A Norwegian hairdresser who has a clear understanding of Islam and its values, was fined 10,000 Kroner (About $2000.00 Cdn.) Monday, September 12 2016 for denying service to a woman in a muslim head cloth.
The hairdresser, Merete Hodne, who has a shop in Byrne SW Norway, refused service for the exact reasons a Jewish person may wish to refuse service to someone in a Nazi uniform. In fact that was her defense. And it is a reasonable and certainly accurate defense.
“To me, the hijab is an extreme political symbol. I don’t feel good when I see people wearing a hijab. They came in and asked what it would cost to get hair highlights and I said that I do not accept people like them and that they should go to another stylist and then they left again,” Hodne said.
If we decide Nazism is bad because of its fanatical degree of racial, and socialist -ideological purity, and consequent desire to exterminate those who represent anything different or impede Nazi manifest destiny, then Islam is every bit as bad or worse, and the uniform of the Muslim may as well have the twin lightning strikes of the SS.
At least the Nazis liked Music and art. They stole it rather than destroyed it, which means they valued it.
Slowly but surely, Frankfurt School descendants have been replacing natural and obvious individual rights with phony collective ones, using the language of human rights to do so.
We have here a jurisprudence level proof of that in Norway, although it happens everywhere now, even if new faux legal mechanisms like Canada’s “Human Rights Commissions” have to be inserted to circumnavigate real rights. Like the right to an attorney for example.
Already there have been several cases where a Muslim women applied for a job as a hairdresser, or in a hairdressing studio, only to appear at work someday after getting the job in a full head-cloth, fired for basically being antithetical to the nature of the work, not to mention being deceptive in the job application, and then suing the employer. Variations of this tactic are being waged across the Western world by muslims in fact, and in Canada as well such as the UPS suit.
That was a particularly good one as the employer was placed between what should be illegal anti-discrimination rules and actual valid safety regulations at the work place. In that case, women who wore long loose flowing garments at a UPS facility were told that it violated Ontario’s safety laws for working on ladders. They sued, and they received an out of court settlement. Which means they won. Policies will change to suit muslims, since you can not, not hire them because they insist on dressing in an unsafe manner.
The women, all devout Muslims, lost their jobs in 2005 because they refused to hike their skirts above the knee over their long pants.
They argued that Islam requires them to be fully covered for modesty and alleged discrimination on the basis of religion and gender.
UPS said the ankle-length skirts were a safety hazard as workers climb ladders up to six metres high. Only “a gap in the process” allowed the women to work at UPS for up to two years without being told their clothing posed a risk, a UPS manager previously told the tribunal.
Yes, they were wearing long pants. This was more a political matter than one of modesty. Like most of Islam is, such as the Burkini issue. A uniform rather than any religious desire to cover up at the beach.
VladTepesBlog has articles on the UPS case. Searching Google for it will give more detailed accounts.
In this UK example, a muslim woman who wears a head-cloth that covers all her hair in typical muslim fashion, was refused a job at a London hair salon and successfully sued for discrimination.
In practical terms, this would be like a basketball team refusing to hire a guy with no arms and then the team losing a law suit for discrimination against the disabled.
In this 2007 case, a Muslim showed up for a trial day, a day in which it was to be determined if she would get the job or not, and was told that the “funky punky urban” nature of the Salon meant that employees would have to have that kind of haircut and show their hair.
Needless to say, she was told her head-cloth was a deal breaker and was not given the job. She sued for over a year’s worth of the owner’s salary and never worked an hour there.
This case deserves a little thought.
The woman was being sued for “religious discrimination” although at no point did she tell the muslima what to believe. She owner explained that a woman in a baseball cap or cowboy hat also would have been denied the job for obvious reasons.
As there was no interference with religious belief this is defacto not about religious belief.
This is about dhimmitude. About a Muslim’s right to trample all over natural and liberal law. About a muslim’s right to attach any activity they want to their religious belief and claim that it is discrimination, not only to prevent them from doing any activity which can be seen as Islamic, such as slaughtering sheep in the streets of big cities like Paris, but even much much more harsh examples as we see in cities across England where police refuse to interfere with giant muslim rape and sex slave gangs for fear of being branded a racist.
If a women in a cowboy hat claimed to be a cultural or native Texan, and claimed the cowboy hat was her necessary show of belonging to her native or adopted culture, no court would take her case or certainly she would never win an anti-discrimination suit.
This is about Islamic supremacy, not human rights. There is no right to display of religious belief uber alles. Just ask the Christian stewardesses who have been told they cannot wear a cross on some airlines while their muslim coworkers wear a hijab with no questions asked.
The pernicious nature of this judgment is that it has been decided for all people now in the UK that wearing a cross is not a religious requirement, while wearing muslim uniforms is one.
This is both not true, there is no requirement for muslims to dress a certain way other than as part of the hijra to islamify an area. (This would be advancing sharia domination but there is no specific requirement to cover hair) and pernicious as it means the court has taken a role for itself which so far steps over its role in a free society as to be the casus belli of French and American revolutions.
The Norwegian hair salon owner took the brave step of actually using her natural right of freedom of association, instead of any work-around to deny having a Muslim on staff or as a client. This was a very brave stance. Most of us submit to the Marxist-sharia matrix being created for us by using some mealy mouthed work around on these issues to temporarily get the effect we want by claiming some other issue.
In Canada, Muslims have no problem exercising that right and the provincial and federal governments in Canada even pay for it.
Anyone wishing to contribute to Merete Hodne, the Norwegian hairdresser’s legal appeal fund, and she is appealing, please pay pal to: [email protected]
or transfer funds to:
account no# is 33351044107. Vipps 41516033