In the Netherlands, it would seem, there is the law and then those “with special needs” who can supersede the law…
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.
Many Islamic scholars have said that the complete covering of the face (except for the eyes) is not a requirement of the Quran. Even Sheikh Al-Qharadawi a leading figure of Sunni Islam has previously declared, for example, that European governments are within their rights in proscribing it in public institutions. If this woman wants to be supported from the public dole, then she is as obligated as everyone else to obey the rules for such support For a court to declare otherwise, shows not only the judge’s disregard and lack of respect for the country’s rule of law it also shows his/her total lack of understanding of what a court of law is supposed to be.
There is no question that freedom of religious expression should never be tampered with, everyone who loves liberty and democracy must stand up to forcefully defend such freedom. However, when an individual’s practice is no more than a voluntary extra (rather than a religious requirement) that impedes his/her following the law of the land (especially at taxpayer’s cost!), no court should ever rule in favor of the religious zealot!
There is no religiously compelling reason for the woman to dress the way she does. Especially if she only chose to do so in 2005, did she not follow her religion before that? Did she suddenly become a born again Muslim? Are there no jobs in Denmark other than call centers? This lady has shown herself to be no more than a skilled manipulator of the system, which is why she only applied for positions she either would not get or which her “religious beliefs” would find objectionable. The state should not indulge her, as it will only encourage tens of thousands to follow in her footsteps. I’m afraid that when it comes to this particular court’s idiotic decision, I must paraphrase Mr. Bumble in Oliver Twist…. This Court is a Ass!!!
Chaim
