UK: employer can ban the wearing of cross

Remove all ads!

The news:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...ht-to-wear-cross-at-work-says-Government.html

My points:

1) Is this religious freedom?

2) And yes, I'm going to point at others (in this case, UK), when the freedom of religion is questioned regarding Hungary (due to a law which states that the parliament can decide which institutions can operate as a church and which can't). Simply because the Hungarian one can indeed be a bit problematic law (as it's non-normative, but fully constitutional), but it doesn't violate religious freedom. Those organizations that don't get a church status can still become formally "religious institutions". And the people can still freely decide their religion, the law absolutely doesn't regulate this! The UK regulation, however, enables employers to ban wearing a cross, which is a very rude discrimination and intrusion to the religious freedom.

3) OK, let's assume employers should be allowed for such severe intrusions to personal decisions. What would happen if someone implemented a similar rule regarding homosexuals?!

4) Regarding my common arguing in terms of "double standards" (Hungary vs. other countries): I keep getting various arguments, starting with "why you point at others instead of dealing with your own problem and listening to criticism" to "it's totally irrelevant when the topic is Hungary". Even the international law has an important element: the prohibition of discrimination regarding countries as well. To be brief, it's called non-discrimination of states when a certain examination or procedure is implemented towards a given state. So the mentioning of a "double standard" is very serious and relevant argument, just go ask any international lawyer. If EU is babbling about equality and non-discrimination all the time, and lets other countries get away with bigger issues while Hungary is attacked for small (alleged) legal issues, where is equality and non-discrimination here?

5) As far as I notice, in my threads, many of those who disagreed me do so based on emotions and personal impressions. I'll explain why. First of all, I'm aware of the fact that few of my arguments weren't strictly precise and understandable from a legal point of view (in such cases, I simply don't think it can be explained to foreigners who miss the historical and specific context, therefore only Hungarians can understand them truly, and only Hungarians know that we're still a school example of democracy). So I don't expect forum members to agree with me in those particular issues (obviously, you can think that Hungarians are a victim of demagogy and they don't notice their fading democratic system). But when I'm offering clearly factual arguments (e.g. HERE) (which are totally independent of Hungarian emotions or historical contexts), and I'm getting exactly what I'm accused with (= ignoring valid points entirely, blindly), then I think it must be a personal sympathy issue, nothing else. Are factual information-based arguments valid only as long as Ragusa offers them? Once I do so, they are bull****? If they are not, how come everyone is quiet when I make a clearly factual post (without arguing with any historical/cultural specifics), but truly loud against me when e.g. Ragusa does the same?

I don't want to hurt anyone, but this reminds to some people in my country and in Czechoslovakia. No, they weren't/aren't socialists. They are always what gives the most advantage at that moment (Socialist, Christian etc.). Chameleons. They always join the "horde", the group or party they think to be the most powerful. They follow the common atmosphere. Sometimes I feel the same happening here in BoM: my factually valid points are ignored (and even tried to be ridiculed), for whatever reason (e.g. maybe because other points are not strictly defendable from a legal point of view for those who don't know Hungarian judicial and legislation traditions, or maybe because I'm not a native English speaker and sometimes my style/wording may not be the most clear). Do you teach the same to your children too? To always follow the common atmosphere, to join the apparently "strongest" side? To form viewpoints based on general emotional impressions and apply a double standard when doing so appears to be benetificial? Where are principles?

 

Wait, wait Baronius, doesn't Fidezs, the party you are such strong supporter of in Hungary, hold a majority of the parliamentary seats in Hungary. Don't they dictate the common atmosphere, aren't they the mainstream in current day Hungary? Does that not mean that you are a part of the "horde", the group or party that currently is the most powerful in your country?

 

I'll only address #1 because I have a headache and I don't want to make it worse by getting into the rest of it.

All I can say is, in Canada, I'm pretty sure that any company trying to ban the wearing of a necklace with a cross (or almost any other religious symbol) would have it's symbolic ass kicked. And I fully support said ass kicking.

 

It's about time.

In schools and many workplaces were religious symbolism is restricted back to what is necessary christianity has always been the exception. I don't see why they should get preferential treatment - it should be a blanket ruling that either all religious paraphanelia is allowed, or that if an organisation decides to restrict religious iconography it should cover all that is optional, why should one faith have preference over all the others followed in the UK?

 

You know, I bind myself to principles, not to parties or groups. Principles such as honesty and democracy. I would support (and did support until 2010) Fidesz in the same way if they were in opposition and minority.

So there is a "little" problem with your arguing: I'm not a chameleon, I supported Fidesz and the direction it represents from the beginning, even between 2002-2010 when they were in opposition and didn't have any power. On a side note, in 2002, I wasn't against socialists either (I mean, I didn't think it would be a tragedy if they win the election), so not that I'm a Fidesz "partisan". But when, slowly, I noticed in 2004 that socialists are ruining the country and stealing all money, I realized that they must not be supported in any way.

This is a pragmatic approach. Where is the principle here? My opinion is that as long as you don't hurt someone else and (e.g. in workplaces) the work is not hindered in any way, people should be allowed to freely choose what they wear (if it's good taste, etc.). And as far as I can see, a necklace with a cross does not hurt anyone. ANYONE. Religious freedom, which EU and the USA considers so important, is also about this: if you don't hurt anyone with it, the law must guarantee that you can use/wear it.

 

I really really love your caveat there Baronius, who decides what is good taste then? If I get you correctly, what you are saying is that people should be allowed to wear anything they want. As long as it is in good taste and doesn't offend anyone, which for example a religious symbol might do or an anti-religious symbol might do. How about a t-shirt with Muhammad portrayed as a dog? Or a necklace with Jesus kissing another man? Where is the line for good taste?

 

It's not an easy question for sure. But the solution can't be what UK does: allowing discrimination in certain cases and prohibiting it in other cases (e.g. the case of homosexual equality etc.) (it can be read that this cross-banning issue is a reaction of the UK government to Vatican's criticism on the planned law about homosexual marriage).

My answer is that it's a hard question but the balance between TRADITIONS and freedom rights must be found.

An example to TRADITION: you can wear a cross, you can wear some random funny symbol, but you can't wear a swastika. This has clear historical reasons.

If someone is offended by a cross or by Muhammad portrayed as a dog, I can also be offended when I see two men kissing (on a photo, or in reality). But I'm not. Because they don't hurt me with it. I'm pretty liberal in this respect. They don't hurt me with it, but they would hurt a lot of people with a swastica or with a Communist red star*. Because millions of people suffered and died due to the regimes that used those symbols.

By good taste, I meant that wear must conform with the work done (e.g. generally it is not a freedom right of a woman to go to the office in a thong...I mean only in a thong and bra).

*There was an interesting and IMO pretty outrageous issue regarding the Red Star in the recent past, in the Strasbourg Court. I'll open a new thread about it today.

 

Yup, all or nothing gets a vote from me too

 

Same here.

But the law of "not hurting others" can still be applied objectively (and it must be) in several cases. For example, religious trinkets are not offending: they tell something about YOU, but not explicitly attacking someone/something ELSE. This is a good distinguishing factor. A cross doesn't hurt anyone, but a photo of a person peeing on Muhammed's head is unacceptable. (And it's objective: if your religion is to ridicule or humiliate another religion or person, then it's unacceptable, because it doesn't deal with YOU, it deals with something/someone ELSE.) But when there is controversy and ambiguity, I'm on the liberal side: let's allow it. (This doesn't apply to prohibited symbols, of course, such as the swastica, see below.)

And I think we all agree that exceptions on symbols (generally, not just on religious symbols!) must exist. Otherwise everyone would be free to use a swastica or communist red star?!

 

For an example in schools - Many schools have the rule no jewellery except religious symbols. In one of the schools I attended - which was not a religious school - three of my friends had their religious symbols confiscated as they were not crosses or crucifixes. Two of these were stars of david. A teacher wearing an identical necklace, however, was allowed to keep wearing it. The students found it unfair that their expression of faith was considered less important than that of their christian peers and the adults of any faith on the premises. It brought about the expectation that until you reached the sixth form where you were considered mature enough to wear whatever you liked you had to be considered christian. The school simply cited safety and tradition as their reasoning.

In certain workplaces it is of course not in best interests to wear jewellery anyway, thinking chemical laboratories and security positions in particular, and a blanket ban should already be in place. Some places such as local council buildings should probably restrict their employers display of personal faith as well - as working with the public as the face of the government should not portray their personal faiths unless it is relevant to that capacity.

Otherwise very few places actually have reason to limit what a person wears in pride of their faith. There will, unfortunately, always be the occasional nutter that uses this to fuel their own personal prejudices and hatred.

Such example is a woman my step-father used to work with a woman who was catholic and wore the Cross of St Peter. Some other christians not understanding the symbol and refusing to ask decided it was satanic and one of them even attacked her after work for it.

 

Political correctness gone mad, again. Then again, when was it not mad? Political correctness came in when sensibility left.

However, bear in mind what the article actually says. It does not say that crosses will be banned, it says that crosses may be banned. Quite an important difference. Basically an employer, should he so choose, can restrict you from wearing the cross because it is not a requirement to be a Christian. Which I suppose is true. Would anyone actually choose to use that right? I highly doubt it. So it is a bit of a storm in a teacup.

Regarding the banning of the wearing of religious symbols in general, as an atheist, it makes no sense to me. I may not have any symbols to wear, but I would defend the right of others to do so. Maybe except the burqa, especially in areas like airports where it is important that your face be visible. To allow an exception like that would be political correctness gone mad, again.

 

The problem with that is that the Swastika was originally an Indian symbol of luck (or some such, can't remember exactly)...

Proteus, I rely on lip-reading quite a lot and the burqa is a giant pain in the arse! I can't tell you the amount of times I've been told I'm racist because I've told someone I can't understand them as I can't see their mouths. Of course, I'm the bad bugger for not allowing them the freedom to wear what they like

 

I think it came from ancient Iran (it is an actual Aryan symbol), but it seems it was most popular on India. It was a solar or lunar symbol, depending on which side it was "going" to. A lot of groups were using it prior to WWII... Ironically, the Nazis were the latecomers to the party. Damn bandwagoners, ruining it for everyone...

 

Yeah man, that's what I said! Thanks for the info hun, much better than my half remembered history lesson

 

I'm with the all or nothing crowd, although I have to say this wouldn't affect me in the least. I don't wear any religious symbols to begin with, and the only jewelry I ever wear is my wedding band.

 

I feel like I'm in a Hungarian version of "Six Degrees of Bacon".

 

T2->bacon->pig->farmer->goat->bestiality website->Orban

Hey, it works!

 

Discrimination.
Just that.

 

Basically any judge that would rule in favour of banning a cross but wouldn't support a prohibition against wearing whatever messages are supported by militant secularists, needs to revise his Legal Logic 101.

On the face, this case violates Article 9 on a literal level.

As for equality of the right to wear symbols, this is a harder nut to crack. I wouldn't want to ban Muslims from wearing their symbols, even though I don't believe Muhammad was a true prophet. On the other hand, I would prohibit inverted crosses, the purpose of which is to deface the Christian cross. It really pains me to see how people are able to invent a religion practically by their own effort, pretty much creating a cult out of boredom. I would be hesitant to register such cases as religious institutions but ultimately they may have the right. But I'd put my foot down when it came to religions that openly preach evil (e.g. that murder is natural selection).

Another problem here is an employer not making a general rule but targetting individuals with specific commands. This does have a lot of potential to violate privacy or religious freedom and puts the individual in a whole different situation. Especially if this is just because the employer hates a particular religion or is being mean or hooked on power (loves upsetting people because he can).

It's also sad to see how the UK is turning away from its Christian roots, as is whole Europe.

Example of bigotry (or just stupidity):

And this:

I'm not sure the government understands the meaning fo the word "manifestly".

Speaking of manifestly, let's see something manifestly dumb:

Anybody with a bare minimum of general knowledge that even a schoolchild should have, let alone an adult, should be able to grasp the concept of the role of the Ten Commandments in the Christian and Jewish faiths, including the third commandment. Whoever said that worshipping on Sunday was not a core expression of the Christian faith, was an idiot. And a manifest idiot at that. This level of idiocy should be illegal. It's just ill will, it's stupidity.

This said, there is a general decline in education and lack of logical thinking or general knowledge is a significant problem and has been so in the last decades. This may be one of the manifestations of it.