Sacked For Being A Christian

Discussion in 'Your Bloody Soap Box' started by Carrera, Nov 21, 2006.

  1. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is one of my "I told you so!" posts.
    Nadia Eweida, as you may be aware, has lost her job and her appeal against British Airways has failed. She got into hot water for refusing to remove her tiny crucifix which, in actual fact, was the size of a small marble.
    Dr John Sentamu the Archbishop of York has condemned this latest development and Nadia Eweida has been interviewed on U.S. television and given her testimony to an American audience.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/6166746.stm
    The reason I say, "Told you so!" is I've been pointing out for the last several months that a multifaith, multicultural society would inevitably lead to loss of tolerance, discrimination and religious tension and I believe this case illustrates that point.
    The fact is Nadia Eweida has been discriminated against on account of her Christian beliefs while British Airways personnel of other faiths have encountered no similar restrictions. So, apparently, BA sees no reason why their staff can't wear beads, veils, burkhas or turbans yet a woman loses her job over a cross she wears round her neck, which is deemed to be offensive, I imagine. Or maybe she's an easy target?
    Incidentally, I don't happen to share this lady's belief system but I do believe she's been discriminated against and like many other folks won't be flying with BA again for that matter. That's my bloody rant. :mad: :D
    Nuff said.
     
    Tags:


  2. gclark8

    gclark8 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,522
    Likes Received:
    3
    A cross is a method of execution.

    Would you condone other religious groups wearing a miniture AK47 rifle or a commecial airliner around their necks? :eek:
     
  3. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it's a pity folks in this country have seemingly gotten used to being used as doormats and for that I blame this current, illiberal Labour Government.
    Really, I'd have thought this case represents a lawyers dream. I mean, discrimination is discrimination. If they had banned all religious symbols that would be fair enough. However, they made it clear to this lady she could work in isolation with her cross but not be seen in public. :confused: :confused:
    Who honestly cares if a middle aged lady happens to wear a tiny cross round her neck if that's what she wants to do?
    Still, she's certainly standing her ground and has well and truly embarrassed BA. :)

     
  4. wolfix

    wolfix New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,756
    Likes Received:
    0
    You kind of made the point that the "other religions" stand for violence with guns and blowing up airliners.....

    In America we see intolerance from both sides of the political boundaries. But I find what is happening in Europe far more interesting. We get to see what happens when the "politically correct agenda" gets placed in action. The problems we see are from Europe opening itself up to immigration to groups that do not want to blend into the culture of their host.
    I guess I have to ask..... Why are they allowing immigration at the level it is? Is it for economical reasons??? Do they have a shortage in the workforce?
    In this case of the BA, what has the churches in Europe said about the situation?
     
  5. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115

    Wolf - this "story" doesn't feature anywhere to be honest.
    Except if you're read the Dail Mail - like our BNP friend, Carrera.

    In terms of immigration - there are a lot of immigrants from a variety of countries.
    For example Germany has been the destination for Turkish people for decades.
    Britain has had massive immigration for India/Pakistan/Bangledash/West Indies - in fact any former British colony has been the source of immigration.
    And for decades, there has never been a problem in Britain or Germany or France with immigrants and immigration.

    Of course, if you read the Daily Mail then you won't agree with this view.
    Then again, DM mail readers form a very minute minority.
     
  6. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    I suppose to be fair, neither Krishnas nor Moslems have been the actual cause of this problem. It's clear to me that some politically correct do-gooder or other in BA has targeted this woman, claiming to be acting for other religious minorities.
    I believe political correctness is a virus rooted in weakness, lack of esteem and inferiority, propagated at times by the current Government and the BBC. Most of the do-gooders are more than likely, white, middle class graduates.
    I really have absolutely no idea why BA chose to isolate a woman who has a simple faith and has been no trouble to anyone. I don't understand why specifically BA feels ashamed of what this woman represents. I'm no real fan of Christianity myself but I do believe in a person's right to express whatsoever faith they happen to have, be that a sensible veil, turban, crucifix or bangle.
    I do know this will cause real anger and I hope people take it out on BA next time they consider flying. I think I'll stick to Virgin Airways myself.

     
  7. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    "And for decades, there has never been a problem in Britain or Germany or France with immigrants and immigration."

    Then why does Gordon Brown talk about the need to consolidate British values and why did David Blunket say we were being "swamped" (his words not mine)? How come now Holland is going to ban the veil. :confused:
    Wolfix is saying he sees a problem in Europe to do with immigration and you yourself say there is no problem?
    Then why all this fuss with Brown, Blunket and regulations as to what people can wear? :confused:
    Limerickman do you or do you not have freedom to wear what you want if you work for British Airways? If you don't have that freedom and you don't see that not having that freedom is dictatorship, then what can I say?
    I'm not blaming the immigrants per se but I do think politicians are trying to change our way of life and that immigrants should accept us the way we are.






     
  8. wolfix

    wolfix New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,756
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am on the fence with immigration. I knew many illegals [Mexican} in the past. Never had a problem with them. But the illegals situation may be getting out of hand.

    I don't have a fair view of immigration in Europe. I am just getting the impression that some immigrants are not blending into the society smoothly. And I am from the mindset that when you immigrate[?] that you adapt the ways of the host. That is not to say that you cannot maintain your own identity, but not at the expense of the host.
    I get the impression that many are afraid of upsetting the immigrants, while imposing unfair rules on others....

    America's immigration is based on economics. We need the workforce..... [The reason for needing the workforce is an entire thread in itself.] My family on my fathers side built a business up with immigrint workers way back when. I watched over the years these as these workers developed into solid citizens. But they acheived this by blending in and adopting the rules that society set down for everyone.
     
  9. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    You falsely misquoted your country's politicians before, Carrera.
    You falsely quoted Jack Straw.

    In terms of Grodon Brown - please supply a quote from Brown where he opposes immigration?
    Ditto for Blunkett.



    A party running for election has said that if it gets in to office in Holland it will ban the wearing of veils.

    So Holland hasn't banned the wearing of veils.


    In a democracy - people accept difference.
    That means people have the choice of wearing whatever they wish (veil, Crucifix, turban etc).
    That's democracy.

    As for who is allowed to wear what in their job - that is defined by an employer.
    Employers can insist that employees wear, or not wear, specific attire.


    Your problem is that you have an issue with immigrants in your country.
    Crocodile tears about an employer and their staff wearing a Crucifix is a bit rich - as you stated yourself, you're an atheist.
     
  10. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115

    OK - my country has been the country of choice for immigrants from Eastern Europe for the past 10 years.
    The economic boom has ensured that thousands of Poles/Lithuanians/Latvians/
    Serbs/Romanians/Chinese, have arrived here.
    Plenty of British people, Americans and French have also moved here.
    The demographics of this country in terms of population has changed utterly since 1996.

    Personally I have no problem with people emigrating here.
    Yes, some groupings tend to stick with their own.
    That is their prerogative.
    Other groupings do try to integrate more fully.

    But what is integration and what is sticking to their own?
    Several immigrant communities have chosen to try to learn to speak Irish.
    The majority of indigenous Irish have no interest in our language - yet people born abroad who have emigrated here want to learn to speak the language.
    Is this integration ? Yes.
    Others who emigrate here, stick with their own community, they pay taxes but they don't interact with the wider Irish community.
    Is this integration? yes it is. They pay taxes and work - so to me they're contributing and integrating too.

    I have no difficulty with immigration to my country - we're a wealthy nation.
    All of us in the first world, we're fortunate.
    We've got food/money and we have a reasonably fair society.
    In short we're bloody lucky to have been born where we were.

    Personally if I had to emigrate (and my people from my generation did emigrate to places like Britain/USA/Australia), I would try to integrate, adopt the customs of the country that I go to.
    I have friends and inlaws who, although born here, consider themselves American.
    That's fine - the USA gave them a job/opportunity and they worked hard.
    Therefore their integration to the USA is an extension of this.
     
  11. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    Limerickman, pull the other one. We all know that whatever source I produce you will delete together with the said post as you did in the past soon as the heat gets too much for you.
    Anyone who reads the news and watches TV will know what David Blunket said since Kilroy Silk quoted that statement on BBC breakfast TV and I even recall it made headlines.
    And where did I say Brown opposed immigration?
    The difference between you and myself I think is you clearly believe in censorship and support BA while I don't.

     
  12. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    You falsely misquoted your country's politicians before, Carrera.
    You falsely quoted Jack Straw.

    In terms of Grodon Brown - please supply a quote from Brown where he opposes immigration?
    Ditto for Blunkett


    Quote from Blunkett?
    Quote from Brown ?

    Kilroy Silk was fired by the BBC.

    Quite right too.


    I support the right of people to wear whatever they wish.
    BA as an employer are quite entitled to insist that their workers attire conform to company rules.

    Where did I say I support censorship?
     
  13. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never had an issue with managed immigration. I couldn't care less about ethnic origin, colour or religious belief. I believe controlled immigration isn't a problem.
    Where I draw the line very firmy, however, is when 4th or 5th generation Englanders, Scots, Welsh and, yes, Irish are treated as third rate residents and discriminated against in the name of multiculturalism.
    That may make me unpopular but the truth is I meet hundreds of people every day who confess they feel the same way. They are jeered, sneered at and called racists and all sorts but many are beginning to rebel and find a voice - like the said Archbishop. Likewise I don't believe we need so many immigrants as are arriving (we're too small) and, if we do take these numbers, we should be fully in the E.U. with a two way agreement that works both ways.
    The point is this lady remains without a job because someone in an office has dictated she's being offensive to customers simply for being a Christian and wearing a miniscule cross round her neck. The Archbishop of York is rightly horrified and, yes, he's been in the Daily Mail airing his views.



     
  14. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Where did I say I support censorship?"

    By deleting my sources in the past when it turns out that, yes, I do watch the news, read the papers and don't make things up for kicks. :rolleyes:
    Now, there are two option here: Either you choose to delete my post to get out of this fix or I think you owe me an apology for suggesting I pull information out of thin air.
    http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,689919,00.html
    The home secretary, David Blunkett, was today embroiled in a row over his use of the word "swamped" in the context of immigration and asylum.
    Mr Blunkett used the politically sensitive term this morning, as he described local schools as "swamped" by non-English speaking immigrants.
    His off-the-cuff remarks were not condoned by Downing Street, who this afternoon clarified his comments as "reflecting a particular context", rather than describing immigration as an issue.
    But his comment - ahead of today's debate on the already controversial nationality, asylum and immigration bill - attracted the ire of at least one Labour backbencher."



     
  15. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    I think you do have a problem with immigration - controlled or not.

    And there's why you have a problem with immigration : if someone is born in Britain, they're British.

    4th - 5th generation?

    Interesting that you refer to people who's preceeding 4 or 5 antecedant generations may have been immigrants to your country.
    Yet you still class their descendants as immigrants, even though they were born in Britain.

    You're not fooling anyone Carrera.


    Next you'll be telling us that you represent the silent majority.

    You meet hundreds of people everyday?
    And they confess that they're all feeling this angst about immigration ??????
    Sounds like it's an epidemic.


    Daily Mail airing the views of the Archbishop of York.

    You should stop reading the Daily Mail and get out get some air.
     
  16. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4611682.stm
    "Former Prime Minister Sir John Major told the Today programme the chancellor (Gordon Brown) was "absolutely right" to promote the concept of Britishness.
    But he added: "He seems not to mention that many of the actions of the present Government have ruptured Britishness by their own legislation."



     
  17. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    Hold it.

    You have repeatedly posted false an misleading statements in this forum.


    You remember when you falsely stated that 6 Muslims were arrested for the murder of a female PC in Bradford ?
    I challenged you at the time to substantiate that false statement ; needless to say you refused to do so.
    You couldn't provide any source for that false statement.

    You also recall your false postings about Jack Straw opposing the wearing of Burka's?
    I challenged you again at that time to verify that posting.
    You refused.
    You couldn't provide any source for that false statement either.

    So there's no apology owed.

    In fact you ought to apologise for posting libellous statements !


    Hold up.

    John Reid is the Home Secretary at 22/11/2006.
    John Reid - not David Blunkett


    Why are you quoting David Blunkett as being Home Secretary, today ???????
    That's another false and misleading statement.

    And why are you digging up quotes attributed to David Blunkett which are not current and which preceed the BA case and have nothing to do with the BA case ???

    You're up to your old tricks again Carrera.


    And for the record, Blunkett was fired from the Cabinet for lying some time back.
    That was the second time he was fired from Cabinet.

    You really should stop digging.
     
  18. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    This point seems clear to me. By 4th or 5th generation I refer to folks whose grandparents may well have fought in WW2 and just maybe are owed a decent pension and decent NHS care.
    I'm surprised you see this line of argument as having anything to do with racism - just for being opposed to huge waves of immigration.
    As for the Archbishop of York, he happens to be black and came here as an immigrant and so far as I'm concerned he's doing a terrific job and speaks a lot of sense.
    Just maybe the grandparents of that lady may have fought in a world war same as my grandparents who suffered shell-shock to make you and me free people (supposedly). So, I don't see why this woman shouldn't be given the basic human right to show her beliefs same as everybody else instead of being rated as a third rate citizen.
    Naturally it makes me angry and I agree with the Archbishop of York. I'm not religious either but it's principle.

     
  19. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    You sound pretty angry. I seem to recall I admitted that rash statement you refer to. I even apologised. It's easy to slip up and say what you don't intend to say but we seem to be backtracking and digging up old disputes.
    Lim, if I were racist in any way, I'd say so but I'm not. I had an Iraqi Kurdish guy in the house the other day which I wouldn't do if I were racist or a bigot. I treat these immigrant people the same as I'd treat anyone else with courtesy. I don't look down on anyone else.
    What I oppose is when people are treated unfairly and discriminated against and mass immigration. Remember many of these immigrants now come from Eastern Europe where I lived myself. But we can't take unlimited numbers and we can't expect people to adapt to those who come seeking a new life. Also, if you study what I originally wrote I blamed BA not the immigrants themselves for the situation over the cross.

     
  20. thebluetrain

    thebluetrain New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,074
    Likes Received:
    0
Loading...
Loading...