Government offices in EU can ban religious symbols
Discussion
Do public services include the likes of nurses and teachers? So no more headscarves, turbans, kippahs, crosses etc for public workers if the EU country decides to impose the restriction.
Obviously doesn't apply to us as we're not in the EU.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-court-says...
Obviously doesn't apply to us as we're not in the EU.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-court-says...
s1962a said:
Do public services include the likes of nurses and teachers? So no more headscarves, turbans, kippahs, crosses etc for public workers if the EU country decides to impose the restriction.
Obviously doesn't apply to us as we're not in the EU.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-court-says...
As long as it's applied equally to all religions not an issue.Obviously doesn't apply to us as we're not in the EU.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-court-says...
For me it would be relatively easy to use my mind tricks to overpower senior management and get my light sabre into the office.
These are not the office droids you're looking for...
crankedup5 said:
Freedom of expression hits the buffers then.
Is there a freedom of expression in the workplace? I am prohibited from expressing political views near the time of an election for instance. I don't have an issue with this ruling. I very much prefer to keep the running of the state and personal beliefs separated.
s1962a said:
Do public services include the likes of nurses and teachers? So no more headscarves, turbans, kippahs, crosses etc for public workers if the EU country decides to impose the restriction.
Obviously doesn't apply to us as we're not in the EU.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-court-says...
Let's be honest. there's only one religion this is going to have a significant impact on - it's Muslims. I can't recall the last time i saw somebody in a Public Sector role wearing a kippah, a Turban, or a cross.Obviously doesn't apply to us as we're not in the EU.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-court-says...
Given that "Religion" is a Protected Characteristic in the UK I'm not sure how it would be implemented here.
Countdown said:
Let's be honest. there's only one religion this is going to have a significant impact on - it's Muslims. I can't recall the last time i saw somebody in a Public Sector role wearing a kippah, a Turban, or a cross.
Given that "Religion" is a Protected Characteristic in the UK I'm not sure how it would be implemented here.
And the fact that it will impact Muslims more than any other religion, I wonder if that could constitute discrimination?Given that "Religion" is a Protected Characteristic in the UK I'm not sure how it would be implemented here.
I don't actually have a problem with the Hijab or a Turban or a Kippah. A small cross is hardly even noticeable.
Probably worth pointing out that EU court's ruling effectively says "not for us to decide". If member states cobble together a semi-coherent case for such a ban, that's their business.
But banning bits of otherwise perfectly culturally reasonable items of clothing on the basis that they indicate a person's religion is a fundamentally illiberal idea. And by my reckoning and utterly stupid and counterproductive one too, unless of course the intent is just to be divisive.
If someone is offended or intimidated by someone else wearing a cross, a turban, a scarf, or whatever, are we really saying that's anyone's fault other than their own?? Do they deserve to be protected from that?
If the objective is to coerce people into being really keen on being culturally, say, French, is banning them from expressing some other entirely reasonable part of their identity that they're expressing in the most inoffensive way likely to be successful? Is it likely to encourage them to integrate or are they just going to resent the state even more? Hmm ...
But banning bits of otherwise perfectly culturally reasonable items of clothing on the basis that they indicate a person's religion is a fundamentally illiberal idea. And by my reckoning and utterly stupid and counterproductive one too, unless of course the intent is just to be divisive.
If someone is offended or intimidated by someone else wearing a cross, a turban, a scarf, or whatever, are we really saying that's anyone's fault other than their own?? Do they deserve to be protected from that?
If the objective is to coerce people into being really keen on being culturally, say, French, is banning them from expressing some other entirely reasonable part of their identity that they're expressing in the most inoffensive way likely to be successful? Is it likely to encourage them to integrate or are they just going to resent the state even more? Hmm ...
Countdown said:
Let's be honest. there's only one religion this is going to have a significant impact on - it's Muslims. I can't recall the last time i saw somebody in a Public Sector role wearing a kippah, a Turban, or a cross.
Given that "Religion" is a Protected Characteristic in the UK I'm not sure how it would be implemented here.
There was a case a while ago of a woman (worked for BA?) told not to wear a cross... Given that "Religion" is a Protected Characteristic in the UK I'm not sure how it would be implemented here.
MikeM6 said:
crankedup5 said:
Freedom of expression hits the buffers then.
Is there a freedom of expression in the workplace? I am prohibited from expressing political views near the time of an election for instance. I don't have an issue with this ruling. I very much prefer to keep the running of the state and personal beliefs separated.
Murph7355 said:
Countdown said:
Let's be honest. there's only one religion this is going to have a significant impact on - it's Muslims. I can't recall the last time i saw somebody in a Public Sector role wearing a kippah, a Turban, or a cross.
Given that "Religion" is a Protected Characteristic in the UK I'm not sure how it would be implemented here.
There was a case a while ago of a woman (worked for BA?) told not to wear a cross... Given that "Religion" is a Protected Characteristic in the UK I'm not sure how it would be implemented here.
I'm not sure about it being a freedom of expression 'thing'. It does not, obviously, stop a person worshiping a particular god or gods, nor following any demands from particular bosses of said religions. However, There are strict rules, in the constitution of France, which prohibit the government having anything to do with any and all religions. Staff wearing logos of particular religions, or dressing as demanded by those in charge, when working in government offices would seem, in those circs, to be something the government could proscribe. And, under the constitution, should.
The UK has a religion as part of government. The HoL has seats for vicars of the state religions. They can vote on stuff that has a bearing on us, and in particular m, and I'm against such restrictions. I want to be free of them, but can't be.
A crucifix is nothing more than a logo of some christian religions. I shows adherence to certain beliefs and restrictions. That is why, one presumes, they are worn. They promote. It is not a freedom of expression matter. It's freedom to advertise.
Murph7355 said:
Countdown said:
Let's be honest. there's only one religion this is going to have a significant impact on - it's Muslims. I can't recall the last time i saw somebody in a Public Sector role wearing a kippah, a Turban, or a cross.
Given that "Religion" is a Protected Characteristic in the UK I'm not sure how it would be implemented here.
There was a case a while ago of a woman (worked for BA?) told not to wear a cross... Given that "Religion" is a Protected Characteristic in the UK I'm not sure how it would be implemented here.
Daily Mail said:
British Airways check-in clerk Nadia Eweida triumphed over the airline yesterday after a six-year battle to wear her cross at work.
Her right to profess her religious belief should have trumped the airline’s powers to mould its image by imposing petty uniform rules on its staff, European judges declared.
A ‘jubilant’ Miss Eweida, who had lost at a string of hearings in Britain, said her first reaction to the ruling had been to say: ‘Thank you, Jesus.’
Her right to profess her religious belief should have trumped the airline’s powers to mould its image by imposing petty uniform rules on its staff, European judges declared.
A ‘jubilant’ Miss Eweida, who had lost at a string of hearings in Britain, said her first reaction to the ruling had been to say: ‘Thank you, Jesus.’
Countdown said:
Murph7355 said:
Countdown said:
Let's be honest. there's only one religion this is going to have a significant impact on - it's Muslims. I can't recall the last time i saw somebody in a Public Sector role wearing a kippah, a Turban, or a cross.
Given that "Religion" is a Protected Characteristic in the UK I'm not sure how it would be implemented here.
There was a case a while ago of a woman (worked for BA?) told not to wear a cross... Given that "Religion" is a Protected Characteristic in the UK I'm not sure how it would be implemented here.
Daily Mail said:
British Airways check-in clerk Nadia Eweida triumphed over the airline yesterday after a six-year battle to wear her cross at work.
Her right to profess her religious belief should have trumped the airline’s powers to mould its image by imposing petty uniform rules on its staff, European judges declared.
A ‘jubilant’ Miss Eweida, who had lost at a string of hearings in Britain, said her first reaction to the ruling had been to say: ‘Thank you, Jesus.’
Her right to profess her religious belief should have trumped the airline’s powers to mould its image by imposing petty uniform rules on its staff, European judges declared.
A ‘jubilant’ Miss Eweida, who had lost at a string of hearings in Britain, said her first reaction to the ruling had been to say: ‘Thank you, Jesus.’
MikeM6 said:
crankedup5 said:
Your correct, I am reminded now of an air steward being banned from wearing her crucifix whilst on duty. I’m not sure that making workers into non thinking drones is beneficially.
Not non thinking, just keeping some of their thinking to themselves.Countdown said:
Murph7355 said:
Countdown said:
Let's be honest. there's only one religion this is going to have a significant impact on - it's Muslims. I can't recall the last time i saw somebody in a Public Sector role wearing a kippah, a Turban, or a cross.
Given that "Religion" is a Protected Characteristic in the UK I'm not sure how it would be implemented here.
There was a case a while ago of a woman (worked for BA?) told not to wear a cross... Given that "Religion" is a Protected Characteristic in the UK I'm not sure how it would be implemented here.
Daily Mail said:
British Airways check-in clerk Nadia Eweida triumphed over the airline yesterday after a six-year battle to wear her cross at work.
Her right to profess her religious belief should have trumped the airline’s powers to mould its image by imposing petty uniform rules on its staff, European judges declared.
A ‘jubilant’ Miss Eweida, who had lost at a string of hearings in Britain, said her first reaction to the ruling had been to say: ‘Thank you, Jesus.’
Her right to profess her religious belief should have trumped the airline’s powers to mould its image by imposing petty uniform rules on its staff, European judges declared.
A ‘jubilant’ Miss Eweida, who had lost at a string of hearings in Britain, said her first reaction to the ruling had been to say: ‘Thank you, Jesus.’
Was aware of the case but not the ultimate outcome....I'm not sure what that case supports any which way though.
British courts seem to not have been bothered by religion being a protected characteristic? European ones begged to differ. etc.
Of all the things for governments and politicians to fiddle with, this doesn't seem like it should be up there regardless.
crankedup5 said:
MikeM6 said:
crankedup5 said:
Your correct, I am reminded now of an air steward being banned from wearing her crucifix whilst on duty. I’m not sure that making workers into non thinking drones is beneficially.
Not non thinking, just keeping some of their thinking to themselves.Given how divisive religion is, and how if you believe in one of the gods there are plenty of people who will say it's the wrong one, would being discreet about it not be wiser for all, especially if in a position of authority or providing a service? Would a Jewish social worker be wise to wear religious items when visiting a Muslim family? Or vice versa? Or is it better, for everyone's sake, if they just kept their personal beliefs to themselves?
Drumroll said:
Countdown said:
Let's be honest. there's only one religion this is going to have a significant impact on - it's Muslims. I can't recall the last time i saw somebody in a Public Sector role wearing a kippah, a Turban, or a cross.
Given that "Religion" is a Protected Characteristic in the UK I'm not sure how it would be implemented here.
And the fact that it will impact Muslims more than any other religion, I wonder if that could constitute discrimination?Given that "Religion" is a Protected Characteristic in the UK I'm not sure how it would be implemented here.
I don't actually have a problem with the Hijab or a Turban or a Kippah. A small cross is hardly even noticeable.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff