RubySoho
Winston
When Is Religious Discrimination Not Religious Discrimination?
September 30th 2008 05:21
A Muslim man in Britain is suing supermarket giant Tesco because his job as a forklift driver meant he had to handle crates containing alcohol. Whilst Tesco maintains, “that every effort was made to find him an alternative role in the warehouse”, Mohammed Ahmed claims that he was victimised by managers because of his request not to handle any crates containing any alcohol.
Pending the outcome of the case, should we just assume that simply asking a Muslim to fulfil an aspect of their job is discriminatory? I was raised a Alawite Muslim, which is a small sect that does not forbid the drinking of alcohol, though drunkenness is is not permitted. As far as I know it is the actual drinking of alcohol that is forbidden in the mainstream Sunni and Shia branches of Islam, not simply touching it or being in the same vicinity. It is after all, the effect that alcohol has on the body that Islam disapproves of. If any one can shed some light on this matter, please do so.
But even presuming that simply handling a bottle (or a crate that contains bottles of alcohol) is against one’s religion, surely sometimes minor exceptions are in order? If it is a necessary part of one’s job description and if, as Tesco claims, accommodations were made, should a person be able to successfully sue an employer for being made to do his job?
Last year British supermarket chain Sainsbury's made news for accommodating Muslim check out staff who refused to scan bottles of alcohol. When confronted with the offending bottle, the cashier in question could simply raise their hand and be temporarily replaced by another staff member. Interestingly, the Times Online reported that sometimes the replacement was themselves a Muslim. Whilst Sainsbury's was praised for their tolerance, the move met its fair share of critics including Muslim scholars and leaders:
Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, director of the Muslim Institute and leader of the Muslim parliament, said: “This is some kind of overenthusiasm. One expects professional behaviour from people working in a professional capacity and this shows a lack of maturity.
“Sainsbury’s is being very good, they are trying to accommodate the wishes of their employees and we commend that. The fault lies with the employee who is exploiting and misusing their goodwill.”
Ibrahim Mogra, chairman of the inter-faith committee of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), said: “Muslim employees should look at the allowances within Muslim law to enable them to be better operating employees and not be seen as rather difficult to cater for.”
The Oxford Dictionary defines discrimination as “unfavourable treatment based on prejudice”. Wiki defines it as “prejudicial treatment of a person or a group of people based on certain characteristics”.
But is asking a warehouse employee to pack and transport crates of alcohol "treating them unfavourably"? Or is it simply asking them to do as all other employees do? A basic employment requirement? There are many aspects of Western life that are incompatible with the belief systems of those who migrate here from other cultures. Just as there are many aspects of modern life that are incompatible with those who wish to adhere to ancient beliefs and practices. Thus women in the USA are finding themselves in a position whereby pharmacists who claim that dispensing birth control goes against their religious beliefs deny them prescription medication.
Should women go without birth control because some people object to it? Or should those who object consider that providing other people with birth control and taking birth control themselves are two very different things? Likewise I would say that drinking alcohol and simply moving it around are two very different things.
Tesco claims that it was made clear to Ahmed at his job induction that he would be required to transport alcohol. Likewise pharmacists and pharmacy employees are aware that selling birth control and emergency contraception is a basic service. Is it fair on the employer and the customers to be refused service because an employee decides to apply for and accept a job that contains some elements that their religion considers taboo? Should modern society be forced to bend to every religious whim that it finds itself in conflict with? And oh boy, there are many.
I have always considered discrimination to be unnecessary and sometimes cruel behaviour that deliberately targets certain people. I just don’t see that here. Had Ahmed being asked to perform a duty normally outside his job description, then that would clearly be discrimination. But that does not appear to be the case in this instance. Accommodations can be made sure, but I think it is unreasonable to expect employers to change the job to suit one person’s personal beliefs. And then get sued for asking someone to do a job that they decided to accept.
Tesco did not go out of its way to make life uncomfortable for Ahmed. Unfortunately living in the 21st Century whilst attempting to strictly adhere to a one thousand year old religion does.
-Ruby
Pending the outcome of the case, should we just assume that simply asking a Muslim to fulfil an aspect of their job is discriminatory? I was raised a Alawite Muslim, which is a small sect that does not forbid the drinking of alcohol, though drunkenness is is not permitted. As far as I know it is the actual drinking of alcohol that is forbidden in the mainstream Sunni and Shia branches of Islam, not simply touching it or being in the same vicinity. It is after all, the effect that alcohol has on the body that Islam disapproves of. If any one can shed some light on this matter, please do so.
But even presuming that simply handling a bottle (or a crate that contains bottles of alcohol) is against one’s religion, surely sometimes minor exceptions are in order? If it is a necessary part of one’s job description and if, as Tesco claims, accommodations were made, should a person be able to successfully sue an employer for being made to do his job?
Last year British supermarket chain Sainsbury's made news for accommodating Muslim check out staff who refused to scan bottles of alcohol. When confronted with the offending bottle, the cashier in question could simply raise their hand and be temporarily replaced by another staff member. Interestingly, the Times Online reported that sometimes the replacement was themselves a Muslim. Whilst Sainsbury's was praised for their tolerance, the move met its fair share of critics including Muslim scholars and leaders:
Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, director of the Muslim Institute and leader of the Muslim parliament, said: “This is some kind of overenthusiasm. One expects professional behaviour from people working in a professional capacity and this shows a lack of maturity.
“Sainsbury’s is being very good, they are trying to accommodate the wishes of their employees and we commend that. The fault lies with the employee who is exploiting and misusing their goodwill.”
Ibrahim Mogra, chairman of the inter-faith committee of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), said: “Muslim employees should look at the allowances within Muslim law to enable them to be better operating employees and not be seen as rather difficult to cater for.”
The Oxford Dictionary defines discrimination as “unfavourable treatment based on prejudice”. Wiki defines it as “prejudicial treatment of a person or a group of people based on certain characteristics”.
But is asking a warehouse employee to pack and transport crates of alcohol "treating them unfavourably"? Or is it simply asking them to do as all other employees do? A basic employment requirement? There are many aspects of Western life that are incompatible with the belief systems of those who migrate here from other cultures. Just as there are many aspects of modern life that are incompatible with those who wish to adhere to ancient beliefs and practices. Thus women in the USA are finding themselves in a position whereby pharmacists who claim that dispensing birth control goes against their religious beliefs deny them prescription medication.
Should women go without birth control because some people object to it? Or should those who object consider that providing other people with birth control and taking birth control themselves are two very different things? Likewise I would say that drinking alcohol and simply moving it around are two very different things.
Tesco claims that it was made clear to Ahmed at his job induction that he would be required to transport alcohol. Likewise pharmacists and pharmacy employees are aware that selling birth control and emergency contraception is a basic service. Is it fair on the employer and the customers to be refused service because an employee decides to apply for and accept a job that contains some elements that their religion considers taboo? Should modern society be forced to bend to every religious whim that it finds itself in conflict with? And oh boy, there are many.
I have always considered discrimination to be unnecessary and sometimes cruel behaviour that deliberately targets certain people. I just don’t see that here. Had Ahmed being asked to perform a duty normally outside his job description, then that would clearly be discrimination. But that does not appear to be the case in this instance. Accommodations can be made sure, but I think it is unreasonable to expect employers to change the job to suit one person’s personal beliefs. And then get sued for asking someone to do a job that they decided to accept.
Tesco did not go out of its way to make life uncomfortable for Ahmed. Unfortunately living in the 21st Century whilst attempting to strictly adhere to a one thousand year old religion does.
-Ruby
| 103 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by alt_ed
Pop Culturer
Alted Opinion
ArtCombat
I love that he can't transport crates of Alcohol because of some archaic religious belief, but embarking on a sham of a lawsuit for financial gain is not a problem? This is such a crock of shyt!!
What's the go today with people treating religious teachings like a 'pick & mix' candy counter? If you're going to play the 'I can't DO alcohol, I'm a Muslim' thing then how about attempting to follow the other teachings in your beloved Koran... (I guess there's nothing in there against being deceitful?)
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
inappropriate meeting places or requirements would also impact upon reformed alcoholics, pregnant women, people dieting, and other miscellaneous non-drinkers
refusing to move packing crates with a forklift is being a bit ridiculous and i dont even think the religion would be asking for that
whats next, refusing to walk past the front of bottleshops because you might SEE the alcohol?
a sense of proportion would be a very good thing . . .
Comment by KylieW
Celebrity Obsession
If you don't want to handle alcohol......don't work at a store that sells it or for a company that transports it!!!
If a staff member at the company I work for (say one of the cooks) turned around to me and said that he/she could no longer prepare any pork products because she was muslim, I'd be extremely clear to that person that it's part of their job and if they didn't do all aspects of the job they'd be getting written warnings that could result in termination (but then I'm a hard ass HR person)
Comment by Cheryl J
Funny Videos
Rhythmatism
Zentertainment
Budget Centsability
Ridiculous. Fire him. He is not being discriminated against, he is being a whinger.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he truly feels hard done by and is not just doing this to make a quick buck. I just take the point of view that it is unreasonable on his part to assume that employers have to cater to every single one of the religious requirements of every single one of its employees. Fact is, modern living is not really compatible with the doctrines of ancient desert religions and a little compromise is in order.
Hi Morgan,
I agree asking Muslims to attend meetings in pubs could be discriminatory. Like I stated in the article, I would consider discrimination any unnecessary behaviour that targets specific individuals so I would say meeting in pub is not necessary as business meetings could be conducted elsewhere. Reminds of that Friends episode where Rachel got sick of all the work decisions being made in the smoking courtyard so she took up smoking. No-one should have to take up smoking! (or drinking).
The Tesco case is more akin to the cases of the taxi drivers in America who are refusing to pick up passengers
from the airport who have duty free alcohol with them. No-one is asking you to drink the alcohol. Just drive the damn car. This is where we have a situation where the religious person, far being discriminated against, is actually forcing their beliefs onto someone else.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I like hard arses! Hey, in your hypothetical situation, if the person stated at the interview that they would not handle pork and the employer agreed to it, then I would say it would be unfair to then turn around and force them to cook the pork. But if they knew the situation going into it then they should shut up and deal.
Haha Cheryl J. That's what I was trying to get at taken to its logical extreme. How reasonable is it to expect a secular society to take every single religious doctrine into account on a daily basis? I like the point of view taken by those Muslim leaders i quoted above- it's about maturity and discerning when to assert yourself and when to compromise. As far as I know Islam does make allowances. Handling alcohol as a job requirement will not put you on the fast track to hell.
Comment by Deanna B
Now having vented that~If an employer requires you to handle alcohol,and you believe this to be contrary to your religious beliefs,DO NOT accept the job.
Employment is a privilege...not a right. If you are entrusted with said privilege...you conform to it,it does not conform to your beliefs.It doesn't matter if you are Muslim,Pentecostal,Protestant ,Catholic or"Other". You do what your employer requires you to do and if you don't like it...give your notice and move on.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
yeah i remember the ethics of the Muslim taxi drivers coming up in the comments of THIS POST
when i wrote that post it was mostly about some Christian examples but your post has proved that issue of "tolerance" and how far it extends is something that is being questioned by sections of other religions too
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Oh it's definitely not limited to just one religion. That's why I also mentioned the Christian pharmacists above too. There really appears to be a line that is being crossed here. And that line is where do one person's rights end and another's begin?
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
im glad someone brought it up again - its a poorly defined legal area
Comment by Anonymous
employees and managers as a result. Noone should have to put up with unfair treatment because f a religious request for flexibility. EVEN IF THE INTIAL REQUEST WAS UNREASONABLE.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I read that the man in question claimed he was victimised by managers but no details were given. Was the alleged victimsation simply being told to continue handling the crates of alcohol? Or was he targeted in some other way? We don't know. hence my statement above, "pending the outcome of this case..."
In any case, I chose to focus on the request itself and the repercussions for such requests- if granted- to society. In other words, should we take these requests seriously because they have the word "religion" attached to them or do we accept that there are always going to be aspects of our world we disagree with but learn to put up with anyway? There is a little motto that many vegetarians quote to make ourselves feel better when the inevitable happens and we find meat in our food, "When you work in an abattoir, you're going to get splashed".
I've been splashed at work, at home, in expensive restaurants who apparently don't understand the meaning of the term "I'm a vegetarian". You deal with it and you move on.
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity
Comment by DeAnne
Public Journalist
Weight Loss Woman
Simple Gift Guide
Blogging American