Outrageous: Jordan Dubai Islamic Bank Firing Unveiled Women
[Source: JRNN]
This is beyond outrageous.
Let me remind you of our constitution:
Article 6 (i) Jordanians shall be equal before the law. There shall be no discrimination between them as regards to their rights and duties on grounds of race, language or religion.
(ii) The Government shall ensure work and education within the limits of its possibilities, and it shall ensure a state of tranquility and equal opportunities to all Jordanians.
Article 7 Personal freedom shall be guaranteed.
And our labour law:
Article 19:
The employee shall:
A. Perform the work by himself/herself and shall exert the efforts of a normal person to perform his/her work, he/she also shall abide by the orders of the employer in relation to implementing the agreed upon work within the limits that do not expose him/her to danger and do not constitute a violation to the provisions of the applicable laws [Ed Note: Refer to constitution] or public morals.
Are we turning into Afghanistan?
UPDATE
From Awdeh Qawas:
الأخوة والأخوات أصدقائي، لم أكن أرغب في التعليق على هذا الموضوع بالغ الأهمية من وجهة نظري ولقد حاولت معالجته بالطريقة السلسة وبدون ضجيج منذ أكثر من خمسة شهور وبطرق مختلفة لكي لا أكون محرك لفتنة الوطن ليس بحاجتها ولكن عندما تصل الأمور ألى طريق مسدود وعندما تتضرر حقوق الناس وعندما يتم التجاوز على المعتقدات الدينية وعندما يتم الضغط والتجاوز على حرية الأديان لا بد من التصدي لمن يحاول العبث بهذا النسيج الوطني الأردني الرمز العالمي للتعايش بين الأديان وحرية الرأى والفكر والمعتقد لا بد من التحرك وبقوة ضد هؤلاء أشخاص كانوا أم مؤسسات.القضية هي أن بنك الإنماء الصناعي تم شرائه من قبل بنك الأردن دبي الإسلامي قبل عام تقريبا ولقد تخلى عن بعض الموظفين وأبقي على عدد آخر منهم في ظل إعادة الهيكلة ومن ضمن من احتفظ بهم إحدى الموظفات التي لها خدمة 25 عام في بنك الإنماء الصناعي وهي فيفيان حنا سلامة ومن الواضح من اسمها أنها مسيحية الديانة.منذ تولي الإدارة الجديدة وهي تضغط على موظفيها بالالتزام باللباس الرسمي الموحد ومن ضمنها غطاء الرأس ومنذ اليوم الأول أوضحت هذه الموظفة الملتزمة بعدم موافقتها على وضع غطاء الرأس لدلالته الدينية كونها مسيحية وهكذا لم تستلم عهدة غطاء الرأس وهكذا بدأت معاناتها وبدأت مضايقاتها وبدأت الإنذارات تنهال عليها علما بأنه تم الطعن بهذه الإنذارات في وزارة العمل وبصمت كبير كما تم إحاطة المركز الوطني لحقوق الإنسان وتقديم شكوى رسمية كما تم إبلاغ مركز ميزان لحقوق المرأة بذلك وتم إعلام جهات رسمية وبشكل شخصي عن هذا الموضوع ولكن بقيت إدارة البنك متعنتة هدفها الوحيد إثارة الفتنة والتدخل في شؤون عباد الله الخاصة.هذا الموضوع الحساس جدا يتطلب الدعم الكامل من جميع الجهات الرسمية والخاصة وعلى الأخص من إخواننا المسلمين الغيورين على تطبيق تعاليم الدين الإسلامي الحنيف ” لا إكراه في الدين “أحبائي هذا الموضوع موضوع رأي عام ومن هنا ارتأيت بعد طول صمت الطلب منكم جميعا دعم هذا الموضوع ليس بهدف التعويض المادي بل بهدف إعادتها إلى وظيفتها وتعويضها عن الضرر النفسي الذي لحق بها جراء هذا التعسف المرفوض من إدارة لا تحترم خصائص المجتمع الأردني.مرفق تجدون بعض الوثائق المرفقة ولمن يرغب الإطلاع على جميع الوثائق فهي أيضا موجودة على موقعي الالكتروني
And for those using the “uniform” argument:
A. Let’s pretend that strip clubs are legal in Jordan, which they’re not, but for the sake of the argument: The nature of the job at a strip club demands stripping. If it were legal, strippers would be strippers because they choose to strip. A veiled woman cannot strip because she chooses to be veiled.
B. At a bank, whether you’re a teller, a lawyer, a developer, an accountant, etc., how well you do your job is completely irrelevant to whether you strip or not, or whether you cover your hair or not.
A country’s laws have to protect people from discriminatory internal laws. That’s the whole point of governance.
relax
May 23, 2012 @ 11:01 am
LOL…. its common sense!!! Islamic bank = Islamic wardrobe.. and since they issued a warning they have every right to kick them..
look at this way :
u go to strip club u expect naked women
u go to an Islamic bank u expect covered women
in your logic it will be chaos LOL
Roba Al-Assi
May 23, 2012 @ 11:16 am
That’s a logical fallacy.
A. Let’s pretend that strip clubs are legal in Jordan, which they’re not, but for the sake of the argument: The nature of the job at a strip club demands stripping. If it were legal, strippers would be strippers because they choose to strip. A veiled woman cannot strip because she chooses to be veiled.
B. At a bank, whether you’re a teller, a lawyer, a developer, an accountant, etc., how well you do your job is completely irrelevant to whether you strip or not, or whether you cover your hair or not.
khaled
May 23, 2012 @ 11:16 am
This is the translation.
As an appendix to our written warning number 2012/1269 B dated 21/05/2012 in which you received a final warning stating the urgency of complying with the directions and policies issued by the Bank management on the matter of complying to the
official dress code suitable for work.
Given your determination to refuse to comply to the written warning by not complying to those policies and as a result of breaching the internal policies for work organization at the Bank, and in accordance to the penalties for internal work management
as listed by the Ministry of Work, we hereby inform you of terminating your services and position at the Bank along with all pertaining responsibilities as of date in reference to Penal Code (28) in Jordanian Labour Law.
Roba Al-Assi
May 23, 2012 @ 11:17 am
Thank you Khaled.
Linda_masri99
May 23, 2012 @ 11:24 am
I agree. It was outrageous. But you cannot circular that! I mean no we are not turning into Afghanistan. There are more companies and places in Jordan in which veiled women are banned.
This bank is an Islamic ruled one, and I think it is quite obvious that it requires from ladies to wear veil or they played smart and stated a certain uniform for employees to abide to.
If this lady chose by her own free well to work their, and she had read the contract and signed it, then she was supposed to wear it (which is something illogical as I may say).
We believe in equalities and we are looking for a better Jordan, if I am given the freedom to choose whether I want to wear a veil or want, some people and companies also enjoy the freedom of hiring veiled ladies or ladies with mini skirts. It is a simple win-win situation..
Roba Al-Assi
May 23, 2012 @ 11:27 am
Hi Linda, it is wrong either way, whether a person is veiled or not, to discriminate. The veil is a personal choice.
AT
May 23, 2012 @ 11:31 am
Im not sure – i mean doesn’t the law of the country supersede the codes of the actual bank? All banks have to conform to central bank regulations which are in turn overseen by the government of a country no?. If an islamic bank were to operate in the UK and the country laws state that it is illegal to discriminate against people based on these sorts of things, then the UK law i believe would override whatever policies the bank has. It is a bit of dilemma i think. Public vs private rules…
Roba Al-Assi
May 23, 2012 @ 11:32 am
Great point.
khaled
May 23, 2012 @ 11:59 am
I don’t have much to add beyond the fact that private entities have the right to issue uniforms for their employees given that all employees are informed prior to their agreeing to pursue a career at the given entity.
The fact that the woman in the above case was Christian CLEARLY shows – and underlines as well – that this issue is NOT a religious one… it is just a UNIFORM issue.
Clowns must wear wigs at circus. Women must wear tight white tank tops at hooters. Chefs must wear their hats and hairnet sin the kitchen. Lifeguards need sixpacks… and Islamic Bank employees need to cover their hair.
I don’t see a problem or issue.
Roba Al-Assi
May 23, 2012 @ 12:01 pm
Hi Khaled, like I mentioned earlier:
That’s a logical fallacy.
A. Let’s pretend that strip clubs are legal in Jordan, which they’re
not, but for the sake of the argument: The nature of the job at a strip
club demands stripping. If it were legal, strippers would be strippers
because they choose to strip. A veiled woman cannot strip because she
chooses to be veiled.
B. At a bank, whether you’re a teller, a lawyer, a developer, an
accountant, etc., how well you do your job is completely irrelevant to
whether you strip or not, or whether you cover your hair or not.Plus, the country’s laws have to protect people from discriminatory internal laws. That’s the whole point of governance.
Adel Ammari
May 23, 2012 @ 12:16 pm
Well Roba, doesn’t the Royal Jordanian ask its flight attendants to wear certain work outfits? If the employee does not comply, then they get warned and then fired. Same thing here. The whole point am trying to get to is, do not treat this matter as a matter of humanity or discrimination! This is exactly what people who want to break this country apart want you to believe! Think of it outside any discrimination leading point of view and you will see that it is pure logic! If this or any other employee does not like the work outfit, they would resign, and if that bank sees that their employment rate is on a decrease, then they would see where the problem is (if any) and get it fixed. This is just like following working hours! I am a non Muslim and i am telling you, there is nothing wrong here!
Isam Abu Salhieh
May 23, 2012 @ 12:34 pm
Do you believe in the right of the company to ban religious symbols from the workplace?
For me, it is ethical to accept one of two scenarios: Either you accept the company’s authority to ban or enforce certain personal rules, like the little headscarf that Emirates hostesses wear with their knee-long skirts because it is just part of the “attire” and only holds traditional value (They do serve alcohol wearing it for example). The other scenario is to deny the company the rights of enforcing a uniform, or banning or enforcing any religious symbol.
I have encountered jobs that require that the applicant abandons all religious appearances for reasons related to the nature of the job. I didn’t have a problem with that. So I shouldn’t have a problem when a company enforces a headscarf as a part of its attire, especially when the identity of that company is Islamic.
Am I making sense?
Roba Al-Assi
May 23, 2012 @ 12:39 pm
You are.
Mohammed Akkad
May 23, 2012 @ 12:52 pm
The problem is this bank and this lady have been at her job for 25 years. JD capital decide to buy this bank after failing to buy any other bank in Jordan, since they had unfair influence on the government, they convinced them to sell them the bank cheaply.
After 25 years of hard work, this woman found herself with a new undeserving owner who began a campaign of harassment against. So again a government corruption issue destroys the life of long standing employee.
Since they bought the bank with the employees dressed this way, then they shouldn’t punish the employees. and make applicable to future employment only.
No one would ever be safe in any job, with out employee protection rules. Lets see if the Bank Employees Union has the guts to fight for this woman, which i doubt seriously.
Roba Al-Assi
May 23, 2012 @ 1:00 pm
Approve.
Abdallahawwad2
May 23, 2012 @ 1:01 pm
ما بتوقع انو فى مشكلة بالموضوع لانو طالما انا اخترت اعمل فى مكان الى خصوصية معينة سواء دينية او غيرها فالازم احترم خصوصية هذا المكان
ولو نظرنا للموضوع بشكل اخر فتاة بتعمل مظيفة طيران وقررت انها تلبس خمار (غطاء للوجة كامل )هل راح توافق شركة الطيران على طلبها
وهل راح نلاقى حد بيدعم طلبها ويساندها
ولا راح نحكيلها انو انتى اخترت العمل فى مكان الو خصوصية معينة بالاساس!!!
Guest
May 23, 2012 @ 2:47 pm
Quote: “ك الإنماء الصناعي تم شرائه من قبل بنك الأردن دبي الإسلامي قبل عام تقريبا ولقد تخلى عن بعض الموظفين وأبقي على عدد آخر منهم في ظل إعادة الهيكلة”
My question is: If the bank had a problem with the employee’s religion, wouldn’t it have been much easier for them to dismiss her when they dismissed several others in the name of “re-structuring”?
I do not believe this stands as a case of religious discrimination. A male bank employee would be warned and eventually fired if he constantly showed up to work not wearing a tie!
Adel Ammari
May 23, 2012 @ 2:54 pm
Thank you, this is what i am trying to explain to everyone out there! Wake up people, this story is making it through the media for one purpose only “Tafteet il mujtama3″ and making problems between Muslims and Christians, be bigger than that and think of this one incident in a logical manner! She is simply violating company outfit! Period!
RCCA
May 24, 2012 @ 5:09 am
In the US we have the Council of American Islamic Relations, or CAIR, suing companies all the time (Disney, Abercrombe & Fitch, US prisons, for example), to force them to allow female employees to wear the hijab even if the companies have uniforms and dress codes they have been using for decades. CAIR has also sued on behalf of men who insist on wearing beards when that is not part of the accepted practice in their companies, etc.
So Muslims are forcing companies to comply with US law to make religious accommodations for their employees, but Muslim countries make no such accommodations for their employees.
Apparently Muslims are much less tolerant and respectful than other people of minority groups.
kinzi
May 24, 2012 @ 8:55 am
It would be more like forcing the man to wear a Sikh turban than a tie. Tie and suit is standard business attire. Would a Muslim want to wear the symbol of another religion? Forcing people to comply with the tenants of a religion not their own is just that – religious discrimination.
kinzi
May 24, 2012 @ 9:02 am
Adel, I don’t think that is the issue here… how many Muslims want Christians to be forced to wear a scarf? None that I know – it would be hypocrisy, being something you aren’t. A woman who worked at a bank for 25 years must wear a symbol of a religion she doesn’t follow to continue to work there? It is more than violating company policy, as Roba mentioned, it is against the law.
kinzi
May 24, 2012 @ 9:05 am
Linda, it seems she worked there for 25 years unveiled, before it became an Islamic bank. Unless i am missing something, this is not a frivolous attention-getting move. Why can’t they just let her carry on, grandfathered in, until she retires?
Maybe Arab Bank or Ahli could offer her a job.
kinzi
May 24, 2012 @ 9:06 am
Thank you, Mohammed, bingo.
Swan Lake
May 24, 2012 @ 9:13 am
I was going to mention the same point of Royal Jordanian and flight attendants! :-)
You, Roba, referred to the requirements of the ‘nature of the job’, but the flight attendant’s job does not require them to wear short skirts!! It’s just that the Royal Jordanian wants its female employees to look in a certain way. So if a veiled woman applied for a job there and she was asked to take off her veil and wear a short skirt, and she went on whining and talking to the press that ‘she was discriminated against because she is veiled’ no one will listen to her!
Apply the same logic :-)
Well, yes, the job of a bank employee does not require her to cover her head, but this specific bank wants its employees to look in a certain way. If they are welling to wear the uniform, they are welcome regardless of their religion. If not, then they are free to resign and look for a work in a place that does not require that uniform!
It is logical :-)
Regards,
Swan Lake
Cybjorg
May 24, 2012 @ 10:32 am
I think this should be the main point. The argument of “uniform” is valid, since it applies in all sorts of commercial and industrial situations, but in this case the bank is implying that one must wear the veil in order to be considered “Islamic”. Isn’t the veil supposed to be a personal choice amongst Muslim women?
Swan Lake
May 24, 2012 @ 10:58 am
Yes, veil is 100% a personal choice for a Muslim woman. But it is still an essential part of Islam. The argument that a veiled woman is better than an unveiled woman is absolutely invalid.
But the situation here is different. The bank management has a certain uniform that includes a veil, regardless of the reason. Like, for example, RJ has a certain uniform with the colors gold and crimson, regardless of the reason why they chose it. :-)
Again, if it was an issue of a religious discrimination, it would not have been so hard for the bank to include her in the downgrading. They simply asked her to abide by the uniform and she refused!
Regards,
Swan Lake
Swan Lake
May 24, 2012 @ 11:00 am
I think I mentioned ‘downgrading’ but I meant ‘downsizing’ :-)
Regards,
Swan Lake
Skandál: Jordánská banka propustila křesťanku, která odmítla nosit hidžáb | Izrael a Blízký východ | Eretz.cz
May 24, 2012 @ 11:37 am
[...] případu budeme dále sledovat. Podrobnosti naleznete v následujících článcích: Outrageous: Jordan Dubai Islamic Bank Firing Unveiled Women - zpráva AndFarAway (anglicky, [...]
Khalidjarrar
May 24, 2012 @ 11:40 am
How do you find these stories!
For the sake of justice i called the bank to get their take:
When they took over the bank, employees who moved to the new bank signed new contracts, one of the articles in the contract dictate that employees adhere to bank’s internal regulations, including dress code. Ms. Vivian signed that contract.
Later on, The bank issued specifics of the dress code, being a private organization with a particularly Islamic identity, the dress code includes head cover. not a veil, any form of scarf or anything to cover the head would do. The bank’s identity promotes modest dress code of female employees for the sake of it’s identity, the work social environment and nature of customers.
The bank’s contracts and internal codes are approved by the ministry of Labor. Furthermore, the Central bank conducts regular visits to banks to make sure that their employees adhere to their internal regulations, if they see violations of the bank’s internal regulations, the bank is fined.
I see that Ms. Vivian, showing the flexibility of working in an organization with a clear Islamic religious identity while being Christian , could have showed some flexible respect to the bank’s laws and identity by wearing a scarf, after all she chose to sign a contract with the new bank knowing that its of Islamic identity.
Let’s remember that the bank has warned her repeatedly and that she refused, she has the right to wear whatever she likes outside work times or while working for any other organization. Does she have the right to enforce her own dress code which goes against the code and identity of her employer? Probably not.
With 25 years of experience, I hope she will be able to find a comfortable and successful job, maybe someone can update us on that when it happens.Since you opened the subject, lets open it! How about all the companies discriminating against girls who choose to wear proper Hijab? Niqab? Men that choose to grow their beards as Sunna? I believe if we look at the size of the issue, for every trillion case of discrimination against those there might be one of discriminating against a Christian lady not wearing veil. Let’s talk about that! How many times have you noticed an RJ modeefih wearing veil? or somoene at the front disk of a five stars hotel? How about a man with a beard? We discriminate against religious Muslims in a Muslim country Roba, I don’t see how that’s not outrageous enough for you to write about, but your butterflies fly when you find a story of a Christian let go for not adhering to internal codes of an Islamic bank.I am trying to find you excuses that does not classify this as double sided, but I am failing to. Actually now that you opened this issue, I am going to start to prepare for a public social/legal campaign against this kind of discrimination. Thanks for bringing it up.
Roba Al-Assi
May 24, 2012 @ 11:47 am
Thank you Khalid for calling them and explaining further :)
Kinzi
May 24, 2012 @ 6:41 pm
The issue for me that is different is that it is forcing a person to visually identify as a religion they are not, which would not be the case with your examples. The other examples you mention are forcing a person not to identify as strongly as they would like, but not asking them to wear a large cross, which would be contrary to their beliefs.
However Khalid, you bring important details into the discussion. If she signed any document saying she would abide by the policy, and knew that entailed a scarf, then she needs to do what she agreed to do and put it on or find work elsewhere…and not make a big deal of being forced to do what she agreed to do.
(wait…as I reread, it seems the dress code was NOT specifically stated, but later detailed. In this case, I can still see her side of the coin. Still, knowing that she was a Christian, it is still compulsion)
Kinzi
May 24, 2012 @ 6:42 pm
Swan, good points. I have a thought that keeps escaping me, let me see if I can recapture it.
Marbran
May 24, 2012 @ 8:08 pm
The woman should do what women in most civilized parts of the world do: hire a lawyer and challenge the dismissal in court. If she wins, she’ll be compensated for her unjust dismissal; if she does not win, then her claims will have been found to be unjust. I doubt that this case is one of religious persecution, although that will be examined during the judicial case. The bank established it’s dress code, she did not follow it, she was fired. Only the legitimacy of the dress code must examined.
What she should not do is strap on a bomb and walk into the bank shouting, “God is Great!” before detonating it. We see enough of that already from Christians. Oh, wait…
HIA
May 25, 2012 @ 7:33 am
I’m for the veil. But I can’t justify such bigotry! If they thought she didn’t belong because she was a non-Muslim working in an Islamic organization then that’s another issue which I think is also wrong, but to force someone to align to someone else’s religious views and personal decisions is just downright bigotry and ignorance, let alone a non-Muslim.
Those idiots are sending all the wrong messages, no wonder we’re loathed.
Swan Lake
May 25, 2012 @ 4:47 pm
Kinzi :-),
The whole subject provokes lots of thoughts!
I also have lots of ideas that come and go…
Write to me if you want at blond.pgtail@yahoo:twitter .com
Regards,
Swan Lake
Swan Lake
May 28, 2012 @ 1:56 pm
Well, in spite of your tough attitude (which I understand), but yes, your argument makes a lot of sense :-)
Regards,
Swan Lake
bambambi
May 28, 2012 @ 5:10 pm
And you managed to miss the most important about the religious affiliated exemption and that is that they are not providing services to the public or are membership based. So a bank can hire you on these bases as long as it is membership only co-op or anything of that sort which is not the case. Either the law won’t help in this poor womans case.
So, someone tell me: Why are males such assholes? | And Far Away
June 6, 2012 @ 10:08 am
[...] me: Why are males such assholes? June 5, 2012 at 3:08 pm · Filed under Amman Related Posts: Outrageous: Jordan Dubai Islamic Bank Firing Unveiled Women I Hate Men Despair: Fourteen Year Old Girl Raped and Then Married to Her Rapist Her Name was [...]
خدلك عاد: الطالبات يتفوقن في التوجيهي هروباً من أعمال المنزل | And Far Away
August 5, 2012 @ 11:16 am
[...] of “There is No Difference Between You and I” زيّي زيّك Why are males such assholes? Outrageous: Jordan Dubai Islamic Bank Firing Unveiled Women [The Black Iris Reblog] What’s really killing Jordanian women? I hate men Two Articles to [...]