BB FANS

BA woman loses appeal against ban on wearing a cross at work


guardian

Under BA's current reasoning, an employee who turned up to work wearing a 3ft-long cross must be allowed to wear it, because to hide such a cross under their uniform would be impractical.

"Yet in Nadia's case a cross of less than 3in is deemed a problem."

Fair point.

--

"Y'know, British Airways is right. A cross does look better worn under the uniform."

From Mac

Excellent Jim:

lol

imo however, I do think that this woman is over-reacting a bit. If there is a blanket policy about all necklaces having to be worn under the uniform, then that's not discrimination against a cross, that's just a blanket policy whether the necklace is a cross, a moon, a Star of David, a locket, whatever.

Yet she obviously feels because other faiths wear 'outward signs' of their faith, that hers should be outward as well.

Trouble is, I worry she is now running the danger of actually being a bad witness for the Christian faith, due to her inflexibility. Couldn't she wear a tiny cross on her lapel instead?

Sometimes it's not about the 'signs of faith' that you wear - it's more about how you act and speak and how you treat others .

yes, it sounds as if the policy is anti-jewellery, rather than anti religious-symbol, so on those grounds BA have every right to enforce it. If it was a ban on religious symbols that would be almost impractical enforce. How do you determine what's a religious symbol and what isn't? There are so many faiths and symbols!

Like that woman who insisted on wearing her veil whilst teaching - it's nothing to do with religion. All about practicality.

She obviously feels discriminated against on religious grounds. I'm surprised BA allow her to work with such a huge chip on her shoulder. Perhaps she wears it under her uniform

'Sacked For Wearing Veil'


A Muslim teaching assistant who was suspended for refusing to take off her veil in class has been sacked by the school, Sky sources say.

Aishah Azmi, 24, was suspended on full pay earlier this year by Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire and has now reportedly been dismissed.

She had lost her case for discrimination and harrassment at an employment tribunal last month.

But the tribunal found she had been victimised by the school in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, and awarded her £1,000 for "injury to feelings".

Headfield Church of England Junior School had given her permission to wear the veil in corridors and the staff room but told to take it off when in class.

The school said face-to-face communication was essential for her job as as bilingual support worker.



Mrs Azmi said she was willing to remove her veil in front of children - but not when male colleagues were present.

Her case sparked a national debate on multiculturalism in Britain.

Tony Blair said the veil row was part of a necessary debate about the way the Muslim community integrates into British society.

The Prime Minister said the headwear was a "mark of separation" which makes people of other ethnic backgrounds feel uncomfortable. Skynews

Flying In The Face Of Reason



Nadia Eweida fights Britsh airways





“LET Christians wear the cross,” decrees the front page of the Express.

And while we’re at it, let Sikhs wear turbans, Muslims sport veils and teenage girls called Armani carry about their person as much Argos gold jewellery as their necks, ears and nipples can support.

We should all be allowed to wear what we like. And if estranged British Airways check-in worker Nadia Eweida wants to wear her silver cross, the size of a 5p piece, on a necklace around her neck then so be it. The Express says we should let her.

But the airline says this cannot be. The Express say that BA has banned “visible Christian and Jewish symbols”.

The paper hears Commons Leader Jack Straw call the ban on wearing a cross or indeed a Star of David in private companies “wholly inexplicable”. He talks of “an issue of consistency”.

The Express agrees and notes that while Jews and Christians have their religious symbols banned Muslim are able to wear the headscarf. Indeed, the Mail has a picture of a colleague of Ms Eweida’s wearing a Muslim headdress as she checks in BA customers.

It is all so terrifically unfair, says the Mail. And the “chorus of outrage” is added to by thirteen Anglican bishops.

Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, says it “smacks of religious intolerance”. He continues: “This has turned into a very important and symbolic case and I think she is right to insist on the British tradition that we should be allowed to express ourselves visibly in public.” And that from a bearded man in a pink smock.

A moderator from the Church of Scotland has written to the chairman of BA requesting a meeting. The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, says BA is guilty of “flawed nonsense”. And Drexel Wellington Gomez, Archbishop of the West Indies, says: “The right to wear religious symbols is a basic human right.”

As the Mail solicits comment from a bishop in any place BA operates a service to, Geoff Want, BA’s Director of ground operations, says his company “might” change its policy. Although for now it holds firm.

And what of this policy? While the Mail hears Keiran McCaffey, of something called the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, speak of Britain’s “multicultural mess” and “hostility towards Christians and a fawning over Islam”, know that the BA policy is that its employees should not wear jewellery outside their clothes.

And her lies the possible solution. It is our suggestion that Mrs Eweida complies with the company rules and shows her faith by having a small tattoo, no larger than 5p piece, inked into her forehead or neck. Jewish staff may care to sew a Star of David onto their clothes.

This way everyone will be happy. And we will all know where we stand...
anorak

Working in a school, If I was paid £1000 for every time my feelings were injured I would never need to do a days work again

what do you mean 'again'?

My feelings have been injured that's one thousand pounds please