Bushfire Appeals
News  |  Careers

Banning Headscarves is Bad for Business

Friday, 17th March 2017 at 3:08 pm
Wendy Williams
Barring headscarves in the workplace would be bad for business, according to Diversity Council Australia speaking in the wake of a landmark ruling by the EU’s highest court allowing companies in Europe to ban staff from wearing visible religious symbols.

Friday, 17th March 2017
at 3:08 pm
Wendy Williams



Banning Headscarves is Bad for Business
Friday, 17th March 2017 at 3:08 pm

Barring headscarves in the workplace would be bad for business, according to Diversity Council Australia speaking in the wake of a landmark ruling by the EU’s highest court allowing companies in Europe to ban staff from wearing visible religious symbols.

In its first decision on the issue of women wearing headscarves at work, the European Court of Justice (EJC) ruled the garments could be banned, but only as part of a general policy prohibiting “the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign”.

The ruling, which also said an employer could not ask workers to remove such symbols at the request of a customer if a policy was not already in place, was sparked by the cases of two women, in France and Belgium, who were both fired for refusing to remove their headscarves.

Diversity Council Australia chief executive officer Lisa Annese told Pro Bono News the move was tied up with a rise in Islamophobia.

“I don’t believe that this situation would have happened if we were just referring to Christians wearing chains with crosses on them,” Annese said.

“I don’t think that has ever been a problem. I think it is intrinsically linked with Islam and Muslim people.”

She said the significance of the decision would play out in terms of whether or not workplaces choose to impose a ban.

“I can’t think of any legitimate reason why a workplace would want to impose this,” Annese said.

“I think that workplaces that are committed to diversity and inclusion will not go down the path of imposing it and I think it would be bad for them to do so.”

She said it was a question of basic feminist principles.

“I have an aversion to the idea that anyone should be able to tell women what to wear,” she said.

“So regardless of what that item of clothing is, I think that that’s a basic feminist principle, that women should be able to wear what they like, unless you’ve got a really valid reason.

“And in workplaces the only valid reasons upon which clothing needs to be modified is if there are occupational health and safety risks. So sometimes in extreme examples, if you are working in a kitchen, or on a building site, you need to make sure you’re wearing clothing that doesn’t create more danger and more hazards.”

She said workplaces choosing to ban headscarves would be sending the wrong message.

“Once workplaces create policies around what is and what isn’t acceptable, the idea is that you change behaviour and we’ve seen this with policies that have tried to change behaviour around workplace harassment and discrimination,” she said.

“I mean the first step for organisations is to have really robust policies based on law, and legal decisions and the reason organisations do that is so they can change behaviour, and demonstrate to employees what is and what is not acceptable.

“So if an organisation created a policy that limited a woman’s capacity to wear a headscarf, then that’s pretty extreme and it sends a message that the organisation is not tolerant of people’s freedom to express their religion in a way that means something to them.

“And that will filter through the organisation and for people who are already intolerant it will probably vindicate their position. And for people who oppose it, it might create conflicted feelings and they may feel less engaged with the organisation.”

The latest ruling has come under fire from groups across Europe who argue the decision that the two employers did not break EU anti-discrimination law could shut many Muslim women out of the workforce.

John Dalhuisen, director of Amnesty International’s Europe and Central Asia program, said the “disappointing rulings” gave “greater leeway to employers to discriminate against women – and men – on the grounds of religious belief”.

“At a time when identity and appearance has become a political battleground, people need more protection against prejudice, not less,” Dalhuisen said.

“The court did say that employers are not at liberty to pander to the prejudices of their clients. But by ruling that company policies can prohibit religious symbols on the grounds of neutrality, they have opened a backdoor to precisely such prejudice.

“It is now for national governments to step up and protect the rights of their citizens.”

But Annese said she would be “very surprised” if Australia went down the same path.

“We have a very successful model of multiculturalism and all of the employers who are members of the Diversity Council, I could verify hand on heart that they would all reject something that is so divisive,” she said.

“I’m not suggesting that there wouldn’t be people in Australia who would support it, we know that there are, but I would be very surprised if something like this would be implemented in Australia.

“The interesting thing is in countries that have put bans on what women can wear, so the burqa was banned in France and Belgium many years ago, it hasn’t had an impact on their threat levels with regards to terrorism, so I think that’s very telling.

“If what they are trying to achieve is a reduction in the terror threat then they are barking up the wrong tree because it doesn’t work.”

Wendy Williams  |  Editor  |  @WendyAnWilliams

Wendy Williams is a journalist specialising in the not-for-profit sector and broader social economy. She has been the editor of Pro Bono News since 2018.

Got a story to share?

Got a news tip or article idea for Pro Bono News? Or perhaps you would like to write an article and join a growing community of sector leaders sharing their thoughts and analysis with Pro Bono News readers?

Get in touch at news@probonoaustralia.com.au

One Comment

  • Avatar Viv Laverick says:

    freedom of choice. This is important in Australia and applies to employers as much as it does to individuals. An employer can already state that a uniform must be worn and stipulate what that uniform consists of. It is then an individuals choice to work for that employer and follow their rules. Having said that, banning items such as headscarves could
    impact people with cancer who have lost their hair and thus wear scarves whilst waiting for their hair to grow back. Wearing a scarf can be a fashion statement also, for instance using it a a bandana to tie back hair. I think this would be a mistake. I can understand if it is brought in for the more extreme style of covering (burqa, niqab) but also consider the men that could be affected due to traditional headwear prescribed for men (the Jewish kippah, Sikh turban, Muslim taqiyah, Amish broad brimmed black hats, Orthodox kalimavkion, etc.). We have the brethren in our country town and they all wear scarves – doesn’t affect our community at all – actually I sort of envy them the additional pretty accessory. They all wear it, I wonder if they are forced or not – doesn’t seem to get any media attention.

Write a Reply or Comment

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


Five ways to make sure you’re championing diversity in your organisation

Maggie Coggan

Friday, 1st November 2019 at 5:23 pm

These are the three things driving the gender pay gap

Maggie Coggan

Friday, 23rd August 2019 at 4:14 pm

Job cuts looming at Amnesty International UK

Luke Michael

Monday, 6th May 2019 at 5:01 pm


NDIS not yet in tune with the needs of participants

Luke Michael

Monday, 20th January 2020 at 4:46 pm

What impact will the bushfire crisis have on homelessness?

Luke Michael

Wednesday, 15th January 2020 at 4:28 pm

New fund paves the way for impact investment in the charity sector

Luke Michael

Friday, 17th January 2020 at 4:34 pm

The rise (and scepticism) of Facebook fundraisers

Maggie Coggan

Thursday, 16th January 2020 at 8:49 am

Bushfire Appeals
pba inverse logo
Subscribe Twitter Facebook

Get the social sector's most essential news coverage. Delivered free to your inbox every Tuesday and Thursday morning.

You have Successfully Subscribed!