veil or cross

Mancie · 16-10-2006, 05:38

The papers and media have got a thing going on about a women suspended for wearing a full veil and another suspended by BA for wearing a neck cross.
so do you think both should be sacked or what?... or is it just a storm in a teacup and we are all being drawn into this rubbish by the press?

WillowTheWhisp · 16-10-2006, 06:58

The press doesn't half enjoy trying to get people all fired up against each other and if there's any little thing that smacks of prejudice oh boy don't they report it in all its exaggerated glory! Then people jump on the bandwagon and before you know it they're complaining about something somebody didn't exactly say or do or think in the first place instead of just calmly looking for real facts.

I don't think anyone should be sacked for wearing a cross, or be asked to remove it. Provided it doesn't present a hazard then everyone should be entitled to wear their own little somethongs like that. As for the veil, was it actually a problem for the children in the class? If so then yes asking the teaching assistant to remove it wasn't unreasonable and shouldn't be seen as such. If it was preventing the children from learning the language she was trying to teach them then it was interfering with her job.

If. however, it wasn't interfering with her job then it shouldn't have been an issue.

jimmi5bellies · 16-10-2006, 07:50

When learning to speak, or anybody with hearing difficulties rely on watching the movement of the lips and facial expressions. So therefore if this woman refuses to remove the veil then yes, she should be sacked. I also think women should be banned from driving a car with these veils on, they are a danger and limit what they can see.

As for the cross, if its tucked away under her clothes i dont see any issue with it. I would say the same for any religious symbol if it was tucked away under clothing.

WillowTheWhisp · 16-10-2006, 07:55

I'd have no problem with a non-tucked away religious symbol provided it didn't stop them functioning. I was told recently by a pagan gentleman of a nurse refusing to treat him because he was wearing a pentagram and she was a catholic and saw it as "Satanic". Nice Christian attitude there.

jimmi5bellies · 16-10-2006, 08:01

Sorry, after reading willows bit, i havnt got a problem with religious icons being on display. When i meant tucked under clothes, i meant whilst in a working enviroment.

Sorry, its Monday !

garinda · 16-10-2006, 08:03

Apparently BA have no problem with anyone wearing a crucifix, or any other pendant jewellery, with or without religious significance, when worn under their uniform, but not over it. This women wasn't sacked, she had been suspended because of her refusal to wear the required uniform, as stipulated in her employment contract.

As for the teacher who insists in teaching fully veiled if any male colleagues are present, she is hindering the education of her pupils, and should find another career were she can wear what she likes, or be sacked.

WillowTheWhisp · 16-10-2006, 08:04

So they don't dangle in the way you mean? I'd say the same about a locket or any pendant or similar too, especially if working with machinery.

garinda · 16-10-2006, 08:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

So they don't dangle in the way you mean? I'd say the same about a locket or any pendant or similar too, especially if working with machinery.

Exactly, but this silly woman knew the rules about the uniform the job required, but now has the backing of her union in fighting for her religious 'freedom'.

The same rules applies to any pendant, be it a Star of David, or even a pagan symbol.

WillowTheWhisp · 16-10-2006, 08:18

It's all about bandwagons and jumping on them to cause hassle.

jimmi5bellies · 16-10-2006, 08:38

Yes willow, i mean for health and safety reasons.

grannyclaret · 16-10-2006, 10:50

if all the children came to class wearing those outfits ,she would have a whale of a time wondering who was who,,and i bet she would be off to complain that she was under preasure...ITS JUST GETTING STUPID

lettie · 16-10-2006, 13:29

I agree that the teacher should not be wearing a full veil in front of a class of small children whilst trying to teach. I believe (from the news) that she was told prior to taking the job that the veil would not be appropriate but that she could wear the headdress with her face visible. So basically she has brought it on herself and is trying to get a bit of publicity.

As to the crucifix.. If a company has a no jewellery policy then that policy, for whatever reason it is in place applies to all employees. There is a no jewellery policy within hospitals amongst nursing staff and staff with direct patient contact. This is for health and safety reasons as rings with stones and bracelets can cause injury to patients during treatments and care. Necklaces and earrings can be grabbed by confused patients who sometimes flail about in bed and grab out at whatever they can reach.. So therefore, a crucifix should not be worn by a nurse/midwife/auxillary (wedding rings are allowed).

We all know that rules are there to be broken (and many nurses do), but the managers are now starting to enforce the uniform policy once again. If BA has a no jewellery rule within its' uniform policy, this will include a crucifix so therefore the woman has brought it on herself and is trying to get a bit of publicity.

When you accept a job you are accepting your employer's rules. IMO, if you can't live with those rules then don't take the job.

garinda · 16-10-2006, 13:36

Quite agree with Lettie. If the rules were brought in re:jewellrey, after she had accepted the terms of her employment, she might have a case. BA have said she can wear her crucifix, but it must be worn under her cravat.

If you don't like the rules, you aren't forced to work anywhere.

Sounds like a trouble maker, just like the veiled teacher.

I'd sack 'em both.

grego · 16-10-2006, 13:41

I saw the crucufix women on GMTV this morning and it was obvious to me she's just jumping on the band waggon, she was well aware that she's able to wear her crucufix under her blouse, BA must be made up with the amount of publicity the're getting, all free!!

garinda · 16-10-2006, 13:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by grego

I saw the crucufix women on GMTV this morning and it was obvious to me she's just jumping on the band waggon, she was well aware that she's able to wear her crucufix under her blouse, BA must be made up with the amount of publicity the're getting, all free!!

Another positive outcome, because she said she's boycotting them, is that if you book a ticket with BA now, you won't have to sit next to the oudious Anne Widdecombe!