Tuesday, 16 June 2009

Why is it Relevant?

Why is it even mentioned?

A SMH article (SMH link) describes the successful suit of a Muslim woman against her employer, a bar, for discrimination.

She sued because she was going to be forced to wear a tight uniform that was too revealing and made her feel "like a prostitute".

She won the case because the male staff were not made to change to a similarly humiliating uniform.

A couple of questions?

Why is it mentioned that she is Muslim? It has nothing to do with how she won the case. It was a case of sexual discrimination.

The wording makes it clear that a pivotal point was that the men didn't have to wear a similar uniform. Would it be OK if the men had to sleaze themselves for the job too? I suspect it would. Our community has lost its moral compass and the only way we can measure things are the woefully inadequate "consent" and "equal"

What is a Muslim woman doing serving alcohol in a bar anyway? This is why the mention of her religious background is weird. Good Muslims have nothing to do with alcohol.

Do we get to pick and choose which aspects of our religion we will sue others over and which we disregard when it suits us.

Should religious tolerance be extended to those who don't practice their faith consistently?

Some good questions there.
Probably some good answers somewhere.

But, I suspect, not to be found in the British law courts or with this particular Muslim woman.

No comments: