est. 2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

What Society Are We Having Forced On Us? – Christian Loses Crucifix Appeal Against British Airways

World citizens, especially Christians following the case of a British Airways check-in assistant Nadia Eweida versus British Airways (BA) would have been extremely disappointed she lost her appeal. In a nutshell the basis for the court case: Eweida, a part-time check-in assistant since 1999, complained about anti-Christian bias after BA introduced a new uniform in…

, , , , , ,
The Crucifix, a cross with the corpus (Body of Christ), is an ancient symbol used within the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican churches, in contrast with some Protestant sects, which use only a simple cross-Wikipedia

World citizens, especially Christians following the case of a British Airways check-in assistant Nadia Eweida versus British Airways (BA) would have been extremely disappointed she lost her appeal.

In a nutshell the basis for the court case:

Eweida, a part-time check-in assistant since 1999, complained about anti-Christian bias after BA introduced a new uniform in 2004 and prohibited the wearing of any adornment around the neck. When she refused to cover up her crucifix, she was sent home and remained unpaid from September 2006 until February 2007.

The positive coming out of the affair is that BA was forced to change its uniform policy and to allow staff to display a faith or charity symbol with the uniform. Unfortunately for Eweida the lost of her appeal on Friday means her claim for lost of earnings of  £120,000  has become a pipe dream. The challenge in law affecting this matter as reported is problems which can arise when an individual asserts that a…practice adopted by an employer conflicts with beliefs which they hold, but which may not only not be shared but may be opposed by others in the workforce.

Court decisions like this one handed down on Friday confirms the widely held notion the law can be an ass at times. What would have provoked BU to use such a disparaging remark towards the office which represents justice?

Why is it Muslims  on religious grounds can invoke the right to wear a burqa face veil and all but a Christian had to suffer the indignity and violation of her Christian religion by being asked to cover-up a symbol of  her faith? What pushes this matter to the sublime is the reality the world is battling a terror threat which has given license to the authorities to treat ordinary citizens like chattel; reminiscent to days of old.

To the apolitical among us, Barbadians would have agreed with the ideal espoused by Prime Minister David Thompson at his most recent press conference, he indicated he is about implementing nation building policies rather than polices weighted towards economics. Decisions such as the one handed down by the British court on Friday will only lend to global societies becoming more fragmented and non-cohesive when similar court decisions are handed down.

46 responses to “What Society Are We Having Forced On Us? – Christian Loses Crucifix Appeal Against British Airways”

  1. Micah Avatar
    Micah

    I don’t see what her problem was. Her EMPLOYERS created a uniform rule which banned the wearing of the “adornment” i.e. her crucifix around her neck. She chose to oppose it. She suffered the consequences. When she is at work, she is being paid by British Airways, and would have been expected to conform to their rules of dress. If she did not like it she had two options-resign; or take off the crucifix while at work, wear it at home and elsewhere, and try and get British Airways to change their rule which did ultimately happen.

  2. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @Micah // February 13, 2010 at 2:39 PM. Man do you ever need to get professional help. If you don’t see the injustice and the affront, then there is nothing anyone can do for you.

  3. David Avatar
    David

    British Airways finds itself in the news, AGAIN!

    BA suspends cabin staff in Facebook row over list of strike-breaking pilots

    Tough action comes in middle of strike ballot as union accuses airline of ‘internet McCarthyism’

    * Buzz up!
    * Digg it

    * Caroline Davies
    * The Guardian, Friday 12 February 2010

    ba

    A pilot trains on a flight simulator near Heathrow. The airline could face strikes from 1 March Photograph: Graeme Robertson

    British Airways has suspended 15 flight attendants who wrote Facebook comments and sent private emails about a “name and shame” list of pilots who volunteered to help break any strike, the Guardian has learned.

    The airline has also demanded that unions reveal the identities of a further 32 members of the cabin crew union, Bassa, who posted messages about the list on a thread on its discussion forum.

    The suspensions come in the middle of a strike ballot, due to close on 22 February, of BA’s 13,000 cabin crew over imposed changes to working practices.

