An Amsterdam appeal court has ruled that the Amsterdam public transport service is within its rights to ban its conductors from visibly wearing a necklace bearing a crucifix.
The verdict backs an earlier ruling at the end of last year. Egyptian-born tram conductor Ezzaz Aziz appealed against the decision after the transport service suspended him for refusing to take off or conceal his necklace during working hours.
Mr Aziz objected to the fact that he was forbidden to wear his religious symbol, while Muslim women were allowed to wear headscarves. Mr Aziz claimed he was a victim of discrimination because headscarves are also an expression of religious belief.
“The judge didn’t consider the equal treatment of two religions within one company – only whether the company rules applied. But that wasn’t my intention. In the company we have two religions, and one religion is allowed to do what it likes and the other isn’t allowed to do anything. That’s why I appealed against the ruling.”
Dress code
The court ruled that the public transport service wasn’t guilty of discrimination because the rule wasn’t against wearing religious symbols, but simply against visibly wearing necklaces. For security reasons the service’s dress code bans employees from wearing any necklace outside the uniform.
The dress code allows the wearing of headscarves, as long as they bear the company logo. And the transport service points out that if Mr Aziz wants to express his religious belief, he’s welcome to wear a ring or an earring with a crucifix.
Nevertheless, Mr Aziz says he’s disappointed in Dutch justice. As a member of the Coptic Church, in Egypt he was barely able to express his religion. He expected things to be different in the Netherlands.
“The Netherlands is a democratic country. I think it’s nonsense that you can express one religion but not another. I feel a fire burning inside me because I don’t live in a democratic country, but in a third world country.”
Mr Aziz now plans to try and win support for his case in parliament. Meanwhile he’s opting to wear his crucifix under his sweater, because he doesn’t expect he would be able to find another job. “I’m an old man. I’m 57, I don’t know what else I could do.”
Email this Article
Printer-friendly version
"For security reasons the service’s dress code bans employees from wearing any necklace outside the uniform."...What were the security reasons for not allowing a necklace? Was it from offending the Muslim community and it's possible security threat to anyone wearing a non-Muslim religious neckless. Mr. Wilders, why aren't you defending the rights of Christians in the Dutch society?
The necklace issue is a mere scapegoat as far as I see it. What security or safety threat exists I wonder? Could it be that some anti Christian bigot might rip his throat apart with the necklace? www.msibanda.blogspot.com
Why is a necklace a safety issue more than a head covering that could slip over your eyes? Why are people/governments worried about offending Muslims & not Christians?
What an absolute shame!
This man does not have the Muslim Brotherhood or the OIC behing him.
Who will stand up for Christians in Europe?
What an absolute shame!
This man does not have the Muslim Brotherhood or the OIC behing him.
Who will stand up to Christians in Europe?
Correction: Who will stand up_for_Christians in Europe?
Yeshua (Christ) will stand-up for the Christians in Europe (The few that exist).
Yeshua (Christ) will stand-up for the Christians in Europe (The few that exist).
Please read the article before you post.
The dispute is NOT over the religious nature of the item. No necklaces are allowed regardless of what they are.
He could wear a religious ring.
These are the wages of Islam.
So where are all those liberal "diversity" advocates now? They would be defending a woman who wants to wear a headscarf at work.
This is discrimination. It's time to wake up and realize that you can't live in a free society when there different rules for everyone. When did Amsterdam go from being a city of religious tolerance for all to a city of religious tolerance for some.
what about the headscarfs?
that is discrimination. what's allowed for one must be allowed for all. I hope Parliament rights this wrong. You're a good man, Mr. Aziz.
This is discrimination. How about the headscarfs? SAME LAW FOR EVERYBODY
What if a Sik guy is driving the tram , do the company allow him to put his sword in his belt as it's a religious symbol also ?
I think if they want to ban any religious symbols , let be one uniform no headscarf no cross no sword ... but do not ban a necklace and claim it's for safety or security .
Necklace bear the company logo too.
Head scarves, Babushka if you are a Slav are still required in orthodox Christian churches, that includes the Church that the conductor goes to, the Coptic Church. I have attended several Coptic churches and one service in Egypt. Here the “Our Father” is recited in the same exact posture as the Muslims pray to Allah. Women are not seen but they cover their heads in and near the church. Similar to what happens in Orthodox synagogues and in mosques. After all it was St. Paul who admonished women to cover their heads, not just Mohammed. I think that most religious men of the past would have been totally ashamed by the way women dress and behave today. What I object to is the desire of some to force others to obey the religious laws that they believe in. This went on before Jesus and He Himself very much objected to it.
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.