Alright, so I am not entirely sure I wish to bring this UPS article up once again but I think it is interesting to compare to another article I found linked from the Muslimah Media Watch website. Here's the article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6565145.stm
This took place in Cairo rather than Canada but discusses the rights of Muslim women ignored by a news company. In 2002, two women news presenters wore their hijab head pieces and were not allowed on the air. This article does not cite the reasons given by their employers other than the the employers "objected" to this. In the Toronto UPS article it cites the full dress being a safety risk. I do not deny that there is racism or cultural intolerance within areas of Canadian life, nor do I think religious discrimination should be allowed, however, should credence not be given to safety concerns if they are legitimate? However, with this case in Cairo, what harm is there in respecting a religious freedom to wear the headpiece? Were they concerned about presenting one religious ideal over anther? If this is the case, one should look into whether they allow other presenters wear crosses or any other religious paraphenalia. No reason is given and even the court ruled in the women's favour, demanding that be allowed on the air. To me there is a major difference between the case with UPS in Toronto and this news agency in Cairo. The article from the Toronto Star is lacking in details as to whether the women were actually discriminated against becase of their religion on top of these safety concerns, or if it truly is only a safety issue. However, it appears with the Cairo case that there is no reason for this dismissal, at least given in the article, rather than religious discrimination.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is a note worthy comparison. From what you have said, it is clear that there was discrimination against these women in Cairo. Unfortunately the article does not provide the news company's reasons for preventing them to go on the air.
Lets, for the sake of discussion, present a possible scenario. Perhaps the news station has a dress code for anchors that does not allow head wear. Does this then justify banning the women from air if they are unwilling to remove their hijab or should the hijab be considered a reasonable piece of clothing?
One other thought I would like to provoke with my this scenario is if the UPS decision is then justified. They may have claimed that firing the women was a safety decision, but this is questionable when they were only fired after 2 years of working there.
Also, the article seems to suggest that the women were already working for the news station and then part way through their employment decided to wear their hijab. This would then come across as a more aggressive move to promote their religious beliefs. In this case perhaps the news station does not promote the idea of wearing religious paraphernalia and promoting religion. As Heather noted, it may be worth researching whether or not the news station allows other symbols of faith to be worn on their show. Is it reasonable to allow people to work in a job so long as they do not promote their religious beliefs?
Post a Comment