Post by: loulou on October 15, 2006, 03:40:29 pm
Check-in worker Nadia Eweida, 55, of Twickenham, said she was effectively "forced" to take unpaid leave after refusing to conceal the symbol.
BA denied it had banned the wearing of crosses.
It said its uniform policy stated that such items could be worn if concealed underneath the uniform.
Post by: oldspice on October 15, 2006, 03:47:34 pm
Post by: loulou on October 15, 2006, 03:48:41 pm
Post by: oldspice on October 15, 2006, 03:50:27 pm
Post by: smurfboy on October 15, 2006, 03:51:32 pm
Post by: loulou on October 15, 2006, 03:53:03 pm
Post by: smurfboy on October 15, 2006, 03:56:55 pm
Then why not go the whole hog and not bother to wear her uniform? Why not come into work in woad?
She knew the rules, she broke them, and now instead of facing up to it she has gone crying 'poor me' to the press. They didn't even make her take it off for God's sake! All she had to do was wear it under her blouse!
Post by: kevvosa on October 15, 2006, 05:50:23 pm
Don't you think she has a right to wear what she wants?
So if she turns up in a bikini it's ok?
Post by: loulou on October 15, 2006, 05:53:22 pm
If she is comfortable and warm enough.
Post by: kevvosa on October 15, 2006, 06:01:43 pm
Post by: loulou on October 15, 2006, 06:03:32 pm
Post by: kevvosa on October 15, 2006, 06:07:53 pm
Post by: oldspice on October 15, 2006, 06:22:11 pm
I think it's reasonable to ask her to wear it under her uniform.
Post by: smurfboy on November 21, 2006, 02:26:28 pm
Post by: loulou on November 21, 2006, 03:45:08 pm
Post by: smurfboy on November 21, 2006, 04:34:23 pm
It's nothing to do with that! She wanted to wear an item of jewellery - and that's all it is, jewellery - that was not allowed as part of her uniform. Didn't she read the terms and conditions of her job when she accepted it? She wasn't even forced to remove it, just conceal it.
It's not the same as a Sikh being asked to remove their turban. That is a requirement of the religion (although some more liberal Sikhs choose not to wear one). A crucifix may be a symbol of Christianity, but it has always been the individual choice of Christians whether to wear one or not - it certainly isn't required.
Post by: EASTEREGG on November 21, 2006, 07:34:14 pm
A Heathrow Airport employee has said she plans to sue British Airways for religious discrimination in a row over the wearing of a cross necklace.Check-in worker Nadia Eweida, 55, of Twickenham, said she was effectively "forced" to take unpaid leave after refusing to conceal the symbol.
BA denied it had banned the wearing of crosses.
It said its uniform policy stated that such items could be worn if concealed underneath the uniform.
DAMN RIGHT SHE CANT WEAR IT. ITS OFFENSIVE.
MY TURBAN IS FINE THOUGH.
Post by: smurfboy on November 21, 2006, 07:38:30 pm
Post by: oldspice on November 22, 2006, 07:04:42 am
A man who wears a Turban would never disrespect another person's religion.
Post by: loulou on November 22, 2006, 11:11:37 pm
Post by: oldspice on November 23, 2006, 06:59:26 am
Post by: on November 23, 2006, 09:04:07 am
I don't care whether people want to wear the Hidjab, turbans, thongs or whatever but if anyone tried to stop me wearing my crucifix they would not find me sitting back and accepting it. The health and safety argument is poppycock. I hope this lady takes her case as far as possible and wins.
Post by: loulou on November 23, 2006, 11:35:21 am
Post by: smurfboy on November 23, 2006, 11:53:58 am
As a Christian, I was greatly angered by this story. I wear a crucifix and chain on the outside of my T shirt/pullover all the time. It is not simply jewellery, it is a crucifix and is a symbol of my faith. This IS a Christian country, even though we are slowly descending into secularism.
I don't care whether people want to wear the Hidjab, turbans, thongs or whatever but if anyone tried to stop me wearing my crucifix they would not find me sitting back and accepting it. The health and safety argument is poppycock. I hope this lady takes her case as far as possible and wins.
But what if you had taken a job with terms and conditions stating visible jewellery was unacceptable? No one is saying this woman should be stopped from wearing a crucifix down to the shops, when she goes out at night - what she, and you, wear in your own lives is entirely your choice. She's not even being stopped from wearing it at work! All she has to do is keep it under her blouse!
You describe it as a symbol of your faith, but it is one you wear by choice - your religion doesn't dictate that it should be worn. In practical terms it can be concealed easily, unlike a turban or veil (although as I understand it the Quran does not insist these should b worn, so I feel it is perfectly acceptable for employers to ask for these to be removed). Faith is a personal choice; why does this woman have to force it down people's throats by wearing this crucifix?
If she turned up late every day, she would be breaking the rules of her employment. If she took twice the normal lunchbreak, she would be breaking the rules. If she stole office supplies, she would be breaking the rules. Why is deciding she doesn't want to wear her uniform despite repeated warnings any different? She has lost her appeal and quite rightly so.
Post by: on November 23, 2006, 11:56:19 am
Post by: loulou on November 23, 2006, 02:37:41 pm
Post by: Cherry_Ripe on November 23, 2006, 02:40:40 pm
Post by: on November 24, 2006, 07:56:05 am
Incidentally my 'Yay' was in reply to Loulou's post and somehow Smurfy's got posted first.
Post by: loulou on November 24, 2006, 08:31:41 am
Post by: kevvosa on November 24, 2006, 09:24:32 am
Post by: loulou on November 24, 2006, 10:02:42 am
Post by: smurfboy on November 24, 2006, 11:16:39 am
I would not take a job where the rules stipulated that I could not display my crucifix.
Exactly - you wouldn't take the job. And if it was so important to this woman to wear a visible crucifix, she shouldn't have taken the BA job, should she?
Post by: kevvosa on November 24, 2006, 02:25:31 pm
Post by: loulou on November 25, 2006, 12:07:37 am
Post by: oldspice on November 25, 2006, 08:08:52 am
Post by: on November 25, 2006, 10:10:01 am
Post by: loulou on November 25, 2006, 11:35:35 am
Bounty if you had to make a choice between a muslim woman and a schoolgirl which one would you choose?
Post by: smurfboy on November 25, 2006, 03:25:00 pm
Post by: loulou on November 25, 2006, 05:13:16 pm
Post by: kevvosa on November 25, 2006, 05:30:08 pm
The muslim women thinks it hides their modesty but I think it is sexy so the jokes on them!
I thought it was because they save themselves only for their husbands to see.
Post by: loulou on November 25, 2006, 09:25:23 pm
Post by: oldspice on November 26, 2006, 09:35:16 am
The muslim women thinks it hides their modesty but I think it is sexy so the jokes on them!
Don't Muslim men have any modesty then?
I know a very nice Muslim man who says that it is not part of their religion - it's just how some Muslims choose to interpret the Qu'ran.
Post by: on November 26, 2006, 12:24:00 pm
Post by: on November 26, 2006, 12:54:09 pm
Post by: loulou on November 26, 2006, 01:47:42 pm
Post by: on November 26, 2006, 07:55:24 pm
Post by: loulou on November 27, 2006, 01:24:12 am
Post by: Velvet Darkness on December 01, 2006, 08:29:28 pm
Sorry to be boring but......back to topic. :)
From what I can gather from these posts, she took the job knowing she had to wear it under her clothes, and if she was wearing it, she must have worn it under her clothes for a while or they wouldn't have given her the job in the first place right?
So my thought goes ...........If she knew she wasn't allowed to wear it out of her clothes, and wore it next to her skin for the interview in order to get the job, which she must have done....... what's her problem now?
Either she has only just started wearing it and therefore how religious can it be for her? OR she wasn't bothered enough to state her case from the start and insist on wearing it outside her clothes at which point they would have hired someone else. It would seem to be more about sueing them for money than anything else.
I can't see any of the options I can come up with showing her in a very good light at all.
Velvet.
Post by: oldspice on December 02, 2006, 10:38:45 am
Good points. It's like that teaching assistant wanting to wear the veil when she didn't wear it at her interview.
You don't have to show your cross for people to know you are a Christian. As the old hymn goes:
"They'll know we are Christians by our love"
Post by: goldencup on December 02, 2006, 11:01:07 am
Post by: oldspice on December 02, 2006, 01:37:04 pm
I know that one and just thinking about it makes me giggle.
Post by: smurfboy on December 02, 2006, 01:42:17 pm
Sorry to be boring but......back to topic. :)
From what I can gather from these posts, she took the job knowing she had to wear it under her clothes, and if she was wearing it, she must have worn it under her clothes for a while or they wouldn't have given her the job in the first place right?
So my thought goes ...........If she knew she wasn't allowed to wear it out of her clothes, and wore it next to her skin for the interview in order to get the job, which she must have done....... what's her problem now?
Either she has only just started wearing it and therefore how religious can it be for her? OR she wasn't bothered enough to state her case from the start and insist on wearing it outside her clothes at which point they would have hired someone else. It would seem to be more about sueing them for money than anything else.
I can't see any of the options I can come up with showing her in a very good light at all.
That sound you can all hear is a nail being hit on the head. 
Post by: kevvosa on December 02, 2006, 06:24:47 pm
Post by: goldencup on December 02, 2006, 07:04:41 pm
