Monday, November 20, 2006

Maybe We Should Boycott British Airways

The news that British Airways check-in worker Nadia Eweida has lost her appeal against her employer who banned her from wearing a crucifix the size of a five pence piece may well rebound on them. Peter Hain has described BA's stance as 'loopy' and Ann Widdecombe has already said she will no longer fly with British Airways. I know a number of Christian groups in the States who have said the same thing. In the end the only way to persuade big companies like this that they are wrong is to hit them where it hurts and withdraw custom from them.


Anonymous said...

Was it in contravention of their uniform?

Anonymous said...

A boycott!!! Takes me back to the good days in the 60s.

Anonymous said...

off thread,
Iain see the Daily Mail is still running its anti Greg Barker campaign, any comments on this?

Anonymous said...

Will they still let me fly with my backpack?

Anonymous said...

seems fair of BA. This is a ban on all jewelry and religious symbols and it was her fault for not conceeling it.

There's no anti-Christian bias here, that is cooked up by the Daily Hate Mate

Iain Dale said...

What utter rubbish. Would you be Ok with them banning turbans then?

Anonymