![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldThe terse prose of the legal judgement in the case of Delwin Vriend, hired by the conservative Christian King's University College in Edmonton, Alberta, as a lab instructor, is as good an introduction to his unfortunate situation as any.
Finally, Canada's justice system ruled in Vriend's favour. Had Vriend been a religious instructor, the college might have been within his rights to fire him. As an anonymous author notes at the Religious Tolerance website, "Christian schools could argue that their religious beliefs justify their efforts to discriminate against gays, lesbians, women, persons who deviate from the doctrinal purity of the denomination, etc. in their staff. But they might have difficulty proving their position in Vriend's case: he was a lab instructor in computer science - an area of specialty that does not have a great religious or spiritual content."
Just now, the BBC reports that a Dutch Muslim woman, Samira Haddad, was turned down for a position as a language instructor at the Islamic College in Amsterdam because she didn't wear a headscarf. In response, she turned to the Dutch legal system.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
frumiousb's translation of a longer article from the Dutch press provides more background.
Religious fundamentalists, whether Christian or Muslim, are awfully fond of the techniques of the panopticon towards all those they think should be loyal members of their flock. It's always nice to see them get their fingers rapped when they find out that "God says so" is as pathetically weak a justification for bigotry of whatever kind as "just because." To God God's portion and to Caesar Caesar's share.
The appellant V was employed as a laboratory coordinator by a college in Alberta, and was given a permanent, full-time position in 1988. Throughout his term of employment he received positive evaluations, salary increases and promotions for his work performance. In 1990, in response to an inquiry by the president of the college, V disclosed that he was homosexual. In early 1991, the college's board of governors adopted a position statement on homosexuality, and shortly thereafter, the president of the college requested V's resignation. V declined to resign, and his employment was terminated by the college. The sole reason given was his non-compliance with the college's policy on homosexual practice. V appealed the termination and applied for reinstatement, but was refused. He attempted to file a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission on the grounds that his employer had discriminated against him because of his sexual orientation, but the Commission advised V that he could not make a complaint under the Individual's Rights Protection Act (IRPA), because it did not include sexual orientation as a protected ground. V and the other appellants filed a motion in the Court of Queen's Bench for declaratory relief. The trial judge found that the omission of protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was an unjustified violation of s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She ordered that the words "sexual orientation" be read into ss. 2(1), 3, 4, 7(1), 8(1) and 10 of the IRPA as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Finally, Canada's justice system ruled in Vriend's favour. Had Vriend been a religious instructor, the college might have been within his rights to fire him. As an anonymous author notes at the Religious Tolerance website, "Christian schools could argue that their religious beliefs justify their efforts to discriminate against gays, lesbians, women, persons who deviate from the doctrinal purity of the denomination, etc. in their staff. But they might have difficulty proving their position in Vriend's case: he was a lab instructor in computer science - an area of specialty that does not have a great religious or spiritual content."
Just now, the BBC reports that a Dutch Muslim woman, Samira Haddad, was turned down for a position as a language instructor at the Islamic College in Amsterdam because she didn't wear a headscarf. In response, she turned to the Dutch legal system.
frumiousb's translation of a longer article from the Dutch press provides more background.At the Commission for Fair Treatment the case of Samira Haddad (32) is being heard today. The Muslim woman has gone to the commision after she was rejected from a job teaching Arabic at a school because she was not willing to wear a head scarf. "Belief is not in a scarf, but in the heart." Samira Haddad (32) says that she does not sympathize with the views of the Islamitisch College Amsterdam (ICA) in Slotervaart.
In June, she applied for a job and was invited for an interview. "The first question was: are you Muslim? Yes. The second: Why are you not wearing a headscarf? I was confused and unsure how to answer. My father comes from Tunisia, where it is forbidden for women to wear a scarf in the open."
When the director Wijkerk from the ICA then asked her if she was prepared to wear the headscarf, she said no. "I am as I am. It should be about my qualifications and not how I look. I teach Arabic, not Islam."
The director agreed that she was correct, but said that it was the policy of the directorate of the school. Only non-Muslims were granted exception: they do not have to wear the scarf.
At which point, Haddad answered: "Well, then I am not a Muslim." But according to the director that was not an effective answer. With an Arabic name and a Tunisian father she was automatically considered a Muslim. Haddad is not a practicing Muslim-- she, for instance, does not observe Ramadan. However, she does believe. "Just as someone who is raised Catholic, but no longer attends church."
Religious fundamentalists, whether Christian or Muslim, are awfully fond of the techniques of the panopticon towards all those they think should be loyal members of their flock. It's always nice to see them get their fingers rapped when they find out that "God says so" is as pathetically weak a justification for bigotry of whatever kind as "just because." To God God's portion and to Caesar Caesar's share.
