Muslim Barber Refuses to Cut Woman's Hair

[Deleted03]

I still fail to see how her right to get a hair cut, which she could get at a 100+ other locations in Toronto, supersedes the rights of these barbers. How can they be forced to touch her if it goes against their beliefs? How can you force anyone to physically do something they are against?

This is not to say that I agree with their beliefs. I don't. I find them to be ridiculous, actually. But they aren't my beliefs, they're their's. Just as I wouldn't want them to force me to believe what they do, I don't see why they should be forced by the government to abandon them.

And getting a hamburger at McDonalds isn't the same as using the government to force Muslim men to give you a haircut. Every man there that day was Muslim. When they found someone who would provide her with a haircut in their shop, she refused and said that she would continue to battle it out in court. I can't help but wonder about her agenda.

What, exactly, needs to be discussed? That she disagrees with their religious views? So do I, but it's not my religion.

Nothing says that the business can only employ Muslims Actually it would be another discrimination if they employed barbers based on their religion. What the law will say is that the shop has to accept women who come, whether they hire non-Muslims or not is really no one's business but their own.

[Deleted03]

Agreed with that. They'd be saying they refuse to serve her because they don't want to butcher a pig, not because she's a women. You are allowed to do that under Canadian law. You can't refuse to serve someone because of their race, religion, gender, gender expression, sexual orientation and I think there are few more. Businesses can refuse to serve someone because they just don't feel like it, the person said something to annoy them or they don't feel comfortable working with a specific material (like a vegetarian dry cleaner refusing to clean fur because it's against their beliefs. So that example is not the same, and it would be legal for the hypothetical butcher to refuse to touch a pig. It is not legal to refuse to serve someone because they're a woman in Canada, and personally I'm happy it's not.

I support the woman in this case, both because it's the law here that you can't refuse to serve someone for being a woman, and because if some business refused to serve me for being a lesbian (and I'm sure plenty would like to if they could), it'd make me feel horrible. I may just be really really Canadian, but I like that I have the right to not be discriminated against for things plenty of people would love to discriminate against others for. I absolutely love our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and, and that's part of it.

Yes that!

And there may be thousands of other places in Toronto, but if it happens in a rural area there would not be much choice The law needs to apply everywhere not just in places where it seems more convenient.

[keeperrox]

Nothing says that the business can only employ Muslims Actually it would be another discrimination if they employed barbers based on their religion. What the law will say is that the shop has to accept women who come, whether they hire non-Muslims or not is really no one's business but their own.

Huh? This was a Muslim owner and all his employees were Muslim (at least the day she went). They found someone (presumably non-Muslim) willing to cut her hair and provided her with this option. She still wants to battle this out in court. My question is, "Why?" What still needs to be discussed?

[ElphabaGalinda]

I still fail to see how her right to get a hair cut, which she could get at a 100+ other locations in Toronto, supersedes the rights of these barbers. How can they be forced to touch her if it goes against their beliefs? How can you force anyone to physically do something they are against?

This is not to say that I agree with their beliefs. I don't. I find them to be ridiculous, actually. But they aren't my beliefs, they're their's. Just as I wouldn't want them to force me to believe what they do, I don't see why they should be forced by the government to abandon them.

If they can't touch a women's hair because of their beliefs, they shouldn't be working at a business that provides services to the public where they touch peoples' ahir. And they should know that that's against the law in Canada. If you're going to operate a business in a country, I think you should know and abide by the laws. She could have gone to 100 other barbers, but she shouldn't have to. And she wanted a haircut in June, they offered her someone in their shop who can cut her hair in August. I think they should always have someone willing to do that, even if it never ever comes up again. No idea why she went there in the first case though.

The government isn't saying they can't practice their religion, they're saying we recognize that people have a right not to be discriminated against here. I think it needs to be discussed that people can't be refused a service based on certain things in Canada, gender being one of them, and yet it still happens.

We also don't have the same sensibilities of this sort of thing as in the US, probably reflected in our differing laws. I like them. But if I didn't, if I still lived in Canada, I would still respect them not matter what.

[Deleted03]

Huh? This was a Muslim owner and all his employees were Muslim (at least the day she went). They found someone (presumably non-Muslim) willing to cut her hair and provided her with this option. She still wants to battle this out in court. My question is, "Why?" What still needs to be discussed?

They did not offer it to her that day (even to reschedule at another day). It would be a settlement and I understand why she wants it to go through courts, as a matter of principle to be applied everywhere. It's kind of lame that she is taking it on that particular shop though.

[Guest Anonymous]

If they can't touch a women's hair because of their beliefs, they shouldn't be working at a business that provides services to the public where they touch peoples' ahir. And they should know that that's against the law in Canada. If you're going to operate a business in a country, I think you should know and abide by the laws. She could have gone to 100 other barbers, but she shouldn't have to. And she wanted a haircut in June, they offered her someone in their shop who can cut her hair in August. I think they should always have someone willing to do that, even if it never ever comes up again. No idea why she went there in the first case though.

The government isn't saying they can't practice their religion, they're saying we recognize that people have a right not to be discriminated against here. I think it needs to be discussed that people can't be refused a service based on certain things in Canada, gender being one of them, and yet it still happens.

We also don't have the same sensibilities of this sort of thing as in the US, probably reflected in our differing laws. I like them. But if I didn't, if I still lived in Canada, I would still respect them not matter what.

I agree with this completely. I am not pretending that the US and Canada are the same country, but I am going to give in to my urge to quote Rachel Maddow:

In other words, Bush broke what I have always called the “Amish bus driver†rule. If your religion requires you not to drive, cool beans, free country — but then you can‘t get hired to be a bus driver if your religion won‘t let you drive the bus.

[ElphabaGalinda]

Huh? This was a Muslim owner and all his employees were Muslim (at least the day she went). They found someone (presumably non-Muslim) willing to cut her hair and provided her with this option. She still wants to battle this out in court. My question is, "Why?" What still needs to be discussed?

I wouldn't have fought it personally, but maybe because it never should have happened in the first place and they only offered her the option 2 months after she asked after she started court proceedings so she wants it to never happen again? Being refused a service based on gender is illegal, that part's a fact no matter how anyone feels. I think it's a matter of principle for her.

Legally anyways, they shouldn't have refused her service based on her gender, so she does haave a chance of winning.

[ElphabaGalinda]

I agree with this completely. I am not pretending that the US and Canada are the same country, but I am going to give in to my urge to quote Rachel Maddow:

That's exactly what I meant! I'm glad I came across as coherent. Definitely not the same country, but that pretty much summarizes the Canadian law and sentiment on the matter.

If you're religion requires you to discriminate against people for whatever reason, don't get into a job where you serve members of the public. I love Rachel Maddow, I think she'd like it here in Canada :D

[Minerva]

Huh? This was a Muslim owner and all his employees were Muslim (at least the day she went). They found someone (presumably non-Muslim) willing to cut her hair and provided her with this option. She still wants to battle this out in court. My question is, "Why?" What still needs to be discussed?

I didn't know that part. *goes and actually reads the article*

Sounds like they offered her a haircut from a different employee over 2 months later. If they had said "please wait here while we call in someone who can cut your hair, terribly sorry about the delay, we've never had a woman come in before" I wouldn't see the issue, either. It sounds like no effort was made to serve her that day. Again, I can see why the manager never planned for such a situation, but he should have.

Does anyone know if they couldn't have worn gloves?

[keeperrox]

The government isn't saying they can't practice their religion, they're saying we recognize that people have a right not to be discriminated against here. I think it needs to be discussed that people can't be refused a service based on certain things in Canada, gender being one of them, and yet it still happens.

Well, if part of their religion is that they do not touch women who they are not related to, then yeah, the government is saying that they can't practice their religion.

We also don't have the same sensibilities of this sort of thing as in the US, probably reflected in our differing laws. I like them. But if I didn't, if I still lived in Canada, I would still respect them not matter what.

And while I don't agree with it at all, I will agree that if this is how the law is interpreted, it needs to be followed and they should hire someone who is willing to touch a non-related woman.

I do wonder, however, how long this business has been in existence. Why is this becoming an issue now? Was she really the very first woman to ever walk in and ask for a haircut?

[Boogalou]

Well, if part of their religion is that they do not touch women who they are not related to, then yeah, the government is saying that they can't practice their religion.

Do you also support pharmacists refusing to dispense the morning after pill because it goes against their religion?

[Minerva]

Do you also support pharmacists refusing to dispense the morning after pill because it goes against their religion?

Not that I'm being asked, but I believe pharmacies are required to have at least one person on hand who's willing to dispense birth control, EC and abortion pills. That said, if for whatever reason the only pharmacist in the store refuses to dispense birth control, and the patient can only use that pharmacy for whatever reason...someone being denied medication is a much bigger thing than someone being denied a haircut. Medication, including birth control, can be life-saving, and I think that people in the business of saving lives should be compelled to do that when they're on duty.

[Deleted03]

No. It says they opened a public business, they cut men's haircuts but have to accept a woman who comes because even if their style is called men's haircut, it does not mean a woman can't physically wear one. The business can't just give after 2 months and the threat of lawsuit another possibility for a haircut. They should have someone there either full time worker or someone they can call when they need to, to be able to offer the service to women. They offer the service, no one cares what kind of employee does it. It's not against their religion to taken women's money.

And while I don't agree with it at all, I will agree that if this is how the law is interpreted, it needs to be followed and they should hire someone who is willing to touch a non-related woman.

I do wonder, however, how long this business has been in existence. Why is this becoming an issue now? Was she really the very first woman to ever walk in and ask for a haircut?

[ElphabaGalinda]

Do you also support pharmacists refusing to dispense the morning after pill because it goes against their religion?

What the government is saying is they can't be a barber that offers services to the public and practice their religion, unless they have people full time in their shop that can touch women. They can practice their religion all they want, they just can't also refuse to serve women in their business. So the solution would be to practice their religion and find another business.

It's like the Amish bus driver comparisson. Or someone who's religion tells them gay people are evil, so they don't want to serve them. Well they can hate gay people all they want on their own time, and in business where their hatred doesn't interfere, but they can't refuse to provide a service for someone because they're gay. So really, the government is only telling them they can't practice their religion if it causes them to refuse service to someone in their business.

It's not like the government is saying they have to touch unrelated women.Just that if they can't touch unrealted women, they shouldn't put themselves in a situation where they have to. I personally support the law in Canada, and you'd be hard pressed to find a Canadian who doesn't (any Canadians can correct me if I'm wrong). Like I said, different country, different sensibilities on this issues.

I also think they should be aware of the laws of the country they're if they want to do business there. And the law says their business can't refuse to provide services to a woman. I think regardless on someone's opinion what the law says is clear.

[keeperrox]

Do you also support pharmacists refusing to dispense the morning after pill because it goes against their religion?

That's different, because the pharmacist isn't the one taking the pill. It's not against their religion to touch the pills, is it? These barbers would be the ones touching the women. But honestly? If an owner of a pharmacy wants to only dispense religiously-approved pills, then that's their right. I certainly won't be patronizing that establishment, but money talks, so if enough people refuse to go to that pharmacy, they would either go out of business or change their policy.

I do want to make one thing abundantly clear. I do not support the belief that men should not touch women they are not related to. I just support their right to have that belief.

[Minerva]

Well, you could find a Canadian who doesn't. I'm sure we've got our share of people whining about how they have to serve gay people at work, but they're a minority. And they, generally being visibly hardcore Christians, benefit from this type of legal protection as much as anyone, so they're probably not against the law so much as they're against the fact that it applies to people besides straight white cisgender Christians like themselves.

[Boogalou]

That's different, because the pharmacist isn't the one taking the pill. It's not against their religion to touch the pills, is it? These barbers would be the ones touching the women. But honestly? If an owner of a pharmacy wants to only dispense religiously-approved pills, then that's their right. I certainly won't be patronizing that establishment, but money talks, so if enough people refuse to go to that pharmacy, they would either go out of business or change their policy.

I do want to make one thing abundantly clear. I do not support the belief that men should not touch women they are not related to. I just support their right to have that belief.

It is different, and to Minerva above, I also realize that one is a way bigger issue than the other, but I still see the situations as very similar. And it is not that they are touching the pills it is that they are facilitating murder (in their minds). You have chosen a particular career even though your religious beliefs prevent you from fulfilling certain parts of that job. At the very least that is very short sighted. And Toronto is a very diverse place, I don't think it should shock the barbers that a female would ever walk into a barbershop for a "man's" haircut. I just don't think your religious beliefs should be negatively affecting another person's life. Honestly, if what you believe takes you to the Human Rights Tribunal I think you need to re-examine your beliefs.

And yes, I realize you don't support the belief that men shouldn't touch women they are not related to, otherwise you probably wouldn't be on this board :) I just don't support that belief when it begins negatively affecting other people, but they can believe whatever they want.

[YPestis]

Coming late into the discussion. In general, if it's a privately owned, privately funded facility, I do support the business' right to discriminate (just as I have the right to not patronize said establishment).

If it's a public service and the only facility providing said service, then I'm assuming they are receiving public money, that's a different matter. Tax money means you have to accept federal guidelines on discrimination. Plus, if the person objecting is just an *employee*, then they should not be allowed to cry foul. For example, if the pharmacy is working in a place that dispenses Plan B and he does not own the place, then he is obligated to dispense whatever the owners want him to dispense and should be fired if he does not comply. If the pharmacist owns the place, he is allowed to sell whatever he wants (and not sell what he doesn't want). I feel that if the gov't is allowed to force people in private businesses to do things they find objectionable, it can cut both ways. Think of the laws that force docs to tell pregnant women LIES about abortion we now have. I think that's a gross violation of the doctor-patient relationship. This type of power is easily abused by legislators with an agenda.

[ElphabaGalinda]

Coming late into the discussion. In general, if it's a privately owned, privately funded facility, I do support the business' right to discriminate (just as I have the right to not patronize said establishment).

In Canada, where this case takes place, businesses do not have the right to discriminate. I think that makes this very different than if they did have that right.

[Sunnichick31]

Gonna be honest even if it isn't a popular opinion--

Why sue? There are so many gender specific things out there, a barbershop is just one more. If she has a daughter, will she sue boyscouts for not letting her in? Would she be OK with a man suing Curves (or the Canadian equivalent, if they don't have Curves up there.) for being a women's only "gym"? (gym in quotes cause it's so NOT a gym. No cardio. No weights. Not a real gym, imho) Not too familiar with how a gentlemen's club works, but based on the name I'm assuming it's specific to male patrons. A lot of Muslim salons (not barbers, salons) have a sectioned-off area for only women so that hijabis can get hair cuts without men seeing, should they do away with those because it's discriminatory to the men who can't go into that area? I'm sure there are probably a dozen other gender specific environments, I just can't think of them right now.

and in answer to the gloves question- even though they technically would not be touching a woman, anyone who doesn't touch the opposite gender probably still wouldn't be OK with it unless it is medically necessary which a haircut isn't. Of course touching someone isn't totally avoidable, (think being handed change in a store, or being bumping into on the subway,) but if we can avoid it, we do.

[JesusFightClub]

Do you also support pharmacists refusing to dispense the morning after pill because it goes against their religion?

A very interesting comparison! I hadn't thought about that.

I think it may be different levels of offence. Barbers aren't obliged to serve female customers. In fact, they target their services towards men, and can possibly legitimately say they are worried about cutting female hair.

Pharmacists have two issues. First of all, pills don't pick and doctors do. You couldn't have a pharmacy that refused to serve female patients. That would be bizarre. Also, if you have an obligation to provide a vital service and then refuse to provide it, that would be an epic fail (Mark Steel gives the example of a shopkeeper who says "Nah mate, all the milk cartons broke so I can't give you any milk, but I want your cash anyway" as this type of thinking). A barber who won't shave a woman's head is annoying but not on the life or death level.

However Canadian law is what's important here. So we shall see what transpires...

[tropaka]

I haven't read all through the responses, but I've read the story in a few different papers....the barbershop in question eventually offered her a cut from a non muslim barber, but she decided to go through with the complaint anyway "on principle".

Oddly enough, about a month ago when my hubby was getting a haircut his barber went on about how he wouldn't give a woman a "man's cut" etc and so on. Funny because I've got a pixie cut at the moment. Should I go and sue him for being a douche? Most barber shops won't serve women.

ETA getting a haircut is different from getting an important medical treatment or prescription.

[Lola]

I'm siding with the barber on this one. There is dozens of barber shops in Toronto. Go to another one.

[valsa]

I haven't read all through the responses, but I've read the story in a few different papers....the barbershop in question eventually offered her a cut from a non muslim barber, but she decided to go through with the complaint anyway "on principle".

While, on one hand, I think filing a complaint on principle is a little obnoxious, I think that's just because I'm so used to women being treated like second class citizens. When I think about a barbershop denying a haircut to a black person because of their race, it's a lot clearer to me why someone would feel moved to bring on the complaint on principle. Agree with the policy or not, what the barbershop did was illegal and someone has the right to point out when they've been illegally denied service.

[B5SnowDog]

Well, the first time I did it my hair was a bob (if I could work out how to I would show the pic, you would laugh). And it took me fucking ages to get anyone who would actually do it. "No, you'll regret it." "No, you won't like it".

When I did get it done I loved it. And I wouldn't have minded if it had gone wrong. Your hair grows back. Colour's a bit annoying when it goes wrong but even then you can fix it and it's only a hair colour FFS.

That drives me bonkers. I like to make drastic changes in length and I have a hell of a time convincing the stylist that yes, I'd like 4 or 5 inches cut off.