Sacked For Being A Christian



Carrera said:
"You object to controlled immigration and you object to uncontrolled immigration."

Immigration exists for the purpose of filling vacancies that can't be filled by the existing workforce. In cases where there's a technological shortage, it makes sense to recruit from abroad, specialists, scientists, linguists e.t.c.
However, that is never an excuse for failing to train and educate the existing workforce.
In my area, according to the local rag, trained nurses have taken the decision to go to Australia because they were told there was no employment for them. NHS staff were also furious they were being thrown on the scrapheap after some years of study.
At the time, the NHS was shown to be recruiting from abroad.
Last time a Labour M.P. addressed NHS workers over the proposed job cuts she was jeered by the unions. The current Government is handing out U.K. jobs to anyone who will come and take them. That's one of the reasons they took a hammering in the local elections.
The irony of this is that the NHS is advertising out here in Australia for trained nurses. Go figure
 
All I know about the Azmi case is what I followed in the news. I did hear she was originally interviewed without the burkha.
My position is I have no objection to this other lady wearing a veil with whatever other practical clothes she might choose. I believe the objection over the actual burkha had to do with the claim the kids at class couldn't understand her (her voice was muffled) so she was asked to not wear it.
That case then went to a Tribunal as did the Nadia Edwina case.
Not being religious myself, this is a simple matter for me to draw a balance. Both Ms Azmi and Nadia Edwina should be allowed to wear "modest" religious symbols while at work.
In the case of Nadia Edwina, they could request her to wear a plastic, symbolic cross but they should also ensure the cermonial swords don't pose a threat either.
Nobody has anything to gain by being seen to be biased. All that does is get peoples' backs up and lead to social intolerance all round.

limerickman said:
OK, I read the information about the case on the link that you cited above : the BA case and Azmi cases are different cases.
In addition, your link provides little detail as to Azmi case.
In addition, your link doesn't refer to health and safty regulations in the Azmi case, as was cited in the BA case.
Therefore there is little common ground between either case, in my opinion.
The cases are about different issues, based on the little information I have read about the Azmi case.

Without knowing the full details of the Azmi case (and your link doesn't provide enough details), I cannot comment any further.
 
In that case, I'd be against Britons taking jobs in Australia in cases where indigenous Australians are sufficiently trained and wish to do the job themselves.
That's the idea behind nationalism and it shouldn't be confused with fascism or flag-waving thugs shouting "Kick em out!"
These days anyone who claims the native population should be actually "considered" and that the duty of an elected Government is to make sure the native population is working is imagined to be some kind of racist.
There's no substitute for being responsible to ensure people at home are being trained to do skilled jobs and importing workers from overseas should be the last option, I think.
Eion C would be interested to know, by the way, that in my area we have no decent boat engineers which is why I've had no option but to study engineering myself - or sell the boat. Also, in this case, common sense dictates we have to import boat engineeers from Poland but that doesn't mean someone shouldn't be asking how come a country such as England (famous for engineering) can't train up boat engineers or marine electricians?

thebirdman said:
The irony of this is that the NHS is advertising out here in Australia for trained nurses. Go figure
 
It would be fun to have that Alf dude from Home and Away on the forum. To him, women are Sheilas and I don't think Alf is particularly politically correct.


davidmc said:
and the frosty "Foster's" and attractive "Sheila's" ;)
 
I come to Australia as many people do, to see the old koala, hitch a ride on a kangaroo. :p
To hear somebody call me "Mate" and call somebody "Blue,"
to hear an Aborigine play a didgeridoo. ;)
Some of you came as prisoners two centuries ago,
some of you come as kings and queens your blessing to bestow. :D
Some of you stand all swelled with pride, some with shattered wings,
but all of us come with open hearts to hear Australia sing.
In the desert, in the city, in the mountains and in the sea.
In the stories and in the people I can hear Australia sing. ;)
 
Carrera said:
All I know about the Azmi case is what I followed in the news. I did hear she was originally interviewed without the burkha.
My position is I have no objection to this other lady wearing a veil with whatever other practical clothes she might choose. I believe the objection over the actual burkha had to do with the claim the kids at class couldn't understand her (her voice was muffled) so she was asked to not wear it.
I think veil's & burkha's have no place in a secular PUBLIC school. She should teach in a religious school if she insist's on wearing a disguise :confused:
 
My line is is I have no objection to any employee or student wearing some kind of token symbol of their religious beliefs.
In that particular case, however, the female teacher went to extremes and it should be remembered she attended the actual interview without the burkha. If she chose to wear a veil while teaching, I don't see where the harm is in that.
What got up my nose was the fact B.A. has singled out one particular faith while bending over backwards to accommodate other faiths.
Can you imagine how the Japanese would have reacted if Japanese employees were told their Budhist symbols were banned at work while immigrant workers could happily wear any insignia they wanted?
I think it appeared to be a calculated insult.


davidmc said:
I think veil's & burkha's have no place in a secular PUBLIC school. She should teach in a religious school if she insist's on wearing a disguise :confused:
 
Carrera said:
...What got up my nose was the fact B.A. has singled out one particular faith while bending over backwards to accommodate other faiths.
Can you imagine how the Japanese would have reacted if Japanese employees were told their Budhist symbols were banned at work while immigrant workers could happily wear any insignia they wanted?
I think it appeared to be a calculated insult.
Carrera, that would be relevant, IF Crucifixes had been banned at the workplace. They have not. What IS banned at the workplace (for this particular position is exposed jewelry worn around the neck. This includes Crucifixes, Buddhist symbols, and anything else worn as exposed jewelry around the neck.
My wife is Buddhist. She wears an amulet around her neck. She wears it under her clothing in order to prevent it getting caught in anything. She would not remove it for anyone, therefore she can not work in a job that requires no jewelry, but (assuming she met all the other criteria) she could work at a BA check-in counter as she does not wear it exposed around her neck.
BA do not prohibit religious symbols being worn in the workplace - BA prohibit the wearing of exposed jewelry around the neck by employees stationed at check-in counters. Ms Nadia appears to have a problem with this (her perogative), and is unwilling to comply with the workplace rules. Best she look for a job which does not have those requirements. BA is not responsible for her inability to accept workplace requirements.
 
This argument doesn't take into account any specific dangers to health and safety posed by ceremonial swords or and also there is the fact that people have been sent home for wearing crosses outside of airports.
Jamie Derman, 17, was threatened with suspension at school for wearing a cross at Sunbury Downs Secondary College and was told to take it off. Her discreet cross was "outlawed as part of the multicultural college's new rules on jewellery and dress."
Other cases show how hot cross buns (a traditional festival snack with a cross depicted) were prohibited.
If you delve into it you will see this Government has been promoting an anti-family, anti democratic and anti liberty campaign where imported values are seen as superior and it's this that has rocked the boat.





EoinC said:
Carrera, that would be relevant, IF Crucifixes had been banned at the workplace. They have not. What IS banned at the workplace (for this particular position is exposed jewelry worn around the neck. This includes Crucifixes, Buddhist symbols, and anything else worn as exposed jewelry around the neck.
My wife is Buddhist. She wears an amulet around her neck. She wears it under her clothing in order to prevent it getting caught in anything. She would not remove it for anyone, therefore she can not work in a job that requires no jewelry, but (assuming she met all the other criteria) she could work at a BA check-in counter as she does not wear it exposed around her neck.
BA do not prohibit religious symbols being worn in the workplace - BA prohibit the wearing of exposed jewelry around the neck by employees stationed at check-in counters. Ms Nadia appears to have a problem with this (her perogative), and is unwilling to comply with the workplace rules. Best she look for a job which does not have those requirements. BA is not responsible for her inability to accept workplace requirements.
 
Look at this reasonably: I have no real objection to immigration and I'm not a BNP supporter or little Englander. I think that a "reasonable" influx of foreign immigrants is a good thing.
My objection lies in the fact that the Government doesn't simply aim to allow a healthy level of immigration. The Government's aim is to restructure society completely.
The British Isles were originally made up of populations of English, Scots, Welsh and Irish in the same way as Japan is populated by Japanese. The only difference is Japan has some Chinese influence in its history and the British Isles also has other ethnic influences such as Celtic, European, Roman and even Viking.
As Limerickman pointed out we also have some Commonwealth influences from India and Pakistan e.t.c.
However, when the Government proposes that the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish should become an ethnic minority (as they freely admit on the quiet), that gives me some right to ask the question: How can becoming an ethnic minority be to my advantage personally? Would it benefit the Japanese, Chinese or Russians to become ethnic minorities, for example? Did it benefit the Australian Aboriginees? Will it benefit the Welsh or English?
Let's be realistic: We're already taking in immigrants who have a right to be here from the Commonwealth countries such as India and these are basically massive countries that can supply sufficient immigrants where needed.
However, that isn't enough for Blair. He is still inviting immigration from Romania, Bulgaria, the Baltics, Poland, Western Europe, the Middle East and Somalia. To cap it off, we're not proper members of the E.U. or subject to full E.U. law - which is why Blair went to war in Iraq against E.U. wishes. We don't have the single currency or the same levels of E.U. welfare and pensions.
Added to that, as Wolfix stated earlier on. If the politically correct Blairites attack people for wearing crosses or supporting democracy and free speech, there will be some kind of social rejection of what is taking place. My views are now gaining a of of ground but I should stress I don't oppose sensible, controlled immigration so long as it's genuinely needed.
Neither is it a racial matter as I oppose huge levels of Polish immigration too or even from Germany if jobs are taken up as a result.


EoinC said:
Carrera, that would be relevant, IF Crucifixes had been banned at the workplace. They have not. What IS banned at the workplace (for this particular position is exposed jewelry worn around the neck. This includes Crucifixes, Buddhist symbols, and anything else worn as exposed jewelry around the neck.
My wife is Buddhist. She wears an amulet around her neck. She wears it under her clothing in order to prevent it getting caught in anything. She would not remove it for anyone, therefore she can not work in a job that requires no jewelry, but (assuming she met all the other criteria) she could work at a BA check-in counter as she does not wear it exposed around her neck.
BA do not prohibit religious symbols being worn in the workplace - BA prohibit the wearing of exposed jewelry around the neck by employees stationed at check-in counters. Ms Nadia appears to have a problem with this (her perogative), and is unwilling to comply with the workplace rules. Best she look for a job which does not have those requirements. BA is not responsible for her inability to accept workplace requirements.
 
Carrera said:
This argument doesn't take into account any specific dangers to health and safety posed by ceremonial swords...
Do you know that, or are you guessing? What are the workplace rules for such items? Are ceremonial swords allowed to be worn exposed around the neck whilst working at a BA Check-in counter?
Carrera said:
...and also there is the fact that people have been sent home for wearing crosses outside of airports...
I didn't know that BA controlled the World outside of Airports (or even inside, except where their business is concerned).
Carrera said:
...Jamie Derman, 17, was threatened with suspension at school for wearing a cross at Sunbury Downs Secondary College and was told to take it off. Her discreet cross was "outlawed as part of the multicultural college's new rules on jewellery and dress."...
Sorry, which BA Check-in counter was she attending?
Carrera said:
...Other cases show how hot cross buns (a traditional festival snack with a cross depicted) were prohibited...
I know nothing about that. BA did this, too?
Carrera said:
...If you delve into it you will see this Government has been promoting an anti-family, anti democratic and anti liberty campaign where imported values are seen as superior and it's this that has rocked the boat.
Weren't some of these the same people who came out and boycotted BA for proceeding in accordance with the findings of the industrial tribunal?
 
Carrera said:
...Jamie Derman, 17, was threatened with suspension at school for wearing a cross at Sunbury Downs Secondary College and was told to take it off. Her discreet cross was "outlawed as part of the multicultural college's new rules on jewellery and dress."...
Both of my daughters attend schools which do not allow jewelry to be worn whilst on school premises. I have no problem with that. If we, as a family, found such a rule to be unconscionable, we would endeavour to have our daughters attend acceptable alternatives.
I don't know anything about Jamie Dermain's case, nor when she became a BA employee but, were she a pupil at either of my daughters' schools, she would not have been allowed to wear jewelry either.
 
Carrera said:
I come to Australia as many people do, to see the old koala, hitch a ride on a kangaroo. :p
To hear somebody call me "Mate" and call somebody "Blue,"
to hear an Aborigine play a didgeridoo. ;)
Some of you came as prisoners two centuries ago,
some of you come as kings and queens your blessing to bestow. :D
Some of you stand all swelled with pride, some with shattered wings,
but all of us come with open hearts to hear Australia sing.
In the desert, in the city, in the mountains and in the sea.
In the stories and in the people I can hear Australia sing. ;)
I hope you realise how grating this song, has become, to some of us Australians. I know John Denver wrote this when he found and fell in love with a Australian woman and discovered many things Australian, and I actually liked the song when it first came out, buuut?

More often than not the person playing the Yidaki (didgeridoo) is some white fella, trying in vane to get in touch with his inner nomad, but whos' closest contact with mother earth would be the carrots in the green grocery section of his local hyper market and who is out of his comfort zone with out his latte every morning, who would cross the road if a person of Aboriginal decent approached him, could not survive without his mobile/cell phone attached to his ear and thinks dolphins are some sort of spirit being.

The only people to call you maaate in Oz are used car salesmen, politicians with promoting the patriotism of scoudrals and no policies or somebody who wants you to do something they know you will not do willingly.

Mate is a word that has very honourable origins but like so many of those sort of words it has been 'jingoised', trivialised and demeaned to the point that the word now triggers bullshyt detection radars into action.

And don't call anyone 'blue' unless they are a red head or extremely sad.
 
thebirdman said:
...And don't call anyone 'blue' unless they are a red head or extremely sad.
...or have been holding their breath for a long time.
 
This rule about exposed jewellery predates any of the add ons' for cultural groups.

All airline uniforms have had hats since day 1. When airline uniforms have been redesigned hats have been changed as well. As airlines have employed more people from diverse cultures, in the local community, their hats (head dresses) have been adopted into the uniforms.

Head dress and exposed jewellery (with or without trincets) are two 2 entirely different areas.

A head dress (hat, hijab, turban or peak cap) is clothing! Exposed jewellery is adornment! What could be simpler than that?
 
thebirdman said:
Yes, I'll pay that one as well. Nice come back.
How are things in Darwin, BM? I used to have a yacht in the harbour there, just out from the Wharf. Darwin's one of my favourite places, but I haven't been there since the mid-90's. It may have changed since then, but I would hope not too much.