common courtesy when it comes to people working at a desk. Common courtesy has similar problems as common sense, quite often it just isn't. If it was a full-face scarf, would it really be that much trouble to accommodate her beliefs? It may feel strange to us and be abnormal to our every day life, but it wouldn't be that bad - would it?

I mostly agree with your comment on the Easter eggs and Christmas trees too except that they've lost their pagan roots (ho ho) and they're tied to Christian practices now. As with all symbols, they only mean what meaning people give them.

they do respect the wishes for those who don't work with the public. Those who don't work with the public are free to wear anything they want.

If you work with the public than you need to meet certain guidelines, certain dress codes. This is true in almost all places of work.

Do you think your boss would allow you to dress anyway you want just because it was your belief?

As I was trying to say, if the ban is for religious purposes than yes all symbols should be treated the same.

[just joking]Of course this might mean that we ban all pictures of cats because they are worshiped by some, can't serve beef because they are sacred to some, can't kill any rats because they are sacred to some, can't have the christmas trees not because of Christmas but some worship trees, can't have any windows because some worship the sun.

The Koran does not teach that Muslim women must wear head scarves or wear Burqas. It merely tells them to be decent in their appearance. Indeed, in many Muslim countries the wearing of the hijab (religious dress ranging from head scarves to full-body coverings) is outlawed, at least in public places, schools and government buildings.

There, as in much of Europe, the head scarves are seen as political statements in support of Islamism -- the form of Islam that teaches Muslims they should work toward making the countries they live in submit to Islam.

Having Muslim immigrants demand that the countries they move to change their culture simply because they refuse to integrate is a bad sign.

It is not just this issue that is at stake. Throughout Western Europe, there is a sharp increase in hate crimes committed by Muslims. This includes so-called 'honor killings', violence against those who choose to denounce Islam, and female genital mutilation.

In Holland many Muslim women are forced by their husbands and even their sons to not leave the house at all.

Countries should not give in to that kind of behavior and to the unreasonable demands of Muslims.

Would you want to have your, say, DMV officials or your kids' school teachers to wear Burqas (the Muslim dress that leaves only the eyes visible, if that)?

The problem here is simple:
Christmas and Easter are Christain
Christmas Trees and Easter eggs are not.

Christmas Trees are druid
Easter Eggs are pagan, though all major cultures revere eggs as a symbol of fertility, including Muslims.

They are affiliated with Christian holidays, but only because the ancient Christians used thier holidays to overshadow much older pagan ones.

But I must agree with the statment, if they are baning one religions practices, they should ban all of them.

The biggest problem I have with it is the fact that it is associating dress with decoration. If I were wearing my Christmas tree as a hat I could understand, but this is a ridiculous comparison.

If you want to make it even..then allow Muslim holiday/religious items to be displayed at appropriate times...DONE.

I certainly don't get offended when I see a menorah at Christmas time. I'm a christian, not an left wing anti-everything-but-christianity nut.

But not hiding your face, or even not wearing a head scarf isn't asking anything more than telling me I can't wear dark sunglasses or hats indoors when working with customers.

..I would also NOT find it offensive if I wore a giant cross necklace and my company said I shouldn't wear it visibly during business times. I think workers should be neutral appearing..but company wide decorations or even desk decorations at appropriate times should be up to the company.

when in rome do as the romans do...if u cant hack get out sipmle as that......

Honour killings are not hate crimes committed by extremist Muslim's defending their religion but horrific crimes committed by family members protecting the family name, young women are murdered by their families if they commit adultery, adopting western lifestyle values, infidelity or simply fall in love with the wrong person. The concept of family honour justifies the act in the eyes of some societies.

Complicity by other women in the family and the community strengthens the concept of women as property and the perception that violence against family members is a family and not a judicial issue.
The below example is truly awful.

news.html?in_article_id=442263&in_page_id=1770

My workplace has become increasingly multicultural,thank goodness, we celebrate many holidays and religious occasions throughout the year. Christmas trees and Easter eggs are not necessarily Christian but are closely associated with the Christian faith and holidays. We don't hang decorations but give cards, chocolates etc

Technically, the whole idea of Christmas isn't Christian at all. Like you said, it is pagan. It has been assimilated by the (Roman-Catholic) Christian church to convert pagans to christianity. It is this reason that some Christian factions do not celebrate Christmas.
Easter technically is also not Christian, but Jewish.

But hey, being atheist myself, I totally have absolutely no problem with Christmas, or Easter, or Chanukah, or Eid ul-Fitr (also know as the Sugarfest).
What I do have a problem with if it is forced upon people.

You just said Christmas Trees are not Christian...
A tree is not Christian, but a Christmas Tree?
That is clearly Christian
ALSO
An Easter egg is Christian
an egg is not Christian

You cannot deny my logic!

And they should ban full face covering things but if its only their hair then its ok.

WHATEVS!

Sounds like the Democrats to me...

NOwhere in the Xtian Bible are decorated trees (co-opted pagan symbol) and decorated eggs (pagan origion not proven or disproven) mentioned... So per your 'logic' I suggest finding a book on the science (art) and actually learning it, as you've displayed in this statement rudimentary logical flaws that will be addressed in the first couple of chapters therein...

What you said. I don't think there would be a problem if the Muslims in the workplace wanted decoration for their own religious celebrations as well - I mean, if they provided it and were turned down, that would be another issue.

This, however, is just an appearance thing, and I don't think we can let personal beliefs get in the way of an agreed rule system. Why, then, couldn't someone wear sunglasses every day or paint their face blue because of their own personal set of beliefs? What makes their beliefs any less important than a Muslim's? Is this a way of saying that organised religion is more powerful or valued than a personal approach to faith?

Upon reading this (sometimes I read aloud), I wondered, what religion is 'ex-tian'? Why haven't I heard of it? Is it part of scientology, or something?

Then I had a lightbulb moment, realized Xtian is like Xmas, and felt like a tremendous idiot.

Religious considerations aside, the article reads:They were hired, they worked the desk with headscarves, then the city government changed the rules in mid-game.

I don't know how it works in Belgium, but if that happened to a woman here she'd be well within her rights to tell the bosses to go screw themselves.

Well I for one am looking forward to Winterfest in Birmingham this year...

If you don't like our rules at our work places, get your ass back on the boat you came here on and leave!

I find that hard to believe, but since I don't live in Canada I'll assume you are correct.

Are you saying that dress codes can't be changed? If the agency once allowed "casual-friday", are they forever forced to let people dress casually on friday?

You see what I mean. I would bet that even in Canada, employers both private and government are allowed to change dress codes and to change other rules as needed.

The can't change rules? Does it apply to other rules as well? If they used to allow 1-hour lunch breaks are they forever forced to allow such breaks even if changes are required to to budget cutbacks?