Woman loses fight to wear cross (British Airways; video available)

The BBC ^ | November 20, 2006

[Stoat]

Woman loses fight to wear cross

Ms Eweida said she was standing up for her faith   Ms Eweida interview

A British Airways (BA) employee has lost her fight to openly wear a cross necklace at work at Heathrow.

Nadia Eweida, 55, of Twickenham, has been on unpaid leave since her bosses told her she could not visibly wear her cross at the check-in counter.

She found out she had lost her appeal against the decision by BA when she met with the airline bosses on Monday.

BA denied it had banned the wearing of crosses and said Ms Eweida had a right to a second appeal.

It said its uniform policy stated that such items could be worn if concealed underneath the uniform.

It is important to wear it to express my faith   Nadia Eweida

Ms Eweida said she was effectively "forced" to take unpaid leave after refusing to conceal the symbol.

She said during Monday's meeting, British Airways told her it respected her faith and accepted the cross was not jewellery, but would be standing by its original decision.

Ms Eweida added: "I am fairly disappointed but I'm looking forward to the next stage because the cross is important and the truth will be revealed.

HAVE YOUR SAY If it is acceptable to wear a veil, then yes it should be acceptable to wear a cross too   Chris E, Norwich

"It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them."

Ms Eweida said people of other faiths were allowed to wear visible religious symbols such as headscarves and she wanted to be allowed to do the same.

She has been supported by the country's second most senior Church of England cleric.

Dr John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, has urged BA to reconsider, calling their decision "nonsense".

'Question of practicality'

BA said in a statement: "British Airways has 34,000 uniformed staff, all of whom know they must abide by our uniform policy.

"The policy does not ban staff from wearing a cross. It lays down that personal items of jewellery, including crosses may be worn - but underneath the uniform. Other airlines have the same policy.

"The policy recognises that it is not practical for some religious symbols - such as turbans and hijabs - to be worn underneath the uniform. This is purely a question of practicality. There is no discrimination between faiths.

"In Nadia Eweida's case, she is not suspended and we want her to come back to work. We have explained to her the need to comply with the uniform policy like all her colleagues whatever their faith."

BA said Ms Eweida had been offered a non-uniformed post were she would be able to openly wear her cross but had refused to take it.

She now has seven days to lodge another appeal against the airline's decision.

[Stoat]

See also:

Archbishop derides 'flawed reasoning' of BA cross decision 24dash.com - Communities

Archbishop derides 'flawed reasoning' of BA cross decision

 

Publisher:  Ian Morgan
Published: 20/11/2006 - 16:59:51 PM
 

 

The Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu, today appealed to British Airways to reconsider their decision to refuse the appeal of Nadia Eweida who has lost her fight to openly wear a cross necklace at work at Heathrow.

Referring to the ‘flawed reasoning’ of BA’s decision, which allows male Sikh staff to wear turbans and female Muslim staff to wear hijabs, the Archbishop derided BA’s statement that the decision was “purely a question of practicality” suggesting that BA’s explanation meant an employee turning up for work with a ‘three foot cross must be allowed to wear it because to hide such a cross under their uniform would be impractical’.

The Archbishop also suggested as Britain’s national airline, the company ought to consider the place of the Christian values represented by the Cross.

The Archbishop said: “This decision by British Airways is a nonsense and is based on flawed reasoning.

“The basis for the decision should not be “practicality”, as BA suggests in its statement, but rather whether it impacts on Nadia’s ability to do her job. It is clear that Nadia’s cross does not form an impediment to her ability to carry out her duties at the check in counter. 

“Under BA’s current reasoning, an employee who turned up to work wearing a three foot long cross must be allowed to wear it, because to hide such a cross under their uniform would be impractical. Yet in Nadia’s case a cross of less than three inches is deemed a problem. 

“For me, the Cross is important because it reminds me that God keeps his promises. This horrible instrument of torture now carries something other than the body of that man whom to me is a Saviour and to others is a prophet.

“Wearing a Cross carries with it not only a symbol of our hopes but also a responsibility to act and to live as Christians. This symbol does not point only upwards but also outwards, it reminds us of our duties not only to God but also to one another.

“British Airways needs to look again at this decision and to look at the history of the country it represents, whose culture, laws, heritage and tradition owes so much to the very same symbol it would ban."

[Slings and Arrows]

"The policy recognises that it is not practical for some religious symbols - such as turbans and hijabs - to be worn underneath the uniform. This is purely a question of practicality..."

"...we don't want to be practically beheaded."

[Gideon Reader]

Sad for the poor sincere woman.
Bad for BA.
They lost the right to have me utilize their
airlines for my two, occasionally three yearly
flights.
There are at least two other enterprises leaving
from JFK Int'l for the UK and Europe.
I'll select another.

[GoBucks2002]

She should tell them it's because she is a Muslim. Then she would have no problems at all.

[Stoat]

"The policy recognises that it is not practical for some religious symbols - such as turbans and hijabs - to be worn underneath the uniform. This is purely a question of practicality..."

"...we don't want to be practically beheaded."

Yes, I'm guessing that at least part of the British Airways decision hinges upon the fact that there would be widespread rioting and a focused series of bombings directed at British Airways if they were to equally ban Muslim religious symbols.  They know that Christians won't cause them such troubles.....

"The policy recognises that it is not practical for some religious symbols - such as turbans and hijabs - to be worn underneath the uniform. This is purely a question of practicality..."

"...we don't want to be practically beheaded."

[Eva]

I read on Friday that the Netherlands had banned the public wearing of burkahs. That should be interesting. I can't wait to see them try to enforce the ruling.

[Slings and Arrows]

Got it in one.

[samtheman]

an x'd-out cross would have been ok

[Stoat]

Sad for the poor sincere woman.
Bad for BA.
They lost the right to have me utilize their
airlines for my two, occasionally three yearly
flights.
There are at least two other enterprises leaving
from JFK Int'l for the UK and Europe.
I'll select another.

Sending British Airways a polite note explaining your decision and your rationale as well as including a photocopy of your ticket with the other airline might be a nice touch.

[BlessedBeGod]

...British Airways told her it respected her faith and accepted the cross was not jewellery...

"The policy does not ban staff from wearing a cross. It lays down that personal items of jewellery, including crosses may be worn - but underneath the uniform.

So, which is it? Is it jewellery which must be worn underneath, or isn't it. Make up your minds.

[badbass]

meant an employee turning up for work with a ‘three foot cross must be allowed to wear it because to hide such a cross under their uniform would be impractical’.

This lady really needs to find a 3 foot cross to bring to work. With appropriate notice to all news media of course. Mark my words. Political correctness versus Islam isn't going to cut it, and will be the death of our culture.

[Stoat]

She should tell them it's because she is a Muslim. Then she would have no problems at all.

Yes, considering that Islam is apparently a "make it up as you go and as the need arises" religion, such a pronouncement would be perfectly in keeping with what we have come to expect from Muslims, who will state that their religion either forbids or demands whatever is convenient for them at any given moment.

[Stoat]

I read on Friday that the Netherlands had banned the public wearing of burkahs. That should be interesting. I can't wait to see them try to enforce the ruling.

I will bet you a hot fudge sundae that they will back off from this ruling after the first series of kidnappings, beheadings and Church / Synagogue bombings in Holland..

[kitkat]

***This lady really needs to find a 3 foot cross to bring to work. With appropriate notice to all news media of course. Mark my words.***

True! Also, I'm hoping to read a future article saying that ALL the Christians working for BA in uniform have suddenly turned up for work wearing a cross. BA would have to re-assign them ALL to other jobs. They would have to relent on their stupid rule.

[HOTTIEBOY]

BA said in a statement: "British Airways has 34,000 uniformed staff, all of whom know they must abide by our uniform policy.

"The policy does not ban staff from wearing a cross. It lays down that personal items of jewellery, including crosses may be worn - but underneath the uniform. Other airlines have the same policy.

"In Nadia Eweida's case, she is not suspended and we want her to come back to work.

We have explained to her the need to comply with the uniform policy...

BA said Ms Eweida had been offered a non-uniformed post were she would be able to openly wear her cross but had refused to take it.

When this woman is on her own time she can wear what she wants and preach what she wants.
When she's on BA time, she must do as they say.
Sounds to me like they are trying to compromise with her.

[Stoat]

BA said in a statement: "British Airways has 34,000 uniformed staff, all of whom know they must abide by our uniform policy.

"The policy does not ban staff from wearing a cross. It lays down that personal items of jewellery, including crosses may be worn - but underneath the uniform. Other airlines have the same policy.

"In Nadia Eweida's case, she is not suspended and we want her to come back to work.

We have explained to her the need to comply with the uniform policy...

BA said Ms Eweida had been offered a non-uniformed post were she would be able to openly wear her cross but had refused to take it.

When this woman is on her own time she can wear what she wants and preach what she wants.
When she's on BA time, she must do as they say.
Sounds to me like they are trying to compromise with her.
 

I wouldn't have a problem with it at all if they were to equally ban Muslim religious symbols, such as veils and burquas, niquabs etc.  Those symbolize Islam just as the Cross symbolizes Christianity.

 

[cbkaty]

All Christians see this train coming down the track....it only gets worse....the closer we get...

[par4]

The only way that I can see to stop this nonsense is for all Christian passengers to refuse to deal with any BA personnel wearing turbans, hajibs, whatever those painted on dots are called etc.

Pleasently ask for assistance from someone not wearing religious symbols. It might gum up the works a bit.

[Stoat]

British Airways told her it respected her faith and accepted the cross was not jewellery...

"The policy does not ban staff from wearing a cross. It lays down that personal items of jewellery, including crosses may be worn - but underneath the uniform.

So, which is it? Is it jewellery which must be worn underneath, or isn't it. Make up your minds.
 

Apparently, the only point that their minds are completely made up on is that they will instantly buckle under to the first and most minimal complaint from a Muslim BA employee about a Christian wearing a tiny Cross to work but will never even suggest that Muslim employees follow the same rule.

This lady's faith teaches her that she must wear the Cross, just as the Muslim faith teaches it's adherents that they must wear turbans, niquabs, burqhas, etc.etc.

An across-the-board enforcement of the ban on religious symbols would be the logical (but not the Right) approach, but they know that if they were to lay down the law to Muslims, telling them to wear Western clothing and no turbans they would be on the receiving end of an endless series of kidnappings, beheadings, and bombings focused on British Airways.  So, they take the easy route of just banning Christian symbols because they know that Christians aren't suicide bombers.

British Airways told her it respected her faith and accepted the cross was not jewellery...

"The policy does not ban staff from wearing a cross. It lays down that personal items of jewellery, including crosses may be worn - but underneath the uniform.

So, which is it? Is it jewellery which must be worn underneath, or isn't it. Make up your minds.
 

Apparently, the only point that their minds are completely made up on is that they will instantly buckle under to the first and most minimal complaint from a Muslim BA employee about a Christian wearing a tiny Cross to work but will never even suggest that Muslim employees follow the same rule.

This lady's faith teaches her that she must wear the Cross, just as the Muslim faith teaches it's adherents that they must wear turbans, niquabs, burqhas, etc.etc.

An across-the-board enforcement of the ban on religious symbols would be the logical (but not the Right) approach, but they know that if they were to lay down the law to Muslims, telling them to wear Western clothing and no turbans they would be on the receiving end of an endless series of kidnappings, beheadings, and bombings focused on British Airways.  So, they take the easy route of just banning Christian symbols because they know that Christians aren't suicide bombers.

[HOTTIEBOY]

You would be right.

They have the right to tell her how to dress at work. But they should also make everyone else conform.