Brickbats

Brickbat: Norwegian Wouldn't

|

Hijab
Haider Y. Abdulla / Dreamstime.com

A Norwegian hairdresser faces up to six months in prison for refusing to pay a fine of 870 euros for religious discrimination. Merete Hodne refused to cut Malika Bayan's hair because Bayan was wearing a hijab. Hodne says she regards the hijab as a totalitarian symbol. She also says serving hijab-wearing customers would force her to turn away male customers since they will not remove the headscarf in front of men.

NEXT: As Marijuana Prohibition Winds Down, What Will Control Freaks Ban Next?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The victim, Ms. Bayan, told the court she had experienced racism and discrimination before the incident, but she “never had it thrown in my face so clearly”.

    She simply wanted a Taylor Swift cut, something to really accentuate the power of her victimhood.

    1. So,she wants to bitch about how awful all her former BF’s are too?

  2. Morning folks. I’m a barber and would usually never turn down a paying client. That said.,if I had a women that would not want me to let men in the shop while she was getting cut that would be a deal breaker. I’ve also turned away people that were drunk, overly rude or just plan filthy.

    1. That isn’t what happened here; no demand was made that men leave the shop. The barber made that up afterwards; claiming that anybody wearing a scarf would necessarily make that demand. But the woman she kicked out hadn’t and didn’t intend to.

      1. But the woman she kicked out . . . didn’t intend to.

        Ah, so you were there? Or is this just your own bias coming out?

        1. No, I can read. The only person who said anything about men having to leave was the barber. It was never even claimed that the Muslim woman had demanded it. The barber would have been perfectly free to legally reject such a demand if it had been made. The woman had simply walked into to inquire about prices and was immediately kicked out by this barber –who happens to also be a far-right anti-Muslim activist– ranting and raving about how evil Muslims are, having apparently been triggered by the mere sight of one.

          If you want to make the libertarian case that she should be free to refuse Muslims just because she hates Muslims;well… OK. But this idea that she was just being reasonable in refusing to kick men out of her shop has nothing to do with what actually happened.

          1. What is the point of wearing the veil? So men cant lay their dirty gaze on the woman’s hair, right?

            It is completely illogical to think that women without their veil on would not want men in the shop at the time? Sounds legit.

            My money is on the barber being familiar with this situation from experience. Maybe this one did or didn’t but I am betting it has happened in the past or is a regular occurrence at barber shops.

            If you are going to make dishonest arguments 1290 you should make them somewhere else. Bullshit doesnt fly around here very well.

            1. More generally, we have never seen Muslims demanding that their sensibilities be accommodated by western cultures that they have immigrated to, have we? Yep, all sounds legit to me.

              You convinced me.

              1. I don’t know if the barber claimed that *this particular customer* in *this particular case* wanted men out of the shop.

                Perhaps the barber was worried that, once you start accepting hijab-wearing customers, then *some* of them would demand that men get out.

                1. I don’t see it, either. Easily predictable what will happen, regardless of this case: Nazi cakes and make me a pizza.

                2. That’s like arguing you won’t serve any black people in your restaurant because some black people were once rude and obnoxious to your waitress. Sure, you can refuse service to *those particular individuals*. You can’t use that as basis to refuse service to all black people.

                  1. I expect people to allow me to do whatever I want with my own property and I’ll grant them the same courtesy. Your mask just slipped.

                  2. That is not an unreasonable analogy, but context matters. See The Fusionist’s post about swimming pools.

                    Where is this likely to go in Norway? Toward more freedom of association or less?

                    We both know the answer and mine is “No. I will not put my gun down.”

                    1. Gender-segregated hours in swimming pools is hardly something unique to Muslim women. Pools all over offer that to accommodate both religious and non-religious sensibilities. Pool hours have as much to do with this as the fact that Curves doesn’t allow men. Is that a reason to start kicking Muslims out of gyms?

                    2. Should it be legal for Curves to discriminate against men?

                      If discrimination against men should be legal, why not discrimination against Muslims?

                      Or do Muslims outrank men on the SJW hierarchy?

                    3. Religion and gender are treated differently under these laws; and there’s generally more leeway provided for gender segregation whereas religious discrimination is completely prohibited. Should that be the case? *shrug* Ask somebody arguing about what the law should be; I’m just explaining what the law is.

                    4. And the law creates problems for coeducational salons/barbershops where the women and men sit around in the same room.

                      A woman whose religion *forbids her from exposing her hair to non-male relatives* comes into a coed salon/barbershop demanding service…and this won’t raise problems with the way the establishment does its business?

                      You’re constructing ideological cloud-castles.

                      As the Boston Globe article indicates, what seems to deter the hijab-wearers from seeking service is that they want to find a place where there aren’t men around to see their hair.

                    5. “Religion and gender are treated differently under these laws; and there’s generally more leeway provided for gender segregation whereas religious discrimination is completely prohibited.”

                      Probably true, which indicates that to please the government, it would be far better to exclude men from your establishment, or set up segregated rooms for men and women, than risk being accused of creating a hostile environment for hijab-wearers, a large number of whom don’t want men seeing their hair.

                      Let’s stipulate that there’s a middle-of-the-road group of hijab wearers whose modesty allows them to uncover in a coed hair salon, but I don’t think the government should be messing with barbershops and salons for the sake of this fairly small group of modest/immodest individuals.

                    6. “Ask somebody arguing about what the law should be; I’m just explaining what the law is.”

                      That was not your original argument.

                      You are backtracking.

                    7. Non-sequiturs much???

                  3. Not really, it’s more like thinking that serving someone with a confederate flag on their jacket will eventually lead to a demand to exclude blacks. That is, you might be going too far in your concern, but you’re still dealing with a symbol that has a meaning that is negative and not too uncommon.

                  4. Yeah sure because Muslim men NEVER freak the fuck out when Muslim women aren’t covering their heads.

                    No way that would EVER happen!!!

                    Shit they’d probably be so pissed they’d burn the shop down.

                    Oooooh, is that too far, am I being “islomophobic”!???

          2. Since she covers her hair – why does she need a haircut?

      2. Ms. Hodne also argued before judges that accepting a hijab-wearing client would force her to turn away male customers, as the woman would not bare her head in their presence.

        The woman wouldn’t take off the hijab in front of male customers. Read the article. It helps.

        1. WHAT’S TRUE: A Norwegian hairdresser ordered a hijab-wearing woman who inquired about the price of highlights to get out of her shop.

          WHAT’S FALSE: No news reports of the incident stated that the woman demanded all male customers leave the salon so she could be serviced.

          http://www.snopes.com/muslim-w…..ir-styled/

          The claim that Bayan demanded male customers leave the establishment doesn’t appear in any primary news accounts of the incident that we could find and seems to be an artifact of MadWorldNews’ third-hand reporting, taken from a comment made by Hodne to Norwegian media in which she assumed that if she were to provide services to hijabi women, she would be forced to boot out her male clients to accommodate them:

          “As most people know, hijab-clad woman do not get to show their hair to men. My salon is a men and women’s hair salon. It would have been deeply discriminatory if I had banished men from the salon because of a woman who could not show her hair in front of them.”

          1. In other words, the barber *claimed* that she could *assume* no woman wearing a headscarf would allow their hair to be cut in the presence of men.

            That doesn’t mean that is true; and in fact it isn’t. Nobody— not even the barber— claimed that the woman actually refused to remove her headdress in the presence of men. This idea of kicking men out wasn’t even raised until after the fact, and the barber was the only who asserted it.

            1. The barber should just give El Hijabi a crappy haircut. Like – with pruning shears or something.

              1. Or just say “I’ll cut your hair, but I won’t do anything to stop men from seeing it”.

                1. I wonder if she cuts a nun’s hair?

          2. that we could find

            Interesting pronoun you got there; shame if someone should question it.

        2. The plot thickens.

          Same story from The Independent: “It would have been deeply discriminatory if I had banished men from the lounge because of a woman who could not show her hair to them.”

          Was it the woman or a woman? Who knows? Get the original and translate it yourself to see what she meant.

          1. Why am I bothering? It’s her shop and it’s her right to serve any client she wishes to serve and deny service to anyone. She sounds like a piece of work, but as with freedom of speech, believing in freedom of association means standing up for people like her.

          2. She made quite plain that her position is she would refuse service to any woman wearing a hijab, regardless; and that the part about kicking men out was just an assumption she made. Keep in mind this woman is a far-right anti-Islam activist; her main argument was that she equates wearing a headscarf with wearing a swastika; that Islam is “political” and “not a religion,” etc.

            It’s also pretty implausible that a Muslim woman who was so not-conservative as to be inquiring about getting highlights, was really that strict about not letting men see her hair. It’s not like she was wearing a burqa.

            The barber was not fined for refusing to kick men out of her shop. Nobody ever asked her to kick men out of her shop; and the law wouldn’t have required her to grant that request. She was fined for refusing service to a woman who simply walked in wearing a hijab; not one who refused to remove it in the presence of men.

            1. Maybe she should be able to refuse service to anybody regardless and anti-discrimination laws are wrong; I’m not arguing that either way. I’m just correcting the facts of the story. She was not asked to kick men out of her shop. She was not fined for refusing to do so. Which matters a great deal as to who in this story sounds reasonable and sympathetic. Instead of “anti-discrimination law run amok and applied in crazy way”; it becomes the much more boring “anti-discrimination law applied the same way it routinely is all the time.”

              1. “She was not asked to kick men out of her shop.”

                You can claim that *this customer* didn’t ask that men be kicked out of the shop, but let’s be real for a moment – was it unreasonable for the barber to worry about what the *next* hijab-wearing customer would demand, and the next, and the next?

                1. “Swedish swimming pools introduce women-only sessions to accommodate rising number of Muslim population

                  “More public swimming pools offer women-only hours in Sweden

                  “Has been linked to rise in Muslim population after immigration increase

                  “Initiative has been slammed by Sweden’s Minister for Democracy

                  “Women-only hours under investigation for discrimination against men”

                  1. From the Boston Globe in 2014:

                    “For some haircuts, Zaynah Qutubuddin and her stylist squeezed into the salon’s break room, beside the trashcan, the microwave, and the bathroom door — a private, if dim, substitute for the studio with big mirrors.

                    “Sometimes her mother — a psychiatrist, not a stylist — trimmed her hair. Once, Qutubuddin tried a salon that agreed to book only other female clients while she was there but neglected to mention their male employee.

                    “Muslim women like Qutubuddin, who wear the headscarf known as a hijab, confront a difficult challenge when it’s time for a hair cut. Male stylists are out, since Muslim women remove their hijabs only around women or around men in their immediate families. And even at women-run salons, a male client could pop in at any moment.”

                    1. “Qutubuddin wrote about her experience at Faron Salon on her blog, relieved to end her search for a salon that could accommodate her.

                      }”And how awkward is it to call up and ask, ‘Hey, so when I make an appointment with you, could you not book any dudes at the same time?'” she wrote.”

                    2. “Homa, a Muslim woman who lives in Boston and spoke on the condition that her last name not be used, was also a veteran of the search for a female-only haircut at other salons.

                      “”I would go earlier or after hours and request if the salon had a back room,” she said. “It didn’t always work out so well. Someone would walk in.””

                    3. Dude, Google is your friend.

                    4. So now you get to decide what somebody’s religion tells them to do? “Other people of your religion believe this, so you must”?

                      Obviously some Muslim women are stricter about it and won’t get their haircut in a room with men in it.

                      And obviously, some of them are less strict and don’t have a problem with it.

                      Is it really that hard to comprehend that *they aren’t all the same person*?

                    5. Who knows, feel free to go in search of your hijab-wearer who’s willing for strange men to look at her hair.

                2. “was it unreasonable for the barber to worry about what the *next* hijab-wearing customer would demand, and the next, and the next?”

                  …and she could have told them no, if anybody ever actually demanded that. To use that as a reason to refuse service to somebody who hadn’t demanded it, is not even remotely reasonable.

                  1. “and she could have told them no, if anybody ever actually demanded that.”

                    Have you seen the Boston Globe article?

                    There’s a *reason* the hijab-wearers wear a hijab. They don’t want men (besides their relatives) looking at their hair.

                    The solution is not to pass more antidiscrimination laws, but to allow *more* discrimination.

                    Allow hair salons and barbers to discriminate against men or segregate the men from the women.

                    Do you agree this should be legal? Do you agree barbers and salon owners should be able to discriminate against men?

                    If so, why shouldn’t they have the right to discriminate against Muslims, too? Do Muslims outrank men on some SJW hierarchy?

                    Or, in the name of consistency, would you require barbers and salon owners to let male customers into the room where they can watch uncovered women, thus driving hijab-wearers away? And if *that’s* your position, you can abandon your pretense of being oh so caring about the plight of Muslim women.

                    1. You keep assuming I’m making some argument as to what the law should be. I’m not. Legalize discrimination; don’t legalize discrimination; I don’t care. I get that some libertarians instantly want to jump to “discrimination should be legal!” If that’s your opinion, good for you. Has bupkis to do with what I’m talking about. I haven’t said anything about what I think the law should be.

                      I’m just saying get your facts straight if you’re going to report or comment on a story that happened. “Norway fines woman for refusing to kick men out of her barber shop” is not what happened. “Norway fines woman for refusing service to any Muslim wearing a headscarf” is what happened.

                    2. “Legalize discrimination; don’t legalize discrimination; I don’t care.”

                      Or in other words, legalize discrimination *against men;* don’t legalize discrimination *against Muslims.*

                      Because on the SJW scale, Muslims outrank men.

                      Right?

                    3. How can she cut here hair while she is wearing a headscarf? That seems physically impossible to me.

                    4. s/here/her

                    5. maybe she only wanted a bowl cut thought. That could work.

              2. Now you’re replying to youself so someone would agree with you. Nice.

            2. “…that the part about kicking men out was just an assumption she made. ”
              Or something she knows from experience or the experience of others?

              “…her main argument was that she equates wearing a headscarf with wearing a swastika; that Islam is “political” and “not a religion,”

              Both correct.

              1290 is making the same argument the guy in the ski mask makes when he tells you to put your gun down and he won’t hurt you.

              Fuck off.

              1. I don’t give a rat’s ass about what the law in Norway should be. So you think anti-discrimination laws shouldn’t exist. Great. I don’t care. Not what I’m talking about.

                All I’m objecting to is making up facts and reporting a false account of what happened.

                1. You are leaving context out entirely.

                  1. People are flipping out as if Norway ordered this woman to kick men out of her shop in order to accommodate Muslim women.

                    No such thing happened. Period. Nobody asked her to kick men out of the shop. The government is not requiring her to kick men out of the shop. That’s the part of the story people are getting outraged over, and it’s false.

                    1. Looks like she was referring to a potential situation in the future. The Snopes link didn’t help at all, but I found the original and did a translation. I have a feeling the Norwegians freaking out don’t need a translation and so they are freaking out over the potential situation she referred to.

                    2. Yeah, and lots of people freaked out in the United States over the idea that pastors would be forced to officiate gay (or before that, inter-racial) weddings. That doesn’t mean they had any factual basis to do so.

                    3. “People are flipping out as if Norway ordered this woman to kick men out of her shop in order to accommodate Muslim women.”

                      This is what I mean by you leaving out context. See the various posts where they are doing just that with regards to other businesses.

            3. this woman is a far-right anti-Islam activist

              There’s the tell.

              1. Ad Hominems are perfectly sound.

              2. Tulpa’d!

                1. oh fuck. I fell for a Tulpa?

                  1. Fell hard.

            4. Keep in mind this woman is a far-right anti-Islam activist

              So. Fucking. What?

              The only reason anyone would give a shit about who a person is, or would expect to “keep it in mind” is that they’re saying that a person who they deem icky isn’t allowed rights.

            5. Isn’t it a silly waste of money – she covers her hair. Why does she need a new ‘do?

    2. I’ve also turned away people that were drunk

      I hope you rot you in hell, you communist.

  3. Gary Johnson thinks the Norwegian government is being perfectly sensibel.

  4. All I notice is that the penalty for talking shit to a customer is 870 Euros and the penalty for talking shit to the government is 6 months in a cage.

    1. Not upholding your end of the social contract offends everyone, not just one woman in a veil. She got off easy. They should have multiplied that 870 Euros by the population of Norway and made her sit in a cage for that many days.

    2. Gee – if I were the hairdresser, I’d just give El Hijabi a crappy haircut.

  5. Dem Pepe postings tho….

  6. TL;DR summary of my prior postings:

    Modesty is great. If women want to keep their hair covered in the presence of men, I appreciate their witness against our sexualized culture.

    There’s a way to address the hairstyling needs of these women: Women-only salons or sex-segregated establishments. No laws are needed, the law just needs to get out of the way.

    Then there will be no need for hijab-wearers to crash the coed establishments, they can simply avoid such places. Again, no government involvement needed.

    1. Again, no government involvement needed.

      A feature, not a bug.

  7. what’s so damned sexy about Muslim women’s hair? can any one tell me? so sexy it drives men wild just by the sight of it? gots to getz me some a dat…

    1. does the sight of their tits turn men to stone like a gorgons hair?

  8. Man. There should be some kind of political party where the main guy would stand up for the rights of people to not be forced to associate with other people against their will. I dunno … like some kind of purely abstract “freedom of association” kind of thing that we’d just defend, no matter how deplorable those were who were trying to assert such rights. That’d make it easier to defend in cases like this, where it just seems like common sense. Seems like the USA would be a good place to start such a party. We should look into it.

      1. Ideological fanatic!

        Catering to right-wing Christians!

        Only a minor issue!

    1. Even the sarc didn’t help that bitter pill go down any easier.

  9. Wow so the Western Secular Caliphate has spread to every country in Europe. I am disappointed in you, Norway. I thought you were better than this.

  10. Jesus people, relax. It’s just a brickbat

  11. “She also says serving hijab-wearing customers would force her to turn away male customers since they will not remove the headscarf in front of men.”

    It’s technically true that she said that; it isn’t true that anybody asked her to do that.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.