Kay17:


There are actually no formal rules on dressing. It's more of tradition

Well then we wait for the court's pronouncement.

oyb:


you were saying?

you lot are just rubes who have not seen anything beyond the confines of whatever village you live in
pathetic, backward miseducated village cretins
sad

Another derisive comment from your pained soul. Was I the one who said they do not wear hijabs under helmets? I only said the heat must be stifling for those who do so. I also pointed out that in Quebec and Ontario, safety concerns overrule religious preferences or dressing. Is that a lie?

Obviously "pathetic, backward miseducated village cretins " must be your middle name. That is why you are stating it with relish.

niceair:

You work in oil and gas and your two cent sense can't tell you what she is demanding for is totally wrong and unacceptable... Mr Oil Worker

the hijab is only unacceptable to unexposed rubes such as yourself

Mynd44:
CC Caseless Seunmsg

Y'all were saying?

Rule 36 (a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct in the Legal Profession Revised (2007) expressly decries the "wearing of apparel and ornament" that draws attention to a legal practitioner appearing before a judge, the hijab does not in anyway fall into such apparel ornament that can be decried upon, because it is a constitutional right that no bye-law can suppress on a permanent basis.

Again, can a judgement in respect to an organization she's yet to be part of affect her?

This is a blanket judgement.

oyb:


Please stop highlighting your idiocy. I have stated that I work in oil and gas and I work with women who wear hijab and safety helmets. Is it too hard for you slowpokes to understand that women wear hijab in virtually all industries without it being an issue?

What kind of unexposed rube are you?

They were niqab with their helmets and not hijab

Vivere:

Another derisive comment from your pained soul. Was I the one who said they do not wear hijabs under helmets? I only said the heat must be stifling for those who do so. I also pointed out that in Quebec and Ontario, safety concerns overrule religious preferences or dressing. Is that a lie?

Obviously "pathetic, backward miseducated village cretins " must be your middle name. That is why you are stating it with relish.

care to post a link to this?

none of you have been able to come up with anything other than empty conjecture.

show me unequivolcally quebec safety standards that say specifically that a hijab should not be worn with a hard hat

you see that? that is a female engineer in schlumberger , an international oil servicing firm with the same rigid safety standards across every continent



this is one in halliburton



these are companies with much more rigid safety standards than vivere and sons quebec oil company

Guyman02:


They were niqab with their helmets and not hijab

you see why i call most of you miseducated dolts?

you don't bother to learn the simplest things about Islam, you just start talking BS



if you are too daft to even tell the difference between a hijab and a niqab, you belong with your fellow ignoramus vivere who says a hijab is unsafe to wear

babaskool:
This matter is actually very simple and straightforward than it is being made to be.
Firstly Miss Firdaus get yourself a good lawyer, instruct him to bring an application for enforcement of your fundamental rights via the FREP rules 2009.

One of the prayers you would be seeking as a relief is that the actions of staff of the council of legal education on the day of your call to bar infringed on your right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Please remind your lawyer to be reasonable and only ask that you may be called at the next call to bar which is April 2018.

Also please tell him to institute your case in the Federal High court and should only make a case against the council of legal education and not the body of benchers (the body is the highest supreme body in the land ) they might feel offended

Kind regards
Akinola Samuel Eluyefa

The case will be DOA . Like others before it. Pls see Balarabe Musa v. PRP for more info.

armadeo:


The NBA is a voluntary organisation one you voluntarily decided to join the day you make up your mind to be a lawyer. Have you ever seen an engineer or accountant complain about law school?

.

My simple response is: “there is an automatic membership of the NBA upon being called to the Bar”. As long as one has elected to join and remain within the noble profession, he is a member and must comply with the regulations set by the body.

In the light of the above, I would partially agree with u BUT u become a member of the NBA not when u decide but rather after u have met all the laid down requirements I.e passing the exams and observing certain ethics, customs and conventions. This lady has failed to comply with one of the traditions of the profession which from the induction ceremony was aware of. Whether the tradition is right or wrong is another argument but as it stands today that the norm.

Why did she wait till the day of her call to bring up this issue? I would like to ask her how she appeared in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd term law dinners. Cos I'm sure she removed the hijab then.

It's her choice to go in this direction but I'm very sure that if she like she should go to the Supreme Court, she would get no remedy because the Council of Legal education has the unfettered power to declare a person fit and proper to be called to the Nigerian Bar based on laid down rules.

babaskool:
This matter is actually very simple and straightforward than it is being made to be.
Firstly Miss Firdaus get yourself a good lawyer, instruct him to bring an application for enforcement of your fundamental rights via the FREP rules 2009.

One of the prayers you would be seeking as a relief is that the actions of staff of the council of legal education on the day of your call to bar infringed on your right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Please remind your lawyer to be reasonable and only ask that you may be called at the next call to bar which is April 2018.

Also please tell him to institute your case in the Federal High court and should only make a case against the council of legal education and not the body of benchers (the body is the highest supreme body in the land ) they might feel offended

Kind regards
Akinola Samuel Eluyefa

My only conclusion in this case is that Miss Firdaus Amasa has decided not to be a lawyer.

How can she be aspiring to become a lawyer and not ready to obey the rules? Why will she be contesting what she willingly subscribed to?

Volenti non fit injuria.

oyb:


the hijab is only unacceptable to unexposed rubes such as yourself

I guess rubes is the only word you know... Quick to say you work in oil n gas n u don't know whom you chatting with....

Peace be with you

Caseless:


Rule 36 (a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct in the Legal Profession Revised (2007) expressly decries the "wearing of apparel and ornament" that draws attention to a legal practitioner appearing before a judge, the hijab does not in anyway fall into such apparel ornament that can be decried upon, because it is a constitutional right that no bye-law can suppress on a permanent basis.

Again, can a judgement in respect to an organization she's yet to be part of affect her?

This is a blanket judgement.

The hijab definitely falls under the category of an apparel that draws attention to the legal practitioner, appearing before a judge. It is not an inconspicuous item of clothing, like a lapel pin, a pocket square or a handkerchief.

Vivere:

The hijab definitely falls under the category of an apparel that draws attention to the legal practitioner, appearing before a judge. It is not an inconspicuous item of clothing, like a lapel pin or a handkerchief.

how can something you're given by constitution be taken away a rule? Hijab does not fall under the "apparel" the rule decried upon.

Caseless:
how can something you're given by constitution be taken away a rule? Hijab does not fall under the "apparel" the rule decried upon.

hijab , an inconspicuous clothing item worn by millions of nigerian women in domestic, industrial, corporate environments, draws Vivire's attention

i wonder why

oyb:

hijab , an inconspicuous clothing item worn by millions of nigerian women in domestic, industrial, corporate environments, draws Vivire's attention

i wonder why

Surely you can express your obsession for the hijab, without mentioning my moniker? Or are you just in the mood to troll? And even though it offends you immensely, I still maintain that the hijab is NOT inconspicuous. A material of about 2 yards or more drapped over the head, and around the neck, is not inconspicuous. Unless the word 'inconspicous' has another meaning in your dictionary....

that one can never be a successful lawyer. if she think she is greater than law of an institution that has been created before she was born. is she the only Muslim lady who has been called to bar before? is she the only Muslim lady there wit hijab? she has no point. good and successful lawyer like Gani had respect for laws. so who is she rubbish. if they amend the law of the institution because of her then that means that Nigeria is a useless nation. nobody should be greater than the law of an organization or institution.

This people re so funny and unexposed what is the essence of wearing hijab when it does not make u holy or God fearing? re there not ladies who wear hijab and still kill for boko haram as female suicide bomber? What a blind argument.

oyb:
care to post a link to this?

none of you have been able to come up with anything other than empty conjecture.

show me unequivolcally quebec safety standards that say specifically that a hijab should not be worn with a hard hat

you see that? that is a female engineer in schlumberger , an international oil servicing firm with the same rigid safety standards across every continent

this is one in halliburton

these are companies with much more rigid safety standards than vivere and sons quebec oil company

It does not say a hijab should not be worn underneath a hard hat, but if any item of religious clothing (e.g. hijab) conflicts or interferes with health and safety standards, then employers are not under an obligation to accommodate its use, by their employees. Here, read this:

Safety considerations are often an issue raised when it comes to religious attire or comportment. If an accommodation is likely to cause significant health and safety risks, this could be considered “undue hardship.”

Employers, housing providers and service organizations have an obligation to protect the health and safety of all their employees, clients and tenants, including people who observe a creed, as part of doing business safely, and as part of fulfilling their legal requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. See section 9.9.3 for more on handling health and safety risks.

In some cases, clothing or gear with a health or safety rationale may constitute a bona fide requirement....

Considerations when dealing with dress codes include:

What is the exact nature of the religious or creed observance?
What is the reason for the uniform or dress code?
What steps can be taken to accommodate the person short of undue hardship?
Are there alternatives?
Are health or safety factors involved?
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-based-creed/10-specific-cases

oyb:


Please stop highlighting your idiocy. I have stated that I work in oil and gas and I work with women who wear hijab and safety helmets. Is it too hard for you slowpokes to understand that women wear hijab in virtually all industries without it being an issue?

What kind of unexposed rube are you?

Lol...are u minding him...sometimes, it's better u allow some people wallow in their stupidity than trying to explain things to 'em coz they are programmed not to see beyond their noses