    Unite, the union representing 12,000 BA cabin crew, condemned the airline for bullyboy tactics, claiming some members had been suspended merely because they were Facebook friends of others under investigation.

    A spokesman for BA confirmed “a number of staff” had been suspended while the airline investigated “allegations of reports of staff being threatened”, but would give no further details of the nature of the investigation.

    It confirmed asking Unite “for assistance” in identifying members who had posted “inappropriate comments on the union website”.

    The wave of suspensions began at the weekend, it is understood, after one cabin crew worker acquired a list of 40 pilots who had volunteered to work as cabin stewards should a strike be called. That worker posted a message on a Facebook page saying they had the list, and asking others what should they do with it.

    The list of pilots is not believed to have been published on Facebook, or on the Bassa site, but news of its existence spread through private emails forwarded to others.

    Those under investigation received calls from the airline’s management, ordering them to attend meetings at the crew report centre at Heathrow’s Terminal 5. Those meetings have resulted in 17 suspensions so far, it is believed.

    Some of those suspended insist they had not read the Facebook message, nor replied to it, and could only have been suspended on the basis that they were a Facebook friend of the original poster, said sources. Others, who were not Facebook friends, say they were suspended because someone else had messaged news of the list to them through Facebook.

    Unite’s assistant general secretary, Len McCluskey, said: “BA has unleashed a cyberspace witch-hunt. Cabin crew have been suspended simply for being a Facebook friend. This is McCarthyism for the internet age.

    “This bears all the hallmarks of a management drunk on its own machismo, regardless of the damage done to the airline’s image and reputation. It is now time for BA’s management to quit harassing its workforce and get back to negotiating a solution to the dispute.”

    One source said of the disciplinary hearings: “It’s like something out of The Crucible. They were asked: ‘Are you on Facebook? Have you ever engaged in BA-related discussions on Facebook?’ Whatever the answer, they were still suspended. Just commenting on the existence of the list, it seems, is enough to get someone suspended.”

    Some staff being investigated, it is understood, had received and forwarded, in separate private emails, a separate list of names of BA “strike-breaker” staff enrolled on the airline’s cabin crew course, which started two weeks ago to retrain non-flying staff to perform steward duties.

    Letters given to suspended staff say: “You have been suspended because of allegations that, in relation to your activity on Facebook, you took part in conduct likely to harass a BA colleague and/or incited others to take part in such conduct.”

    The allegation is also of having “committed serious breaches under BA’s data protection policy by accessing and using, or attempting to access and use, personal data of a BA colleague or colleagues for illegitimate and/or unauthorised purposes”.

    They now face a “preliminary investigation” and, ultimately, possible dismissal for gross misconduct.

    Willie Walsh, the BA chief executive, last month called for volunteers from the airline’s non-flying staff, such as baggage handlers and check-in agents, to retrain to work as cabin crew during any strike “to keep our customers flying”.

    If the strike ballot succeeds, as seems likely, the first possible strikes could be on 1 March.

    Pilots are crucial to BA’s strike contingency plans as they provide a ready-made workforce by already possessing the necessary criminal record checks and special visas required to work at US destinations, which account for 70% of BA flights. They require three days retraining, compared to three weeks for other BA staff.

    BA and Unite are awaiting a high court ruling on whether the airline broke crew contracts by imposing changes in working conditions.

  4. jeff cumberbatch Avatar
    jeff cumberbatch

    I agree with Micah. The rule applied to any adornment worn around the neck, including ankhs, stars of david, crucifixes, peace symbols, keys and sharks’ teeth. References to Ms Eweida’s faith are purely emotive and irrelevant. She could not wear a crucifix, not, however, because it was a crucifix; but because it was “an adornment around the neck”!

  5. David Avatar
    David

    @jeff

    You have not addressed the issue of the burqa. How can we build a society when we have laws which do not align with societal norms and expectations?

  6. jeff cumberbatch Avatar
    jeff cumberbatch

    @ David

    What burqa? I am not aware of any burqa in the case, but a law which specifically forbids the wearing of a burqa may be questioned on constitutional grounds as would one which specifically forbade the wearing of a crucifix. But this rule merely prohibited “the wearing of any adornment around the neck”.

  7. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    Let me see if I get this right. Was the embargo about wearing jewellry, or was it about wearing a religeous symbol? It seems to me that if BA has no embargo on jewellry, then it is an abuse of civil rights for BA to dictate, other than in general terms (size or even colour) what form that jewellry ought to take.

    However, BA LOST THE CASE to prevent the lady from wearing her crucifix. So, my point is proved. What BA won was the right to not pay her compensation – but know what, folks, an appeal is filed – and what is the betting that the judge will be overturned on appeal?

    So, @Jeff, are we going to wait for that outcome, or will you vacate your position now?

  8. David Avatar
    David

    @jeff

    Forget the law for a moment.

    Do you think an emplyee who wears a symbol to identify with their faith should be made to feel persecuted?

  9. jeff cumberbatch Avatar
    jeff cumberbatch

    Amused, could you please point me to evidence that BA lost the case to prevent the lady from wearing her crucifix? She was the one who appealed! They changed their policy, but not by order of the court. Read the extract from The Times supplied by David.

  10. jeff cumberbatch Avatar
    jeff cumberbatch

    Just saw your comment, David. Of course not. But was it really about a cross?

  11. David Avatar
    David

    @Jeff

    You are probably correct that the focus by BA was about adornment. However the fact BA changed its uniform policy after the challenge this matter should not have been allowed to reach the court by the HOUR Dept of BA. Its all about equity.

  12. ac Avatar
    ac

    I wonder why would lawyers take on a case in which the policy of BA was very clearly stated.therewas nogrounds for any form of religious discrimination since just about every adornment was included.

  13. ac Avatar
    ac

    @David
    The media attention surrounding the case was in part what caused BA to change its policywhich allowed faith and charity symbols. However BA was right to pursue on the grounds the lady was not being discriminated .

  14. Avatar
    Anonymous

    I agree fully with Micah,i also agree with supending employees over the facebook issue till its properly investigated

  15. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    The Banks have a policy about the wearing of helmets in its places of business. The purpose is not to allow anybody to enter its premises, seemingly legitimately, to perpetrate a crime in anonymity.

    This would mean that nobody should be allowed to enter the bank with their face covered. To allow a Muslim fully covered into the bank would be a breach of this security policy. It could be a criminal in disguise.

    One of the problems I have with religion is that in its attempt to assert itself, it is really infringing on others. If you are not a Communist, why would you have emigrated to Russia in the Cold War?

    I think that if you go to some one’s house or country, you should conform to the rules as much as you expect that if a person comes to yours they will conform to yours.

    The eating of dogs is part of the culture of some, but when they come here, they may be prosecuted for cruelty to animals. Rastafarians are discriminated against because hemp is illegal.

    I believe too that soldiers were not allowed to have any jewelry on their uniforms. So where is the rationale? Jewelry and adornments are not allowed on school uniforms either and if a student want to vary their uniform to conform to religion, then they have to seek permission from the Ministry of Education.

    Exactly where are we going with this? It seems that my rights must be infringed because somebody has a belief. Like the so-call christians who come and set up in front your house blasting at your inconvenience, but think they have the right because they saying god or christ.

    For sure, that is illegal. The law may allow you to preach your religion, but not disturb an entire community.

  16. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    “Why is it Muslims on religious grounds can invoke the right to wear a burqa face veil and all but a Christian had to suffer the indignity and violation of her Christian religion by being asked to cover-up a symbol of her faith?”

    This is a very unfair comment considering the amount of discrimination which christianity perpetrates. This is not a violation of any religion; “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s”.

    What is the purpose of wearing the cross? To pray in a public place? To let people know you are a church-goer? Is that the purpose of the religion? When you consider the rules of the army, there is no way she could have won.

    Imagine that we have a parade of the uniformed groups and an Indian wants to wear a sari, claiming that her rights are being infringed and that she has a right to parade without uniform? What is the purpose of the parade? What is the meaning of uniform? She may have a right to parade, but in uniform.

  17. David Avatar
    David

    @ROK

    What is the purpose of having laws in a society?

    Who or what influences the law in any society?

    Is it fair to compare laws across national borders if our societies are suppose to have unique cultures?

    What has us puzzled is what body of laws we want to build to get to the society we want. In other words do we fight the battles but lose the war.

    BA was insensitive in its actions towards this employee. It is why it has evoked such consternation in GB.

  18. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Let me say I agree with Micah. Follow normal civilize approaches to correct a perceived wrong. Breaking laws to effect the change should be an absolute last resort, not the first.

    However BA’s “no neck adornment policy” is disengenous. This policy came about as a result of religous sensitivities, and BA’s wish to respect the religous beliefs of others.

    The way it is being enforce demonstrates this to be, not the case. It is the sensitivities and beliefs of non-christians that are being protected at the expense of Christians.

    How does BA and it’s backers interpret the following:

    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.

    BA said items such as HIJABS and bangles could be worn ‘as it is not practical for staff to conceal them beneath their uniforms’.

  19. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    BA was insensitive in its actions towards this employee. It is why it has evoked such consternation in GB.
    ————————————————–
    The Brits make me laugh. I am honestly looking for them to use intellectual reasoning , to conclude that they should no longer exist as a people.

    LONDON, England 2005 (CNN) — British prison officers who wore a St. George’s Cross tie-pin have been ticked off by the jails watchdog over concerns about the symbol’s racist connotations.

    The pins showing the English flag — which has often raised hackles due to its connection with the Crusades of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries — could be “misconstrued,” Chief Inspector of Prisons Anne Owers said in a section on race in a report on a jail in the northern English city of Wakefield.

  20. David Avatar
    David

    @ROk

    Maybe BU’s argument is a little esoteric. Let us try another angle amd feel free to punch as many holes as you can because this case has put us in a quandary. We are not so much concerned with the law at this time but projecting the kind of society we may evolve to.

    Laws are established to protect citizens from each other, Jeff can fancy up the definition which we know is simplistic.

    If people are guaranteed the right to practice their religion of choice.

    If an employee of BA wears a crucifix which is reflective of her religion i.e it reminds her of her faith whatever. Can’t we assume the public she serves should be of the mind to accept they are being attended by a Christian and don’t feel offended?

    If BA had as a uniform policy that adornments should not be extravagant and outlined guidelines for wearing chains, bracelets etc and sizes wouldn’t that have been the more sensitive approach?

    Brother Rok all of the BU family know your position on religion but this is not about religion it is about a sensitive employer operating in a multi-cultural market. How can one have a one size fit all approach in such an environment? The women deserves to be paid for lost of earnings.

  21. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    @David,

    Please address the rules of the army and schools. I do not think that BA will insist that she takes it off, just not let it be seen on the uniform but she can wear it around her neck. Same with the army. Question is, why does she want other people to see that she is wearing a symbol. This is a religion that is supposed to abhor idolatry in any form.

    Actually in her religion, she is not required to wear it or even to have it and from this point of view there is no wrong done to her. My point is that when you allow religion to encroach on secular activities, you are setting dangerous precedents.

    The problem is that when you allow it for one you should allow it for all, so wine is legal and Hemp is illegal. Both are drugs but one is discriminated against to satisfy a single economic agenda. Pure hypocrisy.

    Religion cannot be allowed to erode the rights of the citizens and place one group privileged above the rest. We are all equal.

    It is therefore not a question of insensitivity for BA but one of insensitivity on the part of the woman. For example, a Muslim customer may very well avoid a woman with a cross around her neck because they may think that the Christian will discriminate against them. If as you assert that we live in a multi-cultural society, then why can’t employees appear neutral?

    I have problems when I travel to Europe and have to go to immigration officers with these large turbans tied around their heads. Many of them look rather unmannerly and as if they have chips on their shoulders.

    If I had gone to India I would expect that but it is not European and they don’t practice it in their society. It should not a norm in that culture. I have never seen an African Immigration Officer in a dashiki or other African wear. Who are these people that insist on corrupting uniforms? What is their agenda? It can’t be one rule for all except certain people. Discrimination must not be allowed in our society and we should do everything to get the rid of it. You can’t allow one and not the next. Let us address the issue squarely.

    My position on religion is not to disallow it, but as I keep saying, “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” As a manager, my customers may be diverse and I may not want any of my employees to identify my business with any religion, secret order or other belief, based on the mission of my company. If you want to do something else, the answer is so simple, find a job that will allow you to do it.

    Maybe if it was a requirement to wear the cross that it can be seen, then she “may” be entitled to compensation. It is her whim and fancy to wear it and show it; not a religious requirement and not even a norm with christians as to distinguish this from the turban or even the veil which are cultural rather than religious symbology.

  22. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    @David
    “The women deserves to be paid for lost of earnings.”

    On what grounds? She did not work for a year because she insist on flouting the rules? The woman was not even sensible in her approach to dealing with the problem. Actually, she put herself through that based on a belief that she can decide how she is to be Christian.

    If you are not SDA, you will not be excused for refusing to work on Friday nights and Saturdays but you will if you are because it is a requirement of the religion. For this, she would have received compensation and possibly even damages on top.

  23. Micah Avatar
    Micah

    I believe Muslims should be allowed to wear the burqa, unless it crosses into territory such as violation of uniform codes, security issues, or safety considerations for themselves or others. People always have choices as to whether they will allow their religious beliefs to dictate their own behaviour. However they shouldn’t expect that their religious beliefs should be able to dictate the behaviour of others. For the record, I believe British Airways was trying to prevent displays of religious symbolism, and it was not simply a matter of adornment. And I believe that common sense won out when they changed that policy.

  24. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ David

    Can anyone really be ‘… guaranteed the right to practice their religion of choice.”

    Any society that does that is doomed to conflict and strife.
    The problem is that religious folks all feel that God has given them the ‘right’ to practice their weirdness and they are all uncompromising in their misguided zeal….. so tolerance is their last resort. (just check your BU trinity)

    The best solution therefore is to maintain religion-based homogeneous societies where these folks can assemble together and stroke each others egos.

    I agree with ROK. When in Rome, behave like a Roman….. or expect to face the lions.
    I am amazed at the arrogance of people who choose to leave their own country and go to a completely different culture – and expect to have their local norms respected and observed by their hosts…

    What religious freedom what??!!
    …just plain arrogance!!!

  25. jeff cumberbatch Avatar
    jeff cumberbatch

    BA was caught in the same dilemma that confronts societies and corporations when faced with demands for manifestation of religious freedom. Do we allow, in the name of equality, everyone to manifest their religion? Or no one? BA chose the second option, as has the US. Now they have reverted to the first, like Trinidad.

    But the claim for lost earnings is far- fetched. The lady chose to insist on her way or nothing in an organisation not controlled by her. She saw the consequences of such. Christians have no overarching right in these matters.

  26. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    @David

    “British prison officers who wore a St. George’s Cross tie-pin have been ticked off by the jails watchdog over concerns about the symbol’s racist connotations.”

    That was contributed by Adrian. This shows the problems that can arise with symbology. This is a classic example of how discrimination and stigmatisation can perpetrated.

  27. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    @ ROK:
    There isn’t anything inherently wrong with symbolism. It is the very process our Brain uses. The problem is likely to be our continual confusion between a symbol and the thing the symbol represent. The St. Georges cross/flag is featured prominently whenever and wherever English cricket, soccer, and rugby teams are playing. At any rate this banning in the prison was done by a self-righteous Anglo-Saxon liberal. Liberals know you better than yourself.

    @Jeff C, Rok, and Micah:
    Are the Burqa, Hijabs, Muslim headscarves not religious symbols? If not then what are the Muslims in France upset about? Indeed why the French for nearly two decades wrestle with either banning or allowing them?

    In 2007 British Schools won the right to enforce the same.

    British Airways insist that the cross not be shown, it is a religious symbol, but allows the wearing the Hijab, and Patkas (Sheikh head-wear) also religious symbols. What gives?

  28. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    @Jeff C:

    Do we allow, in the name of equality, everyone to manifest their religion? Or no one? BA chose the second option, as has the US.
    ———————————————-

    They must have been a third option. What BA has done isn’t to disallow all religous symbols.

  29. David Avatar
    David

    @Jeff

    BU will be posting our opinion later on this delayed justice going on in Barbados raised by Sir Fred and our no-holds comment on the performance of the outgoing CJ. You should advise your legal friends, we promise it will not be pretty.

  30. Avatar
    Anonymous

    The British National Party has just changed its rules to permit non-white people to apply for membership. I believe that Bush Tea anf ROK may be viable candidates for membership. Bush Tea in particular as he wrote :

    “I agree with ROK. When in Rome, behave like a Roman….. or expect to face the lions. I am amazed at the arrogance of people who choose to leave their own country and go to a completely different culture – and expect to have their local norms respected and observed by their hosts. ” Enoch Powell would be vindicated that even us darkies now understand!

  31. Avatar
    Anonymous

    For those who missed my sarcasm above… when the British went to India or Africa or the West Indies or Australia, they certainly didn’t behave like an Indian, or an African, or a Taino or an Aborigine! I think it is poetic justice that after the enslaved blood, sweat and tears of our forefathers which built Britain, that the same Britain should now at least have to respect the “norms” of Africans, West Indians and Indians.

  32. zion1971 Avatar
    zion1971

    I also beleive in the saying about “when in Rome act like a Roman”. Absolutism is a figment of people imagination. In the context of freedom in the larger society as with every other things there must be trade-offs, compromise, balance and moderation. Most countries that have religious fredom entrenched in their constitution is the freedom based on the dominant religion at home while marginalising the minority religions.

  33. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    Man Anonymous, what kind of unfair logic is that you just put down?

    Invoking Enoch Powell in an emotional attempt to prejudice the discussion? LOL

    Your examples are completely out of place!!

    No one is speaking of peoples moving to different cultures as conquering or INVADING FORCES, but of peaceful guests and visitors.

    As you rightly said, the British got their just punishment when the various ‘commonwealth’ communities chose to travel to London to reclaim their various rightful legacies.
    …actually, Powell was correct from a purely British perspective- but their guilty national consciences folded under the pressure of the emotional arguments against Powell…. now the place is a shambles – serve them right!

    On the other hand, we Bajans never invade anyone (except Grenada, once – partly, and by invitation..) so why should we allow strangers to bring their strange customs to overwhelm our so-far-peaceful society? …we conscience clear….ha ha

  34. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Bush Man

    yuh like yuh wash down wid vaseline tonight…yuh too slippery! I thought we did writing bout England. It can’t be Buhbados that we talking about. We don’t insist pun nothing bout here. Things were going good and some hidiot went an approve a Muslim school and a Closed Bretheren school and waxplaxx it’s ole mass in de place! So since I did writing bout England (and you agree wid evahting I wrote) gimme a big up and buy de next round!

  35. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    No slippage here Anonymous, The Bushman’s coefficient of friction remains quite high…. LOL

    I thought that we were talking about a principle. The writer appears to be more concerned about christian societies discriminating against their own, in favour of other cultures…much like WI cricket Umpires ha ha.

    Agreed it was about England, but I prefer to relate these matters to Bim where there is lots of bush….

    ….still waiting for you to admit that your example of England dominating other cultures ‘viet armis’ was an attempt (and a good one too) to railroad the bush man….

  36. David Avatar
    David

    What we are witnessing in the UK is the full effect of a multiracial society taking hold. Bajans should be grateful for the preview.

  37. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Bush Man

    What we doing letting in marish and parish? We need people bout here? If you ain’t want no turban, nor burqua or what ever wuh we doing letting dem so in de place? Nobody ain’t send fuh dem so logically we should have said “no vacancies in the inn”. Now if some of we own decide dey want to wear turban and ting so be it. My point is if yuh let someone in then accept what yuh get. If I go to Saudi Arabia, I eating pork and drinking Guinness. Well I should say if de Saudis wanted me but we know how dey stand so I ain’t leffing bout here anytime soon.

  38. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Btw I ain’t know wuh viet nam got to do wid dis blog but look at what happen to Amurca when dey went in there to mek trouble! Yuh got to respect dem Vietnamese.

  39. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ David,
    …you mean multicultural, that is even worse than multiracial. There are many of the same race who are at each others throat too

  40. David Avatar
    David

    @Bush Tea

    A Freudian slip.

  41. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Bush Tea and David,

    tell muh, if one a wunnh did decide to cover up wunnuh selves from head to toe wid black cloth so only yuh eyes showing and then walk down de road like that, how long you think it would take before a policeman want to tell yuh someting? Yet…. yuh know de rest.

    I can’t walk in a bank wid a helmet or dark glasses on (duh got signs saying so). I waiting to see one dem people covered up so in de bank.

  42. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    Ha Ha Anonymous… Ya proper! The drinks on Bushman (you having green tea or cocoa tea?)

    Our world is replete with examples of the blind leading the blind – No one even understands why we are here – so what you expect? sensible logical decisions? …man just hang on for the ride and try not to expect too much….

    ..you sure you mean Vietnam? .. cause I ‘Laos’ ha ha

  43. Crusoe Avatar
    Crusoe

    When considering appropriateness of and adherence to rules and customs, the issue must be one of reasonableness.

    Therefore, wearing of specific symbolic or even general sectarian adornments or garb, should consider the implication for the company or body as a whole, not just for oneself.

    If one wears such garb but conceals it, then fine. You have your cake and eat it too.

    But if one is seen to wear it, as flaunting it, it may be perceived as being deliberately provocative.

    Irrespective of religion or sect, one must adhere to rules and norms, in the particular society or segment of society.

    You can do in private, when you leave work, what you wish.

    The interesting issue here is the facebook issue.

    At what point does facebook communication become public, rather than private.

    I would suggest that as facebook is not part of ones work, but home use, even forbidden at most work places, it is purely private material and the employer may be committing an illegality and infrining on a person’s private life when it reviews that person’s facebook page and postings.

    Understood, that it is a publicly available tool, but the information there and the entry to the site is in effect private.

    Understood too, that when one comments on a work matter, one may be opening oneself to the empoyer reviewing comment on that specific matter.

    Nevetheless, if the informaiton so disclosed is opinion only, not confidential data, then the comment must still be viewed as private.

    If one discloses eomployer confidential data, that then becomes available for public consumption, it may be argued that there is a breach, thus opening the comment for employer review.

    Nevertheless, opinion by one on previously disclosed data, is just that i.e. opinion and should be deemed as such, not open to public consumption.

    It is essentially the same as if I comment to a friend in a bar that ‘x’ company works people too hard and I can be overheard. It is an opinion, but does it make me liable for action by the employer?

    That is one issue I would like to see discussed more.

  44. Crusoe Avatar
    Crusoe

    For clarification, consider four examples.

    Supposing a person belongs to a sect that worships a fertility queen, thus wears an adornment on a necklace, showing two people copulating, what is the thought if,

    – the necklace is worn openly

    – the necklace is worn inside the shirt

    Then, supposing a company fires two hundred employees, due to the recession.

    -An existing employee replies to a fired employee, on facebook, that he is sorry that it was done, that he thinks it is disgusting.

    Or,

    – An existing employee replies to a fired employee that he is sorry it was done, but the company had no choice as its overdraft was near the limit and he disclosed the limit (confidential) and how near the limit.

    What do you think are the proper actions for each event?

  45. Matt Avatar
    Matt

    There’s a difference between civil rights discrimination and dress code enforcement.

    Just putting that out there.

  46. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Crusoe, I promise to read your comments again, but for now I do not understand how they relate to BA’s conflicting position on the cross and crucifix religous symbols and the Hijab religous symbol.

    Should Christians alone demonstrate concideration for the company’s rules? Or should Muslims, and Patkas wearing Sheikh do likewise?

    @ Matt
    Ok,now tie this difference into BA interpretation and ruling with regards to religious symbols.?????

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading