Muslim Barber Refuses to Cut Woman's Hair

[luckystone]

Maybe it's just me (because I seem to be the only one having this reaction), but I don't think it's a case of competing rights at all. If he doesn't want to cut a woman's hair he is more than welcome to not run a hair cutting establishment.

I don't think putting a sign in the window would make it any better either. Like I said upthread, would it be okay for a restaurant to put a "whites only" sign in the window if they felt like serving non whites would compete against their rights?

I don't get this at all. Even if you run a business you shouldn't be able to do certain things.

[Deleted03]

I am quite confused by the postion of American FJers. When segregation was in place, it's not a movement to stop patronizing businesses that only catered to white customers that stopped segregation, is it?

If a barber says no I don't serve blacks, or whites, is it really their choice?

I don't care that she was in Toronto, if she were in a rural area she might not have the choice to go anywhere else and we should protect the right of everyone, rural or urban.

[purpleeee]

I honestly do not know what is the right answer to this situation.

But I do think the barbers are behaving better than the protester. When they came up with a compromise solution that would allow her to get her haircut (they found a barber who would do the cut in their store and let her know she could come in for it - hey, win-win for everyone), she turned them down, and that's where she lost the moral high ground for me.

When you want to make a point about human rights, doing so by insisting on my way or the highway - that your human rights are more important than somebody else's human rights - makes a mockery of the whole idea.

[formergothardite]

I think we are just so used to women not being treated equally, that a company saying "No, we won't serve you because you're a woman." doesn't really seem that bad to us. But it really is no different than all the stores and people who didn't want to touch black people or serve black people or drink out of the same water fountains as black people. A lot of those people who were forced by the government to stop refusing service to people because of the color of their skin really felt violated, probably just as violated as these guys if they were forced to cut the hair of a woman.

If they had immediatly offered to find someone to cut her hair, it probably wouldn't have gotten to this point, but they didn't. They wanted a long time. It is no different than if someone went to get their hair cut, was refused because the barbers believed touching a black person would contaminate them, and then two months later they offered to hire someone else who would be willing to touch a black person.

[JesusFightClub]

I think we are just so used to women not being treated equally, that a company saying "No, we won't serve you because you're a woman." doesn't really seem that bad to us. But it really is no different than all the stores and people who didn't want to touch black people or serve black people or drink out of the same water fountains as black people. A lot of those people who were forced by the government to stop refusing service to people because of the color of their skin really felt violated, probably just as violated as these guys if they were forced to cut the hair of a woman.

If they had immediatly offered to find someone to cut her hair, it probably wouldn't have gotten to this point, but they didn't. They wanted a long time. It is no different than if someone went to get their hair cut, was refused because the barbers believed touching a black person would contaminate them, and then two months later they offered to hire someone else who would be willing to touch a black person.

formergothardite, you always make things clearer. I may well have a wrong line on this and need to reexamine. *thinking* :think:

[keeperrox]

I think we are just so used to women not being treated equally, that a company saying "No, we won't serve you because you're a woman." doesn't really seem that bad to us. But it really is no different than all the stores and people who didn't want to touch black people or serve black people or drink out of the same water fountains as black people. A lot of those people who were forced by the government to stop refusing service to people because of the color of their skin really felt violated, probably just as violated as these guys if they were forced to cut the hair of a woman.

I disagree. I would have the same position if a man walked into a salon that historically catered to women only, asked for a woman's haircut, and the all-Muslim staff refused on the principle that it is against their religion to touch a non-related man (which I have no idea if it is, but it wouldn't surprise me).

As far as I can see, she wasn't refused a haircut solely because she was a woman. She was refused a haircut because she was a woman who was not related to any of the men working there.

[formergothardite]

I personally think all the woman's only/men's only thing is stupid. But in Canada, what they did was illegal it seems.

There were white people who would only touch "their" black maids/slaves/share croppers. They would serve certain black people. So you think it would be okay if a black person walked into a salon and was refused because they don't know that black person and, hey, they would be unclean if they touched a black person they aren't close to? They will serve all the white people who they don't know, but only black people that they have known a long time so they are sure they are "clean" blacks. (Sadly am related to elderly people who still believe like this I didn't discover this till a recent family get together and am just horrified.)

[keeperrox]

I personally think all the woman's only/men's only thing is stupid. But in Canada, what they did was illegal it seems.

There were white people who would only touch "their" black maids/slaves/share croppers. They would serve certain black people. So you think it would be okay if a black person walked into a salon and was refused because they don't know that black person and, hey, they would be unclean if they touched a black person they aren't close to? They will serve all the white people who they don't know, but only black people that they have known a long time so they are sure they are "clean" blacks. (Sadly am related to elderly people who still believe like this I didn't discover this till a recent family get together and am just horrified.)

Once again, that's comparing apples to oranges. In your example, whites wouldn't touch blacks because they are black. Furthermore, racism isn't a religious belief. These men didn't say they wouldn't serve her because she wasn't Muslim or that she was white. They wouldn't serve her because doing so would require them to touch her, and because she wasn't related to them, it would be a violation of their established religious beliefs. If a non-related Muslim woman walked into the shop, asking for the same thing, I'm sure she would have gotten the same response. It's not like they pulled that excuse out of nowhere, just because they were trying to target this one woman, this one time. In fact, the article quotes them as saying they could cut their mother's, daughter's, wife's, sister's, or aunt's hair, and it would not be a violation of their beliefs.

Are religious rights not protected in Canada as equally as gender rights?

[formergothardite]

Still not seeing the difference.

A black person walks in a white owned barber shop turned down not just because he is black, but because he is a black person not a family friend to the white barbers and if they touch him it would be violating their long held cultural beliefs and they would be unclean.

A woman walks into a Muslim owned barber shop and is turned down not just because she is a woman, but because she is a woman not related to the barbers and if they touch her it would be violating their long held religous beliefs and they would be unclean.

[Boogalou]

Rosie DiManno has now weighed in: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article ... adth-apart

If you don't want to read it, her argument basically boils down to teh womenz should sit down and shut up. Oh and calling people sexist when they are being sexist is rude. At least that is how I read it.

[keeperrox]

Still not seeing the difference.

A black person walks in a white owned barber shop turned down not just because he is black, but because he is a black person not a family friend to the white barbers and if they touch him it would be violating their long held cultural beliefs and they would be unclean.

A woman walks into a Muslim owned barber shop and is turned down not just because she is a woman, but because she is a woman not related to the barbers and if they touch her it would be violating their long held religous beliefs and they would be unclean.

Are cultural beliefs something that are usually upheld by the government? Because I can't think of a case that would support that.

[Deleted03]

Once again, that's comparing apples to oranges. In your example, whites wouldn't touch blacks because they are black. Furthermore, racism isn't a religious belief. These men didn't say they wouldn't serve her because she wasn't Muslim or that she was white. They wouldn't serve her because doing so would require them to touch her, and because she wasn't related to them, it would be a violation of their established religious beliefs. If a non-related Muslim woman walked into the shop, asking for the same thing, I'm sure she would have gotten the same response. It's not like they pulled that excuse out of nowhere, just because they were trying to target this one woman, this one time. In fact, the article quotes them as saying they could cut their mother's, daughter's, wife's, sister's, or aunt's hair, and it would not be a violation of their beliefs.

Are religious rights not protected in Canada as equally as gender rights?

Once again it is not in their religious beliefs to not take business from a woman. They should be able to have someone on hand that can cater to religious situations they find unsuitable.

I don't care if their religious beliefs say that women are impure, or that if you touch the opposite gender then you commit sin, or if you touch someone who is of a different "race" impure. It's all the same, there is discrimination and there is an easy solution in that case to be provided: they have someone on staff that either is not Muslim, or is not following that particular law (because not all Muslim follow that rule either, it is their interpretation).

It is not a sin to take women's business so there is a very easy solution.

Defending religious freedom is important, but it can't be at the expense of others and it can't be a justification for discrimination. Racism can also be justified by religion. What if Mormons pre their 70's policies said they would not take African American's customers because it would benefiting from those who wear the mark of Cain and it would be a sin?

[rock_girl]

Sounds like a reasonable complaint to me. If your religion says you can't provide a woman with a completely non-sexual service because she's a woman and touching her will make you think bad things, you probably need to get out of the service industry. I've heard some ridiculous complaints about Muslim businesses (zomg, halal meat is being served, no bacon!!!!), but this isn't one of them.

[keeperrox]

I don't care if their religious beliefs say that women are impure, or that if you touch the opposite gender then you commit sin, or if you touch someone who is of a different "race" impure. It's all the same, there is discrimination and there is an easy solution in that case to be provided: they have someone on staff that either is not Muslim, or is not following that particular law (because not all Muslim follow that rule either, it is their interpretation).

Absolutely, and I don't disagree with you at all. However, when the shop did hire someone to cut her hair, she still refused and wants to battle it out in court. I know some people argued that it was too long between the time she wanted the haircut and the time they offered a solution, but I disagree. From June to August could be as little as 4.5 weeks.

[HOTW]

I will b einterested to see hwo this ends up, my real nagging question here is did dhe go out of her way to go to this specific shop? I think that would establish/disprove intent on her part. While they should have provided a barber willing to work on religion biased persons at the shop, they did try to rectify th esituation; now have they hired that person as a FT employee is th equestion. A lot of comples issues here but I do agree that she might very well have a precedent setting case IF she is not proven to have singled them out and IF she refuses any monetary settlement in the long run.

[keeperrox]

From the article linked above:

Not 50 metres away from the Terminal Barber Shop is a unisex salon that offers basic haircuts to both men and women for 15 bucks.

Why did she go to this particular shop, if not to pick a fight? Why can't she respect their beliefs, walk a few feet down the block, and get her haircut for the same price elsewhere?

[linnea27]

I am not sure that all these analogies and demands that they get out of the service industry are right. These men are barbers. My understanding, and a quick wikipedia search confirms, that barbers are trained to cut men's hair. I mean, yeah, men's and women's hair aren't fundamentally different, but a barber shop is still a service primarily geared towards men. I would argue that they have tried to get a job that doesn't interfere with their beliefs, unlike if they had become dentists or family physicians or something. Like it or not, there are organizations that cater to one gender, and I do not believe that this is on par with cateriing to one race. I do not think that saying a women's (or men's) only gym is the same as having a whites only gym, or a girls-only school is the same as a whites-only school, or that a men-only barber shop is the same as a whites-only barber shop. I would feel differently is he had a different business and told half of his potential clients to shove off, but as it is, I can accept that he chose a career with the expectation that the nature of his career would be in line with his religious beliefs.

I do agree that she chose this specific shop to stir up trouble, although legally speaking, I am not sure that matters.

[Mela99]

uh?

::headdesk::

I'm with the barber on this one. This isn't a gender issue. He can cut women's hair, just not those he isn't related to.

[Creaky Mom]

It is going to be interesting to see how this develops because I think there is anxiety here about not wishing to aggravate the Muslim community. This became clear with Sunday's Rememberance Day protest and defacement of war memorials.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/st ... 21445.html

But it boils down to this, if you are in business, in Canada, you set aside personally held faith issues and do business, as this couple found out:

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/owne ... story.html

[Deleted03]

Absolutely, and I don't disagree with you at all. However, when the shop did hire someone to cut her hair, she still refused and wants to battle it out in court. I know some people argued that it was too long between the time she wanted the haircut and the time they offered a solution, but I disagree. From June to August could be as little as 4.5 weeks.

Do you have short hair? Because with short hair 4.5 weeks can mean a lot of obvious hair growth that totally destroy any hair cut you have (and seeing how short her hair is I believe that).

They offered that after she started the legal procedures, it can't be that you offer a solution only if someone sues you. Her procedures clearly state that she wants to ensure that there is a permanent solution for women there. I don't think that there is necessarily bad faith from the shop, but you can't just have a customer, tell her no you're a woman, wait for her to sue you and then more than a month later say hey I've found someone else that could come.

[Deleted03]

::headdesk::

I'm with the barber on this one. This isn't a gender issue. He can cut women's hair, just not those he isn't related to.

ok let's just make something clear. If we are talking about devout Muslims with men unwilling to shampoo and cut a woman's hair there is a high probability that the women they are related to wear the hijab and would never get their hair cut in a public hairsalons where men they are not related to would cut their hairs. So no they would most probably never cut a woman's hair in the salon for money.

To say this is not gender related is just baffling.

[linnea27]

It is going to be interesting to see how this develops because I think there is anxiety here about not wishing to aggravate the Muslim community. This became clear with Sunday's Rememberance Day protest and defacement of war memorials.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/st ... 21445.html

But it boils down to this, if you are in business, in Canada, you set aside personally held faith issues and do business, as this couple found out:

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/owne ... story.html

again, though, I dont know that these stories about pharmacists and birth control, or turning away gay people, are similar. In both these cases, the people are using their religious beliefs in an attempt to change others. In both those cases, the action the religious person would take wouldnt actually make them do something against their religion- they had to tolerate someone else doing something against their own religion. This barber, though, would have to personally violate his religious beliefs for his body by touching her. I dont think saying "the bible says homosexuality is wrong so we are going to spread that message by kicking gay people out of our establishment" is directly parallel. He isnt forcing his views on her in the way that pharmacists or hotel owners are by refusing to work with certain people or performing certain aspects of their job.

[Deleted03]

again, though, I dont know that these stories about pharmacists and birth control, or turning away gay people, are similar. In both these cases, the people are using their religious beliefs in an attempt to change others. In both those cases, the action the religious person would take wouldnt actually make them do something against their religion- they had to tolerate someone else doing something against their own religion. This barber, though, would have to personally violate his religious beliefs for his body by touching her. I dont think saying "the bible says homosexuality is wrong so we are going to spread that message by kicking gay people out of our establishment" is directly parallel. He isnt forcing his views on her in the way that pharmacists or hotel owners are by refusing to work with certain people or performing certain aspects of their job.

It can also be a judgement of a woman who wants to be touched by a non related male.

[linnea27]

It can also be a judgement of a woman who wants to be touched by a non related male.

Sure, it can be, but I think that's reaching, unless he said "I am not going to touch you because it would make you dirty, you immoral whore" or something similar. Then I would agree that he was pushing his beliefs on her. As it is, I dont think that is the case.

[formergothardite]

Are cultural beliefs something that are usually upheld by the government? Because I can't think of a case that would support that.

So if it was a religious belief(and a good many people back in the day used religion to say they couldn't touch or drink after black people) it would be okay for them to refuse service to 99% of the black population as long as they did it on the basis that it wasn't because they were black, but because they were black and outside the tiny little circle of black people their religion said they could touch?