Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Truth About Islam -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lorne who wrote (2425)	10/15/2006 4:37:30 AM
From: FJB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20106

In all fairness, there are devout Christian pharmacists doing the same.

To: lorne who wrote (2425)	10/16/2006 8:38:37 AM
From: Proud_Infidel	Respond to of 20106

BA suspends a Christian for wearing a cross - but lets Muslims wear hijabs Christian BA employee to take legal action over suspension for wearing cross By JANE MERRICK Nadia Eweida: BA said she had failed to comply with their 'uniform regulations' A committed Christian said today she planned to take legal action against her employers British Airways after the airline ruled that displaying her crucifix breached uniform rules Heathrow check-in worker Nadia Eweida was sent home after refusing to remove the crucifix which breached BA's dress code. Her treatment by BA - which styles itself as the "world's favourite airline" - brought condemnation both from Christian groups and members of other faiths last night. BA's chief executive Willie Walsh has upheld the action against Miss Eweida for failing to comply with "uniform regulations" despite himself coming under fire recently for failing to wear a tie. Miss Eweida, who has an unblemished record during seven years at BA, is suing her employer for religious discrimination after being suspended from work without pay for two weeks. She said her treatment was all the more extraordinary as she and fellow employees had just undergone "diversity training" - including receiving advice from pressure group Stonewall on how to treat gays and lesbians in the workplace. The airline's uniform code states that staff must not wear visible jewellery or other 'adornments' while on duty without permission from management. It makes exceptions for Muslim and Sikh minorities by allowing them to wear hijabs and turbans. Under rules drawn up by BA's 'diversity team' and 'uniform committee', Sikh employees can even wear the traditional iron bangle - even though this would usually be classed as jewellery - while Muslim workers are also allowed prayer breaks during work time. But Miss Eweida, 55, from Twickenham, insisted her cross, which is smaller than a ten pence piece, was not jewellery but an expression of her deep Christian faith. She questioned why she was being forced to hide her religion when BA's Muslim and Sikh workers could express theirs. Miss Eweida said last night: "I will not hide my belief in the Lord Jesus. British Airways permits Muslims to wear a headscarf, Sikhs to wear a turban and other faiths religious apparel. "Only Christians are forbidden to express their faith. I am a loyal and conscientious employee of British Airways, but I stand up for the rights of all citizens." Her case comes at a time of intense debate over the rights of individuals to express their belief - following Jack Straw's call for Muslim women to remove their veils. Earlier this month it emerged BBC governors had agonised over whether newsreader Fiona Bruce should wear a small cross on a chain around her neck while on air in case it might cause offence by suggesting a religious affiliation. Miss Eweida, a Coptic Christian whose father is Egyptian and mother English, was ordered to remove her cross or hide it beneath a company cravat by a duty manager at Heathrow's Terminal 4 last month. She then sought permission from management to wear the chain - but was turned down. When Miss Eweida, who is unmarried, refused to remove the necklace she was offered the choice of suspension with pay or unpaid leave, pending a disciplinary hearing. Following a meeting with her managers on 22 September 2006, Customer Service Manager Caroline Girling told Miss Eweida in a letter: "You have been sent home because you have failed to comply with a reasonable request. "You were asked to cover up or remove your cross and chain which you refused to do. "British Airways uniform standards stipulate that adornments of any kind are not to be worn with the uniform." In a letter to Miss Eweida's MP, Vince Cable, last week, BA chief executive Willie Walsh insisted his employee had not yet been disciplined but said she was off work for failing to comply with "uniform regulations". He added: "We have previously made changes to our uniform policy to accommodate requests, after a detailed evaluation process including Health and Safety assessment to incorporate the wearing of Sikh bangles." But Miss Eweida said: "BA refuses to recognise the wearing of a cross as a manifestation of the Christian faith, but rather defines it as a piece of decorative jewellery. "I would like to say how disappointed I am in this decision and the lack of respect shown by BA towards the Christian faith. "I have been badly treated. I am a loyal and hardworking employee and for seeking similar rights to other employees, I have been treated harshly by British Airways management. "British Airway can be great again, but it needs to treat Christians fairly. I am not ashamed of my faith." Miss Eweida is suing BA under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. Her case is being supported by her union, the TGWU, and she has hired Paul Diamond, a barrister specialising in religious affairs and an adviser for the Keep Sunday Special campaign, to represent her at her employment tribunal. And a petition of support has been signed by more than 200 fellow workers. BA is already at the centre of a criminal investigation into alleged price-fixing - which has led to the resignations of two executives. The airline has come under fire in the past for its adherence to political correctness. A decade ago it attempted to ditch its traditional Union Flag tailfin in favour of an ethnic design - which provoked the anger of Baroness Thatcher. Mr Cable, MP for Twickenham and Liberal Democrat deputy leader said: "It is absolutely mind boggling that Britain's flag-carrying airline could treat its employees in such a disgraceful and petty manner. "Nadia is a devout Christian who was displaying her faith, but in a modest and totally unprovocative manner. "It is absolutely right that other religious minorities be allowed exemption from the dress code, but why can't a Christian be treated in the same way?" Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, international director of the Christian charity the Barnabas Fund, said: "Discrimination against Christians is commonplace in Muslim-majority contexts, such as Egypt where Nadia's family roots are. "Now we see the same thing increasingly happening within the UK. "Her Sikh and Muslim colleagues at BA can show their faith publicly in what they wear, but Nadia and other Christians cannot. All we are asking for is a level playing field for all faiths." Andrea Williams of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship said: "The forces of political correctness are such that an individual needs to be very determined to protect their rights." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Everyday, American Congress for Truth (ACT) is a 501c3 non profit organization on the front lines fighting for you in meeting with politicians, decision makers, speaking on college campuses and planning events to educate and inform the public about the threat of radical Muslim fundamentalists to world peace. We are committed to combating the global upsurge of hate and intolerance. To continue and bolster our efforts, we need your continued solidarity, activism and financial support. We are only as strong as our supporters. We thank you for helping us carry on this important work. ACT, P.O.Box 6884, Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Email: info@americancongressfortruth.com

To: lorne who wrote (2425)	10/16/2006 2:59:52 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20106

Birmingham bans Muslim medicos from wearing veils (UK) ndtv.com ^ \| 10/16/2006 \| Staff ndtv.com In a move that could further fuel the already raging controversy in Britain, Hospitals in Birmingham city have banned Muslim medicos from donning full-face veils. The ban on wearing of a full-face veil by Muslim women was ordered at Birmingham University School of Medicine to "help to aid good communications" between Muslim medical students, their colleagues and patients. It said that Islamic women can cover their faces in lectures and around campus but not in the "clinical environments" of hospital buildings and GPs' surgeries. Women Muslim students must show their faces if they are talking to patients in hospital or surgery or if they are in meetings with other medical staff. The school has 450 students of all faiths and sends them for practice to a number of different hospitals and primary care units, including the University Hospital of Birmingham NHS Trust. The city has a large population of Muslims of South Asian origin. Only in the sterile surroundings of an operating theatre can they cover their faces - with regulation surgical masks. Better communication A spokesman said, "We do not place restrictions on the wearing of headscarves by staff or students, except in cases where they are required to work in a clinical environment." "This is particularly the case when it involves direct contact with patients. In these cases students are allowed to wear a headdress as part of their religious observance, as long as it does not cover the face.” "This is necessary to help aid communications with patients and other colleagues," the spokesman said. The move comes amidst a nationwide debate over wearing of veil sparked by Commons Leader Jack Straw's comments that he asks Muslim women to remove their veils when they visit his constituency office in Blackburn, northwest England. He felt the veil made community relations "difficult" and removing it would improve communication. Muslim Labour MP Khalid Mahmood, whose constituency is in Birmingham, said "We have to consider the safety and security of all, as there are times when people must be identified." "Removal is fine where professional issues are called into question, when doctors and nurses meet with patients," he added.