Civil Entitlements
The Government submits that the applicants' wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not a manifestation of their religion or belief within the meaning of Article 9, and the restriction on the applicant's wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not an 'interference' with their rights protected by article 9.Now that is astounding. That a civilized country like Britain, so ultra-sensitive to the sensibilities and entitlements of those who immigrate to the country and bring with them customs and values that do not necessarily reflect those which are traditional to the country, are routinely given special consideration. Yet habits and values and customs that reflect what can only be considered the historical norm of its original religious adherents are frowned upon, as being too conspicuous, too potentially upsetting to the larger society.
Two British women have taken a grievance to the European Court of Human Rights in an effort to establish their right to display that most common of Christian symbols, a cross. They see no reason why they should be made to relinquish a symbol that has great meaning for them, while they see around them respect given to those who worship other religions' symbols, through special accommodation.
Claiming that those religious symbols that are not a "requirement" of the faith, should not be worn, acceptance is given for those symbols that those who worship a faith that requires them, for example, to wear a hijab, a turban, a skullcap, should be excepted. Employers may then ban the wearing of the cross, and they may further fire those workers who ignore that ban.
The former Archbishop of Canterbury has taken great exception to the notion that wearing a cross is forbidden, that doing so makes an individual vulnerable to job dismissal. He counters the government's position, accusing it and the courts that uphold its discriminatory decisions, of "dictating" to Christians. He considers the situation yet another facet of Christianity being sidelined institutionally.
The two women claim they have been discriminated against. Their employers having barred them from wearing what to them are sacred symbols of the religion they worship. Their entreaty to the European Court is for a ruling that recognizes this as a breach of their human right to physically manifest their religion by means of a symbolic religious token.
Under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the statement: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practise and observance."
Christians, claim the two women's lawyers, are awarded fewer protections than members of other religious faiths, granted special status for garments or symbols such as the Sikh turban and kara bracelet, or the Muslim hijab. One woman was suspended from her job at British Airways for refusing to remove her cross, in a breach, according to her employers, of the airline's uniform code.
But that code was already breached through the accommodation of other faiths, permitted to wear religious garments and symbols. If a code is not universal, and special courtesies allowed to some, it should, logically, be opened to all, and not selectively. The Court of Appeal refused to uphold her case and would not give her leave to approach the British Supreme Court.
The other woman, a 56-year-old nurse, was barred from continuing her 31-year nursing career. She had refused an order to divest herself of the cross she wore on a necklace chain, or to conceal its presence, and was not permitted to work on her hospital's wards, as a result. According to the government, the two women's application to the Strasbourg court is "manifestly ill-founded".
It is extraordinary that a Conservative government should argue that the wearing of a cross is not a generally recognized practise of the Christian faith. Director of the Christian Legal Centre
posted by Pieface @ Sunday, April 01, 2012
<< Home