It seems like an innocuous story: Bushra Noah, a Syrian Muslim, applied to work in a hair salon called Wedge, which prides itself on its alternative stylings. Shop owner Sarah Desrosiers, pictured above, asked Noah if she would work without her headscarf. Noah said no, Desrosiers said that Noah wouldn't be suitable for the job.
Bushra Noah, incensed at the treatment she received, filed a pair of lawsuits, losing one, but winning the other, forcing Desrosiers to pay 4 000 pounds in damages, due to 'injuries to feelings'.
The Daily Mail reports on the news, pointing out how ridiculous this story appears. After all, Noah admitted that there were no derogatory comments, and Desrosiers is stunned that she almost lost her business for not hiring someone who clearly wouldn't fit the business.
Is this outrageous? Who is the real villain here?
If you ask me, it's the Daily Mail that is the villain, for pushing this story like it's an affront to the personal freedoms of white residents of England. Look how they word their opening paragraph:
It's clear, from the language, that the Daily Mail wants you to be furious, thus compelling you to buy their paper and write a letter in.
Desrosiers didn't really do anything wrong, except for being honest about why she didn't want to hire Noah. If she had just refused, without a reason, this would have been avoided. It's a little sad that we live in a society where you have to mask your reasons, but there you have it. A little bit of sensitivity goes a long way - Desrosiers made Noah feel unwelcome by pointing out that the headscarf is the only reason she couldn't work there.
Noah didn't do anything wrong except pick the wrong type of salon to apply to. Looking at the pictures in the article, I can't imagine her fitting in. That's realistic. I got turned down for a job in a trendy restaurant for not being blonde and having big boobs, I surmise.
What does this mean? Protect yourself from the tabloid-esque papers that flog themselves as 'media'. You know which ones they are. They're the ones with front page pictures of celebrities with no 'knickers' on.
Bushra Noah, incensed at the treatment she received, filed a pair of lawsuits, losing one, but winning the other, forcing Desrosiers to pay 4 000 pounds in damages, due to 'injuries to feelings'.
The Daily Mail reports on the news, pointing out how ridiculous this story appears. After all, Noah admitted that there were no derogatory comments, and Desrosiers is stunned that she almost lost her business for not hiring someone who clearly wouldn't fit the business.
Is this outrageous? Who is the real villain here?
If you ask me, it's the Daily Mail that is the villain, for pushing this story like it's an affront to the personal freedoms of white residents of England. Look how they word their opening paragraph:
"It seems too lunatic to be true. But here a hair salon boss reveals how she was driven to the brink of ruin - and forced to pay £4,000 for 'hurt feelings' - after refusing to hire a Muslim stylist who wouldn't show her hair at work"
Desrosiers didn't really do anything wrong, except for being honest about why she didn't want to hire Noah. If she had just refused, without a reason, this would have been avoided. It's a little sad that we live in a society where you have to mask your reasons, but there you have it. A little bit of sensitivity goes a long way - Desrosiers made Noah feel unwelcome by pointing out that the headscarf is the only reason she couldn't work there.
Noah didn't do anything wrong except pick the wrong type of salon to apply to. Looking at the pictures in the article, I can't imagine her fitting in. That's realistic. I got turned down for a job in a trendy restaurant for not being blonde and having big boobs, I surmise.
What does this mean? Protect yourself from the tabloid-esque papers that flog themselves as 'media'. You know which ones they are. They're the ones with front page pictures of celebrities with no 'knickers' on.
| 124 |
| Vote |
Shared on










Comments (31)
Add Comments

Read More













