Cultural Marxists successfully destroy right of freedom of association with “anti-discrimination” in Norway

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.

From the Toronto Star:

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



About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

24 Replies to “Cultural Marxists successfully destroy right of freedom of association with “anti-discrimination” in Norway”

    • The butcher turns away everyone who asks for pork without regard to the asker’s religious affiliation, sex, gender expression, nationality, etc.

      • “The butcher turns away everyone who asks for pork without regard to the asker’s religious affiliation, sex, gender expression, nationality, etc.”

        The school turns away everyone who asks for mixed gender classrooms without regard to the asker’s religious affiliation, sex, gender expression, nationality, etc.

        Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

        • This how Islam gets under the radar of Socialism. They remove the rights of those living in an open prison equally, and the alarm doesn’t sound.

          A prisoner deciding who they want to do business with exactly as the customer had chosen them, and that’s not equality. In a free market that would be called opportunity.

          A gun to your head from Islam or the State – and you thiink of that as the only freedom you have ever known.

        • So, the right to discriminate whether to offer your labor or not, is Liberty.

          The Jews deny goyem access to their schools. And so they can, if they take not one dina from the tax-payer. Same for Muslims. And the same for any service if not subsidized by any government.
          To have one priviledged above the other, creates the porch hands and the field workers.

          Defining ‘any government’ is to identify cultural invasion or cultural democide.

    • So progressives say that men (who “identify” as women) should be allowed to use women’s washrooms but when a muslima demands that men vacate the premises, or a pool put up curtains to protect delicate muslima sensibilities (and offend non-muslims as much as possible thereby), that’s just fine with them. OK … that makes sense (in a sort of nonsensical way).

  1. The actions of the left of turning to group rights is going to end up having the unintended consequence of driving all of us back to tribalism, The leftists efforts to combat the new tribalism is only going to speed the growth.

  2. The proper way to look at these discrimination cases is to say:

    Discrimination against you because you’re black/muslim per sharia law/homo: problem.

    Discrimination against you because you wear baggy pants / long skirts / want a wedding cake that celebrates your homosexual union: NOT a problem.

    Here’s the difference, and it’s an important one: the first list is one of things that people CANNOT change. The second list is one of CHOICES that they actively make.

    I don’t think that it’s fair (within the confines of what is unavoidable for business reasons, etc) to discriminate against people for things that they CANNOT change. For things that are choices, I feel quite differently.

    I don’t like “bros” who wear baggy pants and dress like gangsters. I don’t like them regardless of whether they’re black of white. Same with muslim: if you’re able to keep it to yourself and NOT make it an issue for others, I actually don’t care. But when it becomes everyone else’s problem, I *do* care quite a lot.

    • “Discrimination against you because you’re black/muslim per sharia law/homo: problem”

      Black is not real. Muslim is not real. Homosexual is not real.

      If you ever lived among them you would find them as varied as the sand grains of the Australian desert.

      And the wonderful ex-Blacks, who escaped the Socialist Plantations; the ex-Muslims who escaped the Muhammadan slavery; and the ex-Homosexuals who repaired their Dissociation of Affection disorders. We have the Internet, listen to the stories of humanity who let go of resentment, forgave and with raised consciousness were released..

      Black Lives Matter, Sharia, and LGBTQ+ Pride are low-lifes of human degradation who live and die by the axioms of skin, sharia and sex.

      Appologists and the Objectified – in their love-fest of rage and shame for both being guilty for feeding a now dependent inflated ego.

      Prejudice harms those who hold it, damages those who believe it, and rewards those who Soros both sides.

      Governments then write Laws of Preference – therein is the profit – the human spirit overcomes them after much bloodshed.

      Serving only who they want – are the actions of these groups unfettered and underwritten with government approval. And you can’t when all you ever said was you do not like the person’s character.

      ‘Come store wearing a symbol of women’s repression indeed!’ Anyone seen the the dead in the streets?

    • “However, if such dress codes have the effect of discriminating against members of a protected class, there may be a violation of the Human Rights Act.”

      There we go, the Marxist “Protected Class.”

      Totally against individual rights. Only lobbied Govrrnments can decide.

  3. (Joining the party late as I am just reading this now…)

    Just for fun…set aside “discrimination” for a moment.

    A person, raised from infancy to BELIEVE that they (because they were born with a uterus) must wear the hijab as soon as they hit puberty, is delusional (at best) if they think they are exercising any “rights” by wearing one. They are not. They are merely telegraphing that they have been conditioned to believe that they are lesser than muslim men. That they are nothing more than an object of sex and they are tempting untoward behaviour (read “asking for it”) if they show anything more than their face and hands in public.

    They are flying the flag of oppression (offensively, I might add) in the face of the free.

    I am not a subscriber of victim-politics, but this should be factored in when these cases are presented. In this case (and others like it) where one feels that one’s “rights” are being infringed upon because they exhalt their oppressors, perhaps the courts should do a root-cause analysis. Take it back a bit…ask the question “Honey…what RIGHTS do you think you actually have that warrant protection in that oppressive uniform of yours?”

    Anyone who rejects the hijab, and the oppression/subjugation that it represents, should be APPLAUDED.

    In the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report of 2008, Norway ranked NUMBER ONE.

    While economic, this is still significant and relevant to Merete Hodne’s case. This provided (at the time of the incident) SEVEN years of confirmation/validation for Hodne that women are not to be subjugated or oppressed. Women are not to be covered or hidden.

    Set aside the religious (I use the term “religious” loosely here…) beliefs. Merete Hodne is a patriot; a champion of freedom and gender-equality.

    • While I fully agree with that, its also true that for a Muslim woman to earn any respect in the Islamic world, the only option she has is to demand more islamification. So it is also a uniform as well as a symbol of oppression.

      Arguably the largest scale case of a form of Stockholm syndrome in history.

      Perhaps they should change the name to Oslo Syndrome.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *