| Submit your comments on this article | ||||
| Britain | ||||
| Britis Airlines: fury as it allows Muslim veil, forbids cross | ||||
| 2006-10-26 | ||||
Check-in worker Nadia Eweida has been on unpaid leave for a month after the airline banned her from wearing her tiny cross on a necklace over her uniform.
'The request would be subject to a rigorous review, taking into account practicality, health and safety and security regulations,' said the spokesman. MPs described the latest developments as 'ludicrous', while Miss Eweida said the suggestion that she should take a back room job was 'morally degrading'. She demanded to know why she had to hide her faith from the public when Muslims and Sikhs can openly display theirs by wearing hijabs, turbans, and possibly a full-face veil. BA says Miss Eweida's cross is a breach of its strict dress code.
"I don't see why I should be ostracised and hidden away. This is a threat for other people and their freedom to express their faith. 'If I go back to work I will be wearing my cross for everyone to see. I will not resign - they will have to sack me.' The 55-year-old Heathrow check-in worker can return to her old job, in uniform, if she agrees to remove her cross, but has refused to do so as a matter of principle. The row has attracted international attention as it coincided with Jack Straw's call for Muslim women to remove their veils. Miss Eweida's case has led to a welter of adverse publicity for British Airways, which appeared to have shot itself in the foot once again yesterday when Miss Eweida's boss wrote to her offering the back room job. BA world cargo general manager Mark Gardiner said in the letter that the company needed more time to consider a complaint Miss Eweida had brought against the airline, and a final decision on whether she would be allowed to wear her cross would be made in three weeks' time. Mr Gardiner wrote: 'You can return to work immediately provided you adhere to the current uniform standards. If you do return to work in the terminal you will not be given specific consent to display your cross in the workplace as this would breach the existing Uniform Code.' But he added: 'I am prepared to offer you a temporary non-uniform position in the recruitment team at Cranebank [BA offices at Heathrow]. 'This would enable you to return to work and receive salary. In this position you will also be allowed to display your cross, as you will not be required to wear a uniform.' BA's uniform code bans jewellery from being worn over the top of clothing. But bangles can be worn if they are deemed to be an essential part of someone's religion. British Airways said yesterday it could not discuss the matter because Miss Eweida's case is still being considered, but senior sources at the airline suggested it is unlikely to back down. Chief executive Willie Walsh is understood to believe that if Miss Eweida is allowed to wear her cross, the airline will have to allow all staff to wear jewellery over their uniform - whether religious or not - leaving its uniform policy in tatters.
But critics have accused the airline of hypocrisy, not only because bangles, turbans and hijabs are allowed, but because the cross of St George is displayed as part of the Union Flag on the tailfin of all of its aircraft. Miss Eweida, of Twickenham, south west London, has now launched a second complaint against the airline over its decision to suspend her from work without pay despite a senior executive being given paid gardening leave amid a criminal investigation into alleged price fixing. Commercial director Martin George was paid his £425,000-a-year salary for five months while on leave before he resigned earlier this month. He was also paid a notice period of 12 months salary despite admitting that 'inappropriate conversations' may have taken place in his department. Head of communications Iain Burns, who also resigned, was paid six months of his £150,000 salary when he left the firm over the row. By contrast Miss Eweida, whose salary is thought to be under £30,000, has not received a penny since being sent home last month. Miss Eweida's case - first revealed by the Daily Mail - has been backed by more than 300 fellow BA workers. Her MP, Liberal Democrat deputy leader Vince Cable said: 'To suggest she could return to work but be out of sight is grossly humiliating. She is proud of her position and she will stick to her guns. This makes BA look terrible. It is deeply insulting for BA to suggest that she should hide away because she is wearing her cross. This just adds insult to injury.' Conservative former minister Ann Widdecombe, who has cut up her BA executive card in disgust at the airline, said: 'This is ludicrous. Either someone can wear their cross to work or they cannot. We need to know once and for all.' | ||||
| Posted by:lotp |
| #25 Another thing: (if we don't go back) we've got all this "history" in Europe. For example, think of all the original, priceless historical books, manuscripts, and art work that the muzzies will destroy before the islamic transformation is completed. The architecture is gone, I understand that. But the knowledge that built it we can preserve. When do we begin to transfer that "stuff"? This is one of the main reasons we'll probably end up going back "over there" for a third time. Even without retrieving the wealth of historical artifacts, we'll need to fetch all of the nuclear bombs. I doubt we'd have the temerity to simply blast the entire continent for the sake of neutralizing its atomic weapons. And my synagogue has several Torah scrolls sent over just in time, that survived even though their congregations perished. Don't ask me why, but even this long after the fact, such a statement saddens me beyond belief. It also steels my resolve that if there is to be another holocaust, this one will be for the Muslims. NEVER FORGET. NEVER AGAIN. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-10-26 22:24 |
| #24 What is clear to me is that BA needs to be boycotted... I'd suggest that everyone let them know they will: Oh goodie!! Cheap tickets to London!! |
| Posted by: Contrarian 2006-10-26 22:08 |
| #23 .com, you sure got your money's worth for that English degree. You can write snarky poetry on Rantburg. Colour me impressed. My dear Contrarian, we read what your people say and write. All's not what it appears to be. In more ways than one. |
| Posted by: Contrarian 2006-10-26 22:07 |
| #22 When the time comes, all we'll need do is let it be known that visas are available. They'll come. And I've no doubt that key historical bits and bobs will end up on this side of the pond on short- or long-term museum-to-museum loan. We won't get it all, either people or stuff, but it/they won't all go up in flames, either. My mother and her parents had to go into hiding in Holland because their own visa to the US came up for execution ten years later... and truly grateful they were that by the time the war'd ended so many positions were vacated that they were able to take ship in January, 1946. And my synagogue has several Torah scrolls sent over just in time, that survived even though their congregations perished. My dear Contrarian, we read what your people say and write. No European or Brit would be associated with an airline that was so crass as to actually announce such a policy, but a wink is as good as a nod, as we all know. After all, how many companies accede even yet to the Arab boycott of those doing business with Israel? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-10-26 18:21 |
| #21 What is clear to me is that BA needs to be boycotted... I'd suggest that everyone let them know they will: http://www.britishairways.com/travel/askbainter/public/en_gb?source=TOP_contactus Even if you don't fly often. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2006-10-26 18:00 |
| #20 Game, set and match to .com .... |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-10-26 17:41 |
| #19 I hear you Swampie... I'm saddened because I'm not that far removed from "Europe". My great grandfather came to the USA in the late 1890's. I'm just a third generation American. As much as I hate what the Europeans have become I believe there are still a bunch are worth saving. Some how. Some way. We need to get them out. We need to begin to discuss the best way to get them out if the USA will not go back to fight on their behalf. I'm not entirely sure the decision is final that we won't go back again. Another thing: (if we don't go back) we've got all this "history" in Europe. For example, think of all the original, priceless historical books, manuscripts, and art work that the muzzies will destroy before the islamic transformation is completed. The architecture is gone, I understand that. But the knowledge that built it we can preserve. When do we begin to transfer that "stuff"? Swampie...you think we might be having a discussion not unlike that of a Byzantine emperor may have had a 1000 years ago? You know, like another point in time when islam destroyed a civilization? It just feels too strange to even talk about evacuating Europe at this time....I'm not ready for that conversation. |
| Posted by: Mark Z 2006-10-26 16:08 |
| #18 Mark Z, I don't think there is much of a debate here at RB about going over a third time. If they won't fight for their own damn continent, why the hell should we send our sons and daughters to do it? Look at another article posted here today called "The Rape of Europe". It states that the Dutch are moving out of the Netherlands, and the Muslims are moving in. Look at the French "response" to the riots in the banlieues. And look at this BS where they would potentially allow a stewardess on a BA flight with a niqab, even though it could be a potential safety hazard if her headcovering slips during an evacuation. They know their culture and people better than I do, and in so many little ways, they have decided it's not worth it. Fair enough. It's not worth our blood and treasure then, either. |
| Posted by: Swamp Blondie 2006-10-26 15:30 |
| #17 "No one would want to be associated with an airline like that, despite what you may think of European society". Contrarian: "European Society". You don't even want to go there with the folk that hang out at RB. We're debating amongst ourselves whether it'll be worth the effort to bail Europe out of it's self-made problems "one mo' time" within the past 100 years. Convert, submit, or die Contrarian. Though I don't know you you sure as hell don't sound like someone ready to fight so I know you're not ready to die. Stand your ground Mrs. Eweida. Rest assured you will be evacauted before the muslims consolidate their take over of the Island. Your name will be at the top of our list. We'll remember who you are. |
| Posted by: Mark Z 2006-10-26 14:51 |
| #16 "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah" Indeed. It came to call, sporting a nym-warning to all, It was not to be trifled with or ignored. It blathered a bit, impressed with its own wit, But left the Burg denizens yawning and bored Frustrated, it upped the ante, wadded up its own panties And delivered what it believed a devastating blow. In one parenthetical fart, it confirmed what was known from the start, It's just another hyper-inflated EUrEgo. I offer advice simple: pop yourself, little pimple... If you expect anyone to pay you serious mind. Playing the fool, with such a tiny tiny tool Will only earn you derision in kind. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-26 14:35 |
| #15 I think you're assuming that every other airline is already flying at full capacity Nope. Then I disagree with your reasoning. do you really believe BA would lose more business Yes in fact I do. No one would want to be associated with an airline like that, despite what you may think of European society. What a prissy pissy ponce. "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah" |
| Posted by: Contrarian 2006-10-26 14:20 |
| #14 Contrarian, do you really believe BA would lose more business than it would gain (esp in the highly profitable ME routes) if it banned Jews and advertised a Judenfrei airline? Though it would lose some American business, I have no doubt the extra business from muslim and (sadly) European passengers would vault it into the world's most profitable airline. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-10-26 13:39 |
| #13 I think you're assuming that every other airline is already flying at full capacity Nope. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-10-26 13:27 |
| #12 "probably a loyal Rantburg reader" Lolololol. What a prissy pissy ponce. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-26 13:27 |
| #11 If this were a truly competitive market with few barriers to entry, I'd agree. I think you're assuming that every other airline is already flying at full capacity. I'm arguing that if all Muslims suddenly refused to fly BA, then there's a good chance that Ms. Eweida's check-in counter (or someone else's) could be closed. You mean like "more Arabs fly with BA, so no Jews allowed"? That wouldn't make sense even if it was taken seriously. Sounds to me like an employee (probably a loyal Rantburg reader) trying to be a hero. Fine, but not on your employer's time, lady. |
| Posted by: Contrarian 2006-10-26 13:22 |
| #10 What is clear to me is that BA needs to be boycotted until such time as a "tiny cross on a necklace" is treated the same as a turban or a bindi or a head scarf or a yarmulka or a priest's collar -- which is to say not treated as pertinent to flying at all. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-10-26 12:53 |
| #9 Lol - how diabolically devious, anon! You are my ex! I'm outta here! |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-26 12:48 |
| #8 She's taking the wrong tatic. The rule forbids jewelery. She needs to get one of those flying nun hats - the pointy one - and demand she be allowed to wear it. |
| Posted by: anon 2006-10-26 12:47 |
| #7 If they want to keep the planes full then they should do whatever it takes. You mean like "more Arabs fly with BA, so no Jews allowed"? |
| Posted by: ed 2006-10-26 12:44 |
| #6 Disagree. Commercial airline industry is not open to easy competition. Landing rights are limited and controlled by the government. BA originally had government ownership IIRC and in any case is heavily entwined with government regulations. If this were a truly competitive market with few barriers to entry, I'd agree. But given the status of the industry I'm with Eweida. YMMV of course. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-10-26 12:41 |
| #5 Just stomp the piss outta everyone equally. I'm down wid dat. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-26 12:41 |
| #4 Sorry but I'm on the side of BA on this one. Yes it stinks, yes it's PC, yes it favours one side over all the others, but this is a business afterall, and it's the airline industry no less. BA's job is to fly as many people as possible. If they want to keep the planes full then they should do whatever it takes. Otherwise Ms. Nadia could be looking for another line of work altogether. If she wants to stand her ground then let her do so in another industry. |
| Posted by: Contrarian 2006-10-26 12:38 |
| #3 Stand your ground Ms. Eweida. Just adding one more stick to the fire on the veil showdown. |
| Posted by: SpecOp35 2006-10-26 11:33 |
| #2 Perhaps she can ask if she could wear a star-and-crescent instead.... BA would either have to prove itself a hypercrite or piss of their muslim overlords.... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-10-26 10:56 |
| #1 Wow - a PC on PC battle brewing... This could actually achieve change if it festers long enough to escalate. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-26 09:41 |