Comments on: BAcking BA

By: SBR9: Cross People and Crosses « Scottish Blogging Roundup

SBR9: Cross People and Crosses « Scottish Blogging Roundup — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 22:21:15 +0000

[...] In other news, Robert Sharp is cross about all the fuss that got up about crosses. Over at No Geek is an Island, however, Will is inclined to back BA. The Flying Rodent, meanwhile, investigates the archives of the London Evening Standard (circa 1897). Won’t somebody please think of the poor vampire hunters? [...]

By: S Hamilton

S Hamilton — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 12:14:56 +0000

One of her points was that Sikhs are allowed to wear bracelets representing their religion, which are visible, but are permitted under the dress code.

By: Will

Will — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:40:05 +0000

Iain: There would be discrimination if onliy Muslims were allowed to wear headscarves (I don’t know if this is the case) or only Christians were allowed to wear visible crosses (and the visible bit is important) but they relate to different parts of the uniform and to different types of religious attire, some of which can’t be concealed. I imagine BA would also argue that burqa wouldn’t be in keeping with their uniform. I do think it’s important that if Christian staff are eventually allowed to wear visible crosses, non-Christian staff should also be able to wear similar jewellery.

Alan: I did, in a similarly facetious moment, ponder the same thing…

By: Alan

Alan — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 21:04:56 +0000

Make everyone wear headscarves.

I know that sounds facetious, and it is facetious, but it’s also pretty much the only way to avoid having religious discriminiation in a dress code.

Or how about persuading teenagers that wearing a headscarf pisses off adults? The result is that they become fashionable, and err no that wouldn’t work because there would be accusations of “taking the piss”.

Oh I don’t know.

I do know that Terry Nation doesn’t love you, but he wants your money before you can get your hands on his daleks.

By: Iain

Iain — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 17:08:38 +0000

I fail to see how anyone can argue that religious devotion is more important (and thus granted more legal protection) for one faith than another. This issue isn’t about dress code, it’s about religious discrimination inherent in the dress code.

By: Will

Will — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 15:28:22 +0000

They do, but these, such as headscarves (which, as I understand it, are more about concealment than promotion of a religion, although I’m prepared to be corrected), can’t be hidden under clothing. A policy that such items should be worn under the uniform when they can be is not discriminatory.

By: S Hamilton

S Hamilton — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 15:23:28 +0000

Ah - but the point is BA allow other faiths to have visible totems of their beliefs. They’re only barring Christians from displaying totems. I suspect they have some other reason for wanting shot of this women because come the next appeal, then dismissal, she will win the inevitable industrial tribunal because - shock, horror - there’s a law against religious discrimination in this country now, which BA are more than aware of. Smoke and mirrors