N.O.R.F Posted October 15, 2006 BA faces legal action over worker's crucifix ban Airline defends dress policy after check-in worker refused to conceal cross David Smith Sunday October 15, 2006 The Observer British Airways is facing legal action and calls for a boycott by Christians after it ruled an employee could not display a crucifix the size of a five pence piece on her necklace. Nadia Eweida, a check-in worker at Heathrow, plans to sue the airline for religious discrimination. BA ruled that Eweida's display of a cross on her necklace breached uniform rules. The airline said items such as hijabs and bangles could be worn 'as it is not practical for staff to conceal them beneath their uniforms'. Eweida, 55, claims she was, in effect, 'forced' to take unpaid leave after refusing to remove the Christian symbol. Her case is being supported by the Transport and General Workers Union. Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe told Sky News last night that Christians should boycott BA in protest. Eweida said: 'I was forced to take unpaid leave because I have refused to remove my cross or put it under my cravat. A cross is a cross, when you explain the reason is your belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. That's the end of it. Muslims wear their hijabs.' Eweida, from Twickenham, said she had just undergone training on respecting and understanding other people's beliefs with BA when she was asked to remove the crucifix. She said she sought permission to wear it from management, but was refused. After a meeting with her managers in September, she was told in a letter: 'You have been sent home because you have failed to comply with a reasonable request. You were asked to cover up or remove your cross and chain which you refused to do. British Airways uniform standards stipulate that adornments of any kind are not to be worn with the uniform.' A BA spokeswoman emphasised yesterday that Eweida has not been suspended from work, but chose to take unpaid leave. She said that the matter remained under investigation and an appeal was due to be heard this week. She added: 'British Airways does recognise that uniformed employees may wish to wear jewellery including religious symbols. Our uniform policy states that these items can be worn, underneath the uniform. There is no ban. This rule applies for all jewellery and religious symbols on chains and is not specific to the Christian cross.' The controversy over Muslim women wearing veils escalated last night after the government's race minister demanded the sacking of a Muslim teaching assistant who insisted on the garment. Phil Woolas said that Aishah Azmi, 24, was 'denying the right of children to a full education', and had put herself in a position where she could not do her job. He said: 'She cannot teach a classroom of children wearing a veil. You cannot have a teacher who wears a veil simply because there are men in the room.' Azmi is planning to sue for emotional distress after she was suspended by Headfield Church of England junior school in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire. Education officials claim that she refused to take off her veil despite complaints from children that they found it difficult to understand her because they could not see her lips move. But Azmi insisted yesterday that she had always been willing to remove the veil in front of children, although she would not do so while male colleagues were present. Azmi, who has been suspended on full pay since February, has taken her employer, Kirklees Council, to a tribunal for discriminating against her religious beliefs. A decision is expected in the next fortnight. Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, intervened in the controversy yesterday: 'Getting Muslim women to give up the veil, which I suspect is something most people would like to see in the long term - including myself - is not going to be done by old white male politicians telling them to do it,' he said. 'It will be change from within the Muslim community.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baluug Posted October 15, 2006 What the hell is she working for a school run by the Church of England, anyways? And what's with these children? Are they retarded or something? They can't understand what she's saying becasue they "can't see her lips move"? Kids that st*upid shouldn't be in school, they should be wearing a helmet and kept in the house so they can't hurt themselves. Retards. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
N.O.R.F Posted October 15, 2006 lol, easy now saxib The funny thing is, on the bbc have your say section, its split 50/50 (for and against religious symbols in public) but when its a muslim being asked to remove the hijaab its usually 95/5%. Funny worl we live in ey? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baluug Posted October 15, 2006 Originally posted by Northerner: lol, easy now saxib The funny thing is, on the bbc have your say section, its split 50/50 (for and against religious symbols in public) but when its a muslim being asked to remove the hijaab its usually 95/5%. Funny worl we live in ey? I can't understand what you wrote, because I didn't see your fingers typing on the keyboard...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cara. Posted October 15, 2006 Britain's job market must be improving if people ay is kibrinayaan sidaas. A cross is a piece of jewelry. And surely the teacher could put up with a colleague looking at her face for a few moments. But the Brits seem to be on some kind of a rampage with the veil and Muslim culture lately. MC, kids do have a hard time understanding speech without facial cues. Expression and body posture is as important as content. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
