Well then, did you read the BBC’s report on the story concerning the owner of a hair salon being ordered to pay £4,000 compensation to a Muslim stylist who was turned down for a job because she wears a headscarf? Bushra Noah accused Sarah Desrosiers of religious discrimination when she failed to offer her a job at her Wedge salon in King’s Cross, central London. An employment tribunal panel dismissed the 19-year-old’s claim but upheld her complaint of indirect discrimination. During the hearing Ms Noah, who lives in Acton, west London, told the tribunal (with an onion in one hand?) that she was “devastated” that she was not offered the job of assistant stylist “due to my headscarf”. The £4000 was to salve her “hurt feelings.”
However the BBC IS disingenuous because the “interview” it repeatedly talks about in the 6th and 7th paragraph never happened. Noah was interviewed over the phone and turned down then not because of any headscarf (which Desrosiers was unaware of) but because she lives in Acton (North West London) and Desrosiers thought this too far from Kings Cross (North London). Subsequent to this, Noah pleaded to come in for a chat and to make her case. Desrosiers reluctantly agreed out of politeness and it’s this 15 minute chat which has wrongly been reported as an ‘interview’ when it was no such thing. Desrosiers again explained at this meeting that Noah lived too far away and then made her fatal error – she asked about the headscarf and BINGO. To repeat the BBC piece states: “The owner of a hair salon has been ordered to pay £4,000 compensation to a Muslim stylist who was turned down for a job because she wears a headscarf.” Wrong. She was turned down, on the phone, before Desrosiers knew of any headscarf, because of where she lives. The BBC may delight at the news that a professional Muslim whinger gets more of our taxes in compensation for no good reason but that does not excuse them misrepresenting the facts of the matter.
WOW…I mean, I cant believe your court system would make a small business pay this amount. Is there a way for this poor person to appeal this court decision?
This girl’s business is now in jeopardy owing to the costs of this affair.
I am sending her a donation to help with her costs and urge all BBBC’rs to do the same.
How typical of the BBC to mislead over the so-called interview.
Each time I read about this I experience a slow burning anger.
Desrosier had to find 12 grand to get the business started. Is this a taste of things to come for small businesses and wealth-creators?
http://www.centa.co.uk/Page.aspx?PageID=8
It’s nothing to do with religion it’s an item of clothing. What if she was wearing a baseball cap, or a hood?
This person should aspire to working in a grannies salon but never a funky type of outfit. People paying good money and aspiring to look a certain way reasonably expect staff to be of the same wavelength.
My sister runs a salon and finding the right staff is a nightmare as it is. Getting rid of pisspoor staff can be almost impossible and this only harms the business.
If this an indication of how things are moving in this country I’m off.
Acton is more commonly described as being in West London not North West London. Coincidentally Abu Qatada also lives in Acton, I wonder if he could commute to Kings cross and do some hair washing in his 2 hours of “free time”?
The pro-Muslim/Sharia bias of the al Beeb report, [referenced above], shows starkly what opposes us non-Muslims in the form of this publicly subsided propagandist broadcaster.
Dave F: 10:06 pm : good man; we need to go beyond words, and show solidarity with victims of Sharia.
This alternative report, of 7 months
ago, indicates a non-dhimmi way of reporting:
“Hairdresser is sued for refusing a job to a woman in a headscarf”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/11184
Is there any website organising a donation fund for Ms Desrosier (who is quite clearly a victim of opportunistic
sharia/yoomanrites bullshit) ?
Did any of you actually SEE the story on Al Beeb?
It was anything but supporting of the scarf wearer, where she came out looking like a smug self righteous little twat AND right at the end, Al Beeb even saw fit to advertise a little fund raising concert to cover the fine for the salon.
Mailman
Further more, if the salon owner really has a back bone she would appeal this ruling!
Anyone got a spare 50k to help her out?
Mailman
Mailman writes: “Anyone got a spare 50k to help her out?”
Would that be after they’d paid the taxes to your pal McBean?
if the salon owner really has a back bone she would appeal this ruling
I don’t think so. Small businesses litigate employment matters at their great financial peril. I also suspect that the emloyment tribunal’s ruling would be upheld on appeal. Indirect discrimination is not allowed, and the burden of proof is the employer’s. The scandal – aside from the BBC’s story which as well as being biased is also very badly and confusingly written – is not this particular young lady, or that she is Muslim, but the whole system of anti-discrimination law and the ludicrous Orwellian concept of indirect discrimination, and employment tribunals which are quite as slanted as those Canadian human rights tribunals.
There is no place for anti-discrimination laws in a free society. The idea that you can be relieved of four grand because some state tribunal does not agree with you about what is in your business’s interests is utterly absurd. People should do what they want. In fact if the owner of this salon really was a racist trying to run a funky salon, she’d lose her customers by market forces anyway.
Which reminds me – why do we never see anyone on the BBC making these obvious points ? How about Auntie giving Shami Chakrabati and her civil liberties the week off and getting someone from samizdata on the telly instead for a change, yacking about all the other bits of liberty that don’t get a mention.
Further to Lee Moore’s comment, I would add that the UK’s employment tribunal system has been hi-jacked not by the Left but the ultra-Left which, rightly, sees it as a Gramscian fulcrum.
This is one of many abuses of the system which we can expect the BBC not to investigate.
Lee Moore:
People should do what they want. In fact if the owner of this salon really was a racist trying to run a funky salon, she’d lose her customers by market forces anyway.
Exactly! Those who agree with anti-discrimination laws are completely blind to the fact that they abrogate the most basic property rights, which are the cornerstone of civilization.
If I own a bar and I wish to ban people with beady eyes or crooked noses or dark skin or whatever – no matter how irrational, it is my property and my choice! Those who disagree are quite free to instigate an economic boycott so long as that boycott does not involve any physical coercion, threats or fraud.
Similarly, if a large corporation wishes to limit their hiring to people of one particular race for example, what business is it of the state? Market forces are most certainly the answer, because a business which places severe limits on the pool of workers from which it hires is surely at a considerable disadvantage from those who select from a wider pool of people to find those with the best traits.
It’s very lame that some people’s feelings protected but not others. It’s pretty evident that some people are allowed to discriminate but not others.
This salon owner is going to get tarred with a bigot label regardless of the merits of the case, merely because there is a certain atmosphere she wants to maintain which she feels is appropriate to her business. However, nobody complains when a Bangladeshi curry house owner says he must have only his own kind working there, because there is a certain atmosphere he wants to maintain which he feels is appropriate to his business.
Leftoids will scoff at any objection to that. How silly of us to think that anybody would want a white boy working in a Bangladeshi curry house. Yet this woman is not silly in their eyes for wanting to do something analogous to that. In fact, she should be awarded money out of the salon owner’s own pocket for having her feelings hurt.
This seems to me the most disgusting part:
In its judgment, the panel stated: “We were satisfied by the respondent’s evidence that the claimant was not treated less favourably than the respondent would have treated a woman who, whether Muslim or not, for a reason other than religious belief wears a hair covering at all times when at work.”
It seems that they feel the salon owner did not engage in religious discrimination at all. Yet, they still made the poor woman pay four grand, just for “injury to feelings.” This is worse than Canada.
Here’s a quick money-making tip for everyone: apply for jobs for which you aren’t qualified, then sue because your feelings got hurt when you were turned down. Naturally, this tactic will best be applied at large, rich corporations. Starting with the BBC, I should think.
Here’s a quick money-making tip for everyone: apply for jobs for which you aren’t qualified, then sue because your feelings got hurt when you were turned down. Naturally, this tactic will best be applied at large, rich corporations. Starting with the BBC, I should think.
David Preiser (USA) | 19.06.08 – 2:31 am
Actually, my feelings were hurt by the BBC. Back when I was 18 or 19, oblivious to the true nature of the Beeb and still under the impression that it would be a great honor to work for them, I saw an ad in the Guardian for a junior post on the Tomorrow’s World team. As a science fanatic at the time my head was giddy with the thought of getting the job, until I read the last line of the ad (small print, italics):
“This position is especially welcome to disabled people and applicants from ethnic minority groups”
I think my brief childhood dabble with leftism ended there and then. Yes, my feelings were hurt, that they would deliberately try to dissuade ME from applying. Seriously, where’s my four thousand spondoolies?
Sarah Desrosier’s website:
http://www.wedgehair.co.uk/
I’ll send her an e:mail with an offer of financial assistance for her appeal.
Who exactly were on the tribunal? I’d wager that they are public sector officials and/or trades unionists – certainly nobody who has ever run a business.
Oops – there’s no e:mail address so it’s a telephone call or a cheque.
I’m afraid my experience of employment tribunals is that they start from the premise that the employer is guilty.
Ms Desrosiers may well have better luck appealing to a higher court but who in her position could afford to take the financial risk?
Actually, having looked at the report now in more detail, I have to give credit to the BBC who have highlighted this quote from Ms Desrosiers:
I never in a million years dreamt that somebody would be completely against the display of hair and be in this industry
Ouch!
mailman,
No backbone?
She hasn’t got 50,000 for an appeal.
Are you volunteering to pay for her?
Ill pay, right after you pay pal. Sorry, but sarcasm doesnt come out too well on this board does it?
GCooper, you might want to take a look at some of my other postings before you label me as a Al Been/GB supporter [insert rolling eyes].
Again, have any of you actually seen the story that Al beeb ran?
If you had, you would know it showed the scarf wearer for being what she is, a self centred, self rightous, smug little twat who’s so far up her own arse she can see daylight!
Mailman
I’m with Mailman – I can’t see the bias in this report. The Telegraph reports this in much the same way.
David clearly hasn’t read the whole story which contains these paragraphs.
“Ms Desrosiers, 32, told the panel that Ms Noah lived too far away, but was persuaded to give her an interview in May last year.
When the applicant arrived for the interview she claimed the Canadian salon owner was clearly shocked by the fact she wore a headscarf.”
David has rather conveniently ommitted this from his post.
What david wrote is central to the case of bias:
To repeat, the BBC piece states: “The owner of a hair salon has been ordered to pay £4,000 compensation to a Muslim stylist who was turned down for a job because she wears a headscarf.” Wrong. She was turned down, on the phone, before Desrosiers knew of any headscarf, because of where she lives.
Now is the above true or false? It’s true, therefore the BBC piece is biased.
Who is paying here, because David says both that it’s the business and that it’s ‘taxpayers’?
But yeah, the BBC reports states pretty unequivocably in its first para that the woman was turned down ‘because’ of the headscarf, then runs off and contradicts itself.
And this really is the sort of thing that threatens to turn ordinary, cheerful members of the public into Richard Littlejohn.
Allan: “Now is the above true or false? It’s true, therefore the BBC piece is biased.”
No, it’s false: Ms Desrosiers might have said she turned her down because of where she lived, but the tribunal found she was not given the job because of the headscarf. That is why she was fined (wrongly in my view), and it’s also why every single report on this I’ve seen says the same. Not just the Telegraph but Mail and, picking up on its report, Fox News. There’s plenty of good examples of bias, but this isn’t one of them.
every single report on this I’ve seen says the same. Not just the Telegraph but Mail and, picking up on its report, Fox News.
But the BBC keeps telling us how much more superior it is to the “simply awful, ducky” Fox News.
So you’d think they would “dig deeper.”
Cockney:
Who is paying here, because David says both that it’s the business and that it’s ‘taxpayers’?
Businesses pay neither legal costs, nor taxes. The customer does — who is also a taxpayer.
And if the company cannot pay, they go out of business.
I’ve read reports (sorry no links) that say Ms Desrosiers legal bill was paid (or at least contributed to) by the National Secular Society, while Ms Noah was ‘advised’ by Hizb-ut-Tahrir.
mmmm……
yeah, alright smartarse.
was trying to clarify if the business had been fined or if this was one of those compensatory payments which comes out of the central pot so ‘nobody loses’ (except for everybody in the poxy country).
and unless they stick their prices up as a consequence its not joe public who pays anyway, it’s the shareholders or partners who may be taxpayers or may be non dommed in monte carlo and armed with a machiavellian holding structure via the cayman islands.
I was not aware that she had already said no to her because she lived in Acton and that was deemed to be too far away.
If there was any common sense in this world and there is not this court case would have been thrown out.
This miserable excuse for a human being was searching for someone to take advantage of. Any small business should keep their hiring among familly and friends, sod advertising for twats like Ms Noah to turn up and earn £4k for 15 minutes of manufactured offense.
In regards to the BBC article the BBC fails to say that she was rejected for living too far away, she had already been rejected, if the BBC was not biased they would have made more of that.
Has anyone here ever heard of a claim of “indirect discrimination” being upheld prior to this case?
The concept sounds like something dreamt up by one of those human rights commissions the Canadians are so fond of.
Was the ‘indirect discrimination’ done ‘unwittingly’? These terms are derived by the Gramscian clique which rules us in order that they may declare that any of us didn’t really know what we were thinking and so they can decide that for us. This means, in effect, that ‘thought crimes’ can now be committed. How Orwellian!
Don’t forget muslims believe that us infidels should pay a special tax just because we are infidels. Ms. Noah obviously believes that the money she won was well deserved. Welcome to Sharia Britain.
Here’s a quick money-making tip for everyone: apply for jobs for which you aren’t qualified, then sue because your feelings got hurt when you were turned down. Naturally, this tactic will best be applied at large, rich corporations. Starting with the BBC, I should think.
David Preiser (USA) | 19.06.08 – 2:31 am | #
Hush – David.
The BBC will just pay up every time, with a smile, and stick the bill on our licence fee.
The citizen can never win against the state monolith.
Jack USA,
You can appeal against an employment tribunal decision on a point of law only, i.e. that the tribunal made an error in law and not merely that you don’t like the findings or conclusions as such. There do not appear to be grounds for appeal in this case, given the law as it is on indirect discrimination, IMHO.
Mugwump,
Tribunals have been dealing with similar types of employment cases for about thirty five years now so there have been plenty of indirect discrimination claims upheld.
Allan
Employment tribunals are chaired by a legally qualified person assisted by two lay members with experience in the field of employment and industry, one from the employer’s side and one from the employee’s or trade union side of business.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 19.06.08 – 10:16 am |
David clearly hasn’t read the whole story which contains these paragraphs.
“Ms Desrosiers, 32, told the panel that Ms Noah lived too far away, but was persuaded to give her an interview in May last year.
When the applicant arrived for the interview she claimed the Canadian salon owner was clearly shocked by the fact she wore a headscarf.”
David has rather conveniently omitted this from his post.
Actually, DV says that this on-site interview never happened, and that the woman was in fact turned down because she lived too far away. That’s a bit different from “omitting this”.
However, Vance seems to be mistaken on this point, as every report says that Bashrah did turn up at the shop for an interview. However, I could only find one report that mentioned this bit:
Sarah received dozens of applications for the junior position, one of which was from Bushra Noah.
‘Her CV didn’t stand out because I was looking for someone who lived locally—something I’d specified in the advert so that I could call them in as and when required—and she lived several miles away in Acton,’ says Sarah.
‘One day she rang up to see if I’d got her CV and begged me for an interview. I told her I had concerns about where she lived, but she sounded so desperate that I agreed she could come in for a chat.’
A few days later, Bushra duly arrived at the salon.
‘I have to say I didn’t take to her,’ says Sarah. ‘She waltzed into the salon and hung up her coat as though she already had the job.
‘Naturally, I noticed her headscarf. But I presumed that, as she’s a hairdresser, she’d take if off when she was working. In 16 years, I’ve never known any stylist cover their hair with a headscarf. And this particular headscarf came all the way down to her eyebrows and covered her entire hairline.’
Sarah broached the subject with Bushra, who said she would not be removing the garment.
After ten minutes, with the interview complete, Sarah said she would come back to Bushra about the vacancy.
‘As she left, Bushra turned to me and said that she’d been turned down for jobs before,’ says Sarah. ‘And I admit I thought: “Well, what do you expect?”
The above is from:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/06/how_i_nearly_lo.php
The BBC conveniently leaves out the fact that Desrosier says she specified convenience of residence for qualified candidates, which backs up her claim in court. You yourself conveniently leave out the fact that the court found that Ms. Desrosier did not discriminate based on religion, but on her own aesthetic judgment and personal business acumen.
So, Ms. Noah was not discriminated against for religious reasons. The court said so, your own Beeboid buddies said so, and this backs up Desrosier’s assertions. It’s reasonable to assume that the court also had knowledge of her advert mentioning local residence for candidates.
Vance seems to have been wrong about the fact of the on-site interview taking place, which is unfortunate. Nevertheless, we should ignore him and consider the issue at hand. For some unfathomable reason, the court decided to give the woman a cash award for her hurt feelings, even though they found no discrimination in the case. It’s worse than Canada.
However, I must say that the BBC did not seem to be biased in favor of Mohammedans in the body of the article. The only featured quote is from Desrosiers, in which she is stating her case quite reasonably and succinctly. I complain often enough about the BBC using these featured quotes to gently nudge the reader in a desired direction, and I have to say this is the same case here. Somebody else commented here that the BBC even mentioned an appeal to help Desrosier pay the fine, and again that usually happens for certain reasons.
Unfortunately, the sub-editor responsible for the piece failed to mention Desrosier’s concern about hiring somebody who lived close enough, which really keeps the reader uninformed enough to understand the issue.
One other point, though – the BBC has a nice, rather fuzzy photo of Noah, obviously a blown-up detail from a low-res photo. She’s wearing makeup, smiling, rather telegenic (although I guess the BBC in-house volume license of Photoshop doesn’t include the “red-eye” filter, or you just don’t train your employees adequately in any department). Contrast that with the photo that, well, everybody else is using:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23420128-details/Hairdresser+sued+for+refusing+to+hire+Muslim+woman+in+a+headscarf/article.do
Other than the lipstick color, one would never know this is the same person. Yes, the Mail uses the same photo, everybody is racialist, whatever. Something is off. Even though the BBC didn’t exactly side 100% with Noah’s side, your junior colleagues certainly bent over backwards to get a flattering photo. Obviously some editor had a look at the photo linked above, and decided that this wouldn’t do, the BBC needed to help her out. Contrast that to…well….you know.
Even when they don’t take sides, they take sides.
John Reith spins in his grave:
‘Here’s a quick money-making tip for everyone’
Only eyhnic minorities and gays would get compensation for not getting a job they were unfit to do.
Exactly the type of people that the ‘hidious white’BBC wants to employ
‘I hope the entire tribunal becomes infested with lice’ (by Rod Liddle):-
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/783166/i-hope-the-entire-tribunal-becomes-infested-with-lice.thtml
Naomi Campbell‘s now playing the race card too.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1319626,00.html
The court was told that Campbell called a British Airways pilot “a racist” before assaulting police in the bust-up, kicking and spitting at officers.
The court heard that the star swore at Captain Miles Sutherland during the incident, saying: “I can’t believe you have lost my…bag. Bring me my…bags now.”
The model flew into a rage when officers arrived to remove her from the plane, lashing out and accusing them of targeting her because she was black.
…
The flare-up occurred when Capt Sutherland informed passengers that not all baggage could be loaded onto the plane.
Miss Parrish said: “(Campbell) instructed him to personally get off the aircraft and get her bag and show it to her.”
The magistrates were told that when Capt Sutherland tried to explain her options, Campbell snapped: “How dare you tell me what my options are? You are not leaving until you find my…bags.”
As the captain walked away Campbell allegedly shouted after him: “You are a racist, you wouldn’t be doing this if I was white.”
The court heard that police were called and three officers arrived.
Miss Parrish said the offers extended Campbell every “dignity and courtesy” but Campbell continued to shout and swear.
The court heard that the officers made no attempt to touch her but Campbell screamed at them “You can’t…touch me” and shouted down her phone to “make sure the press know”.
Just heard about the Muslim who sold his six year old daughter into probable sexual slavery and said that was better than the shame of owing money.
When they can be so evil to their own why should we worry much about them not getting a particular job that they would not be qualified to do.