This isn\u2019t the headline in most of the UK media, for some reason, which appears to prefer singling out Muslims and hijabs. There\u2019s nothing quite like a bit of Islamomania in a morning to go with your toast and marmalade, is there? \u201d\u02dcTop EU court adviser backs workplace Muslim headscarf ban\u201d\u02dc, says the BBC. \u201d\u02dcEU\u2019s top judge backs workplace ban on headscarves\u201d\u02dc, writes the Independent. \u201d\u02dcSenior EU lawyer backs workplace ban on Muslim headscarves\u201d\u02dc, proclaims the Guardian., above a picture of Muslim women wearing sky-blue burqas (which the Guardian calls a \u201d\u02dcheadscarf\u2019) emblazoned with the stars of the EU flag. \u201d\u02dcTop European Union court adviser says employers should be allowed to ban Islamic headscarves\u201d\u02dc, says the Evening Standard, while the Express goes with: \u201d\u02dcBosses can ban Muslims wearing headscarves at work\u201d\u02dc.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s left to the Telegraph to take a more equitable and accurate approach to headlines: \u201d\u02dcBosses can ban headscarves and crucifixes, EU judge says\u201d\u02dc, they write (noting that \u201d\u02dccrucifix\u2019 sounds a bit meatier than \u201d\u02dccross\u2019 in the spectrum of hallowed bling). But even this doesn\u2019t extend to kippahs, tichels, turbans or karas. Why not just say: \u201d\u02dcBosses can ban religious clothing and jewellery in the workplace\u2019? Or does that leave hanging the fuzzy question of facial hair? Should hirsute tendencies be exempt? If so, why?<\/p>\n
The legal opinion (HERE in full) was issued by Juliane Kokott, an Advocate General to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), in response to clarification sought by a Belgian court on what precisely is banned under anti-discrimination laws, following the dismissal of a receptionist who refused her employer\u2019s request not to wear her hijab at work.<\/p>\n