This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Hijabi reporter on C4 News and the Nice massacre. Your thoughts?

Ah, so it's not a "symbol of pious modesty" or a "proud expression of faith", or whatever - it's just a "piece of cloth".

Glad we've finally sorted that out.

So, why is having a piece of cloth on your head so important to you, if it has no special significance?

They are allowed to wear it if they feel that it is important to them. I know plenty o Jewish people who wish to wear the kippah in public, similarly I'm sure Muslims may want to wear the hijab. Just leave people alone

Reply 41

Lord Samosa

19

Original post by QE2

So, your argument is that because a Muslim isn't offended by an overt display of Islamism, then nobody else can be?
What was that you said about "talking like a dickhead"?

And yet again, we see the all-too-familiar religionist trope of "why are you bothered about things that don't affect you".

"Overt display of Islamism." Do you have the same attitude towards Sikhs wearing the turban or Jews wearing the kippah? She's hardly sat there saying she supports what happened. And many Muslims wear the hijab, they don't think of it as some political statement. And don't think of ourselves as the same as terrorists (why should we?)

And like I said, Muslims died in that attack, but we should care more about not offending some dude who wasn't personally affected by that attack on the same scale?

Reply 42

lxurens

I think that the regulator was correct to rule that the sun columnist was right to criticise, as we have freedom of speech as one of our human rights. However, I don't believe that he was right to criticise her, as ultimately she is a news reporter who is doing her job. We don't see, for example, a news reporter wearing a Christian symbol, such as a cross necklace getting attacked for reporting on a Christian doing something horrific, like what this news reporter was presenting. It is only because hijabs and Muslim icons and traditions have become such a centre of debate that the Sun columnist thought this was a legitimate issue.

Reply 43

username471863

19

Bottom line is that she worked hard to get to where she is and is damn good at her job, so why should she be discriminated against? The hijab is not recognised as a symbol of Islamism, the Da'esh flag and equivalent symbols are. The hijab is more like a Nun's habit, a Jewish kippah and a Sikh dastar, which people are allowed to wera. My mum wears a hijab and doesn't come anywhere close to being an Islamist. The man getting offended over their reporter is probably one of the same people who complains about censorship and political correctness.

Reply 44

Asiangirl_18

16

There is nothing wrong with her wearing a hijab. That is how she chooses to dress and she has also chosen the career of being a news reporter and thats her right of choice. Its up to her how she is dressed when reporting and im sorry but if people in the 21st century in this day and age have such a problem, its simply ridiculous. She isnt going to not wear her scarf when reporting just because this issue is sensitive. All issues raised in the news are sensitive but it doesnt mean the reporters have to change their dress code to fit the issue. Its ridiculous. She hasnt done anything to them so why the problem? I just dont get it.

Reply 45

Luke Kostanjsek

11

Original post by Asiangirl_18

There is nothing wrong with her wearing a hijab. That is how she chooses to dress and she has also chosen the career of being a news reporter and thats her right of choice. Its up to her how she is dressed when reporting and im sorry but if people in the 21st century in this day and age have such a problem, its simply ridiculous. She isnt going to not wear her scarf when reporting just because this issue is sensitive. All issues raised in the news are sensitive but it doesnt mean the reporters have to change their dress code to fit the issue. Its ridiculous. She hasnt done anything to them so why the problem? I just dont get it.

Absolutely not; there is nothing that should stop her wearing a hijab in her day-to-day life. She has the right to choose that piece of attire if she so desires. But no one is suggesting that we ban the hijab. What is being suggested is that it is pretty insensitive for someone who is overtly displaying their support for Islam, to be commentating on killings committed in the name of Islam.

In much the same way, it would seem pretty insensitive if someone wearing an NRA badge was commentating on one of the numerous american school shootings. The fact that they don't support shooting children is besides the point; you're blatantly advertising your support for a movement which at the very least contributed to the events that unfolded.

I would also suggest that since most people look to the broadcasters to provide an objective, impartial commentary on events (typically not what you'd find, but it's what most people want) it seems pretty strange to have someone displaying their belonging to a system of belief which will dramatically colour many of their opinions. For instance, I would be skeptical of someone who was wearing a kippah reporting on the legal position of Israel's expansion on the West Bank.

Reply 46

QE2

20

Original post by Ladbants

They are allowed to wear it if they feel that it is important to them. I know plenty o Jewish people who wish to wear the kippah in public, similarly I'm sure Muslims may want to wear the hijab. Just leave people alone

Of course they are allowed to wear it. Why on earth wouldn't they? I was asking why it is so precious and people make such a fuss, if it is just "a piece of cloth".

Now, leave me alone.

Reply 47

limetang

19

Original post by markova21

No religious symbols should be worn by TV presenters. That goes for Crucifixes or Islamic headscarves. They are there to do a job in a professional manner. They should leave their own personal beliefs to their own free, personal time away from the cameras.

Disagree in part. Secularism does not mean that all religion is relegated to being put behind closed doors whilst the "real world" is a religion free zone. It means that people aren't unduly privileged or unprivileged as a result of their religious beliefs. With that in mind, it does mean that if a company has a policy of no jewellery or that you aren't allowed to cover your head or face etc. then that policy should apply to everyone equally, exceptions shouldn't be made just for the sake of a persons religion, but conversely if a company DOES allow employees say to wear jewellery then it shouldn't have the right to make an exception and say ban crucifixes.

Reply 48

QE2

20

Original post by Lord Samosa

"Overt display of Islamism."

Overt: done or shown openly; plainly apparent.
Display: Put (something) in a prominent place in order that it may readily be seen.Islamism: 1: the faith, doctrine, or cause of Islam[*]2 : a popular reform movement advocating the reordering of government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam

So yes. Wearing the hijab on a national news channel is, by definition, an "overt display of Islamism". Do you challenge that?

Do you have the same attitude towards Sikhs wearing the turban or Jews wearing the kippah?

What attitude? That I consider them to be making an overt display of religiosity? Yes, absolutely!

She's hardly sat there saying she supports what happened.

I never claimed that she did. Another straw man. I've already told you about that. Please stick to addressing points that I have actually made, not ones that you would like me to have made.

And many Muslims wear the hijab, they don't think of it as some political statement. And don't think of ourselves as the same as terrorists (why should we?)

Another straw man and a non sequitur.

And like I said, Muslims died in that attack, but we should care more about not offending some dude who wasn't personally affected by that attack on the same scale?

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.
The issue is whether it is appropriate for a person to report on an Islamist atrocity while making an overt display of Islamism, and whether someone's comments to that effect are legitimate. IPSO ruled that his comments were legitimate. It has nothing to do with victims or offence or anything other than the relevant issues.

I understand that it is often easier to feel like you have refuted someone's argument if you simply attack straw men and employ other logical fallacies, but it is just as easy to spot when people do this and point it out, thus rendering their argument less effective than saying nothing at all.
Maybe something worth thinking about?

Reply 49

QE2

20

Original post by WBZ144

Bottom line is that she worked hard to get to where she is and is damn good at her job, so why should she be discriminated against?

She wasn't "discriminated against". Someone simply commented on whether her behaviour was appropriate in the context of a particular situation.
How hard she may or may not have worked to get there, and her ability, is irrelevant. If she was a crap newsreader who ****ed her way to her position, would "discrimination" be ok?

The hijab is not recognised as a symbol of Islamism,

Of course it is.
Check out the definition of "Islamism". The hijab clearly represents this.

the Da'esh flag and equivalent symbols are.

They are symbols of extremist or violent Islamism.

The hijab is more like a Nun's habit, a Jewish kippah and a Sikh dastar, which people are allowed to wera.

These are all symbols of religiosity - Catholicism, Judaism, Sikhism - so the hijab is likewise a symbol of Islamism. You have demonstrated my point very nicely!
And people are also allowed to wear the hijab. This issue isn't about that, it is about whether it was appropriate to use a hijabi to cover that particular story. The Press Standards body ruled that it was legitimate to raise the question. That is all.

My mum wears a hijab and doesn't come anywhere close to being an Islamist.

Why does she wear the hijab?

Reply 50

YoFadda

1

Anyone who doesn't want to see her in a hijab can change the channel. I don't complain when I see a woman not wearing a hijab.

Reply 51

champ_mc99

2

Original post by QE2

So if they were opposed to the Holocaust, you'd be fine with the newsreader wearing a swastika.
Really? Wow!

A nazi opposed to the holocaust?

If you think a nazi is comparable to a hijabi in these scanarios, you really need some help.

Reply 52

QE2

20

Original post by Luke Kostanjsek

Absolutely not; there is nothing that should stop her wearing a hijab in her day-to-day life. She has the right to choose that piece of attire if she so desires. But no one is suggesting that we ban the hijab. What is being suggested is that it is pretty insensitive for someone who is overtly displaying their support for Islam, to be commentating on killings committed in the name of Islam.

In much the same way, it would seem pretty insensitive if someone wearing an NRA badge was commentating on one of the numerous american school shootings. The fact that they don't support shooting children is besides the point; you're blatantly advertising your support for a movement which at the very least contributed to the events that unfolded.

I would also suggest that since most people look to the broadcasters to provide an objective, impartial commentary on events (typically not what you'd find, but it's what most people want) it seems pretty strange to have someone displaying their belonging to a system of belief which will dramatically colour many of their opinions. For instance, I would be skeptical of someone who was wearing a kippah reporting on the legal position of Israel's expansion on the West Bank.

I'm baffled as to why some people:
1. Can't grasp this simple concept, and
2. Think this is about allowing people to wear the hijab.

Reply 53

Whitewell

8

Original post by YoFadda

Anyone who doesn't want to see her in a hijab can change the channel. I don't complain when I see a woman not wearing a hijab.

Its not about simply wearing the hijab, its the choice of wearing it in the context of islamic terrorism. Whether that is right or wrong is different to what you raised.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 54

QE2

20

Original post by limetang

Disagree in part. Secularism does not mean that all religion is relegated to being put behind closed doors whilst the "real world" is a religion free zone. It means that people aren't unduly privileged or unprivileged as a result of their religious beliefs.

In practice, "secular" generally means that religion has no influence in the public sphere. It could reasonably argued that those in positions of public responsibility - teachers, civil servants, police, politicians, etc, and yes, newsreaders on national networks, should not be making overt displays of religiosity.

Reply 55

QE2

20

Original post by YoFadda

Anyone who doesn't want to see her in a hijab can change the channel. I don't complain when I see a woman not wearing a hijab.

It helps if you understand the issue that you are commenting on.
Just a thought.

Reply 56

astutehirstute

OP

11

No-one, so far, has considered a couple of interesting questions Mackenzie asked.

1. Would C4 News have used an Orthodox Jew wearing a kippah to cover the Israeli/Palestinian dispute?

2. Would C4 News have used a hijab wearing Manji to cover the story if it had taken place in Oxford Street? With scores of Britons run over and killed by a Muslim truck driver from Tower Hamlets, or somewhere.

Reply 57

YoFadda

1

Original post by QE2

It helps if you understand the issue that you are commenting on.
Just a thought.

I do. Are you even a Muslim?

Reply 58

QE2

20

Original post by champ_mc99

A nazi opposed to the holocaust?

Yes. There were many. Basic history.

Much like Islam, although the central text contains more than enough justification for violence and intolerance, there are penty of followers who rejected it or were completely unaware of it.

If you think a nazi is comparable to a hijabi in these scanarios, you really need some help.

It is noticable that religionists so often fail to understand the nature of analogy. I wonder if it is because they are so used to simply accepting things without nuance or critical analysis.

I was not the one who brought up the Nazi/Holocaust analogy. I merely commented to your flawed response to another's use of it.