Worse, Tantawi railed that no one raised the issue in contrast to the Muslim-only launderette scandal. He cried out it was sheer Islamophobia but being the ultra conservative ulama he is, doesn't realise he himself had contributed grossly to said Islamophobia with his anti Valentine's Day and New Years' celebrations. See my earlier post Tantawi doesn't even know his own fault.
Only lately, a minister woken up from his sleep, Nor Omar, urban wellbeing, housing and local government minister, threatened to de-license hotels that practise that so-called discrimination, as if the hotels did so only yesterday.
I dare say everyone including the minister had been sleeping on their Islamic watch, when the hotels already had the practice for quite a while, and indeed I dare say it's the coming elections plus Encik Tantawi (wakakaka) that have squeezed their bloody balls to awaken them.
My Aneh, retired naval Commander Thayaparan wrote in Malaysiakini:
Muslim-only launderettes and banning frontline staff from wearing headscarves are not the same thing. It is not hypocritical to object to the former and have no opinion of the latter or even not object to it at all.
There is a big difference between discriminating against a person based on race or religion and having a dress code that may – may – affect some people because of how they identify with their religion.
Some Muslim women wear headscarves. Some Muslim women do not. [...]
I dare say everyone including the minister had been sleeping on their Islamic watch, when the hotels already had the practice for quite a while, and indeed I dare say it's the coming elections plus Encik Tantawi (wakakaka) that have squeezed their bloody balls to awaken them.
My Aneh, retired naval Commander Thayaparan wrote in Malaysiakini:
Muslim-only launderettes and banning frontline staff from wearing headscarves are not the same thing. It is not hypocritical to object to the former and have no opinion of the latter or even not object to it at all.
There is a big difference between discriminating against a person based on race or religion and having a dress code that may – may – affect some people because of how they identify with their religion.
Some Muslim women wear headscarves. Some Muslim women do not. [...]
 |
marina mahthir |
 |
hrh sultanah perak |
 |
hrh sultanah selangor |
 |
surely you know her |
 |
the choice is clear here |
Re the hotel dress code, he wrote: Furthermore, this is not a question of religious beliefs. Nobody is discriminating against Muslims in this instance. This is more to do with freedom of expression.
Some – some – Muslim women choose to express their religious beliefs by covering up.
Now if they have a choice in this, then surely they can make a choice as to what kind of work environment they desire: a work environment which is flexible about religious expressions, or one which has a stricter dress code which limits their religious expression.
The last thing I want to know about anyone in the service industry, or any industry for that matter, is what religion they subscribe to. It does not matter if you are a Hindu, Buddhist, Christian or Muslim. What has displaying your religious affiliation have to do with the job you were hired to do?
Do you know what is discrimination? If the hotel chooses not to entertain customers who wear headscarves. This is discrimination. If the hotel chooses not to entertain customers who express their religious beliefs overtly. This is discrimination.
Some Muslim women do not think it is an obligation to cover up. Liberals are always telling us that covering up is a choice and not an obligation as some Muslims claim. So why is this an issue?
Now, I want to discuss Aneh's sentence, to wit "... one which has a stricter dress code which limits their religious expression."
What if an organisation which did NOT have hijab as its mandatory dress code, and thus as a non Muslim you join the organisation without concerns about Islamic dressing code, BUT whereafter, due to its boss' whims and fancies or political machinations it introduces hijab as a mandatory headgear for female, but without plausible justification other than his syiok sendiri. What could the female staff do with the newly introduced MANDATORY hijab?
I dare say that's sheer discrimination, no 'ifs' no 'buts'.
As I had written twice already, the last being on Monday 13 Nov, in my post Hijab discrimination? How about non-Muslims being FORCED to wear them?:
... under AAB’s regime, when the IGP (Mohd Bakri Omar) was under extreme pressure to accept the proposed Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) but did not want to, he went against AAB and quickly introduced ultra Islamic practices to distract from his insubordination.
This was when we saw the Royal Malaysian Police copycat-ing the military, requiring its non-Muslim female officers to don tudung headgear during parade, on the argument they would then present a uniformly dressed rank and file.
 |
any choice not to wear hijab? |
What bull! Because prior to this pathetic excuse for unnecessary and insensitive Islamisation of uniforms affecting non-Muslims, did military Sikhs in their magnificent turbans on formal parade for the last hundred years ever present anything significantly non-uniformed and out of place to the rest of their non-Sikh colleagues on parade?
There's no doubt Malaysia's official Islamisation programs can, will and indeed have already affected non-Muslims, in many cases against their agreement, will and liking. Tantawi should note this and stop whining.
PUTRAJAYA should draft an anti-discrimination law to protect workers who don the hijab, the Malay Economic Action Council (MTEM) said today amid growing furore over a policy in some international hotel chains to prevent frontline staff from wearing the headscarf.
MTEM chief executive officer Ahmad Yazid Othman also described as absurd the Malaysian Association of Hotels’s (MAH) defence of the policy, which was said to be standard operating procedure (SOP) in the industry.
"These things are still happening; we are a multiracial country and these things shouldn't (be) happening.
 |
any choice against wearing hijab when it's a new addition to established uniforms?? |
"We have been independent for 60 years, there shouldn't be any discrimination based on race," he said during a press conference at the MTEM headquarters in Damansara today.Yazid said SOPs in every work sector should be refined to ensure it fits well with all religious beliefs in Malaysia.
Are we a multiracial society where there is no discrimination based on race or religious beliefs, when Ah Moi the mata-mata is forced to wear hijab, a new addition to very established police parade uniforms?
Are we a multiracial society where there is no discrimination based on race or religious beliefs, when Ah Moi the mata-mata is forced to wear hijab, a new addition to very established police parade uniforms?
Are we a multiracial society where there is no discrimination based on race or religious beliefs, when Ah Chong and Ramasamy in the military have to raise their hands in doa fashion, much against their religious beliefs?
 |
any choice not to hold hands up in doa fashion? |
Many Muslims consider women covering their head when in public as a religious imperative, not a personal fashion choice.
ReplyDeleteSo when your employer says "You Shall Not cover your head when on duty" it becomes a matter of religious discrimination and the person is faced making a choice to lose their job or to disobey their religion.
In terms of accepted international workplace Labour standards, that amounts to employment discrimination.
It is wrong to equate this to the dress code used during the Police march. I am not aware Hindu or Buddhist women having any religious objections to covering their head, so there is no religious discrimination here. Nobody was trying to turn them into Muslims.
Equating the case to the Johor Laundry is also faulty.
International norms recognise the power and discipline equation in a workplace. Employees mays face unwarranted pressures of losing their jobs if they do not receive protection.
So when employees face pressures and obstacles arising from their religious beliefs, gender, sexual harassment, that amounts to workplace discrimination.
The Customer - Client relationship is a very different one, and the law rarely interferes up front.
Businesses have a lot of latitude in what services they offer or decline to offer. Or they may accept business from one party, but decline to accept business from another.
As a businessman, I do choose to decline to quote an offer, from time to time. Entirely my choice.
Customers too, have a full latitude to choose who they do business with.
Re your " I am not aware Hindu or Buddhist women having any religious objections to covering their head, so there is no religious discrimination here. Nobody was trying to turn them into Muslims."
DeleteNon-Muslims personnel in the Police and military resent the compulsory wearing of hijab and doa prayers on parade because those are not of their religious requirements - you might not be aware but I am
"Nobody was trying to turn them into Muslims" is not an excuse to make/compelled them to adopting Islamic requirements - in many ways it's worse than trying to make them Muslims. But in the police and military the structured disciplines are such no one especially juniors or medium ranking officers dares to object
here is another eg of double std.
DeleteA few well-heeled friends of mine have children studying in private academies in the UK.
DeleteThese schools conduct compulsory daily prayer and reflection sessions. The public prayers are Christian based,but they cater to a diverse student population. Students of other faiths are requested to say prayers or reflections in their own belief system.
I don't consider this an attempt to impose Christianity on them. Even atheists can conduct a reflective session.
"... Students of other faiths are requested to say prayers...."
DeleteNot true; I went to Colstons School in Bristol, UK & Muslims students & myself (I claimed to be a Buddist to avoid attending the Chapel) were not required to attend the daily service (20 mins) & Sunday service (full hour). Whilst all the Muslim students did their prayers within their study rooms, I did sweet FA.
Employment discrimination!!??
ReplyDeleteWhen u r been told BEFORE HAND about yr employment's prerequisite conditions, u have the choice to accept or reject.
Nobody was forcing the Muslims into anything else when the dressing code is been make known. If yr religion forbids the dressing code then reject the employment lah.
Don't cry about employment discrimination ONLY after u r been gainfully employed!
Like in KT's civilised societies, there r laws to rule against these cheeky complaint.
In the US, it is referred to as Bona Fide Occupational Qualification(BFOQ).
The Canadian version is BFOR (Bona Fide Occupational Requirement) and Britain’s GOQ (Genuine Occupational Qualifications).
There r NO willy-nilly exceptions to hide a more insidious intention to discriminate job applicants!
The compulsory wearing of hijab and doa prayers on parade R only an after thought after some idiots r trying to prove their 2nd-handed soleh!
It's indeed a form of workplace discrimination in the extreme! As there is no recourses due to the structured disciplines practices within the military.
Just like the one who keeps shouting eg of double std, u r just refusing to see the forest for the tree!
A must read from Praba Ganesan.
ReplyDeleteFalse apostles
Those who choose to lean on human rights as their fulcrum, must both defend the right to wear and equally the right to refuse.
If they rely on human rights only because it fits their religious values in the instance of defending those who want to wear headscarves, but ignore the converse because it opposes their religious convictions, they are intellectually disingenuous.
They are not promoting human rights as much as cultural pre-eminence.
Human dignity is in personal choices, not in limiting those choices on religious grounds.
Human rights champions who insist that front-desks can have tudung wearing personnel, should also defend women who refuse to put on headscarves when their university mandates it. And at other agencies or workspaces which require women to cover up on religious grounds.
Otherwise just like fake news, they are fake human rights activists.
bawa isu ni ke mahkamah.
ReplyDeleteMahkamak bolihland tu, ada lah bodek dan dedak outfit.
DeleteMana bolih dapat hukuman adil bila sampai Federal court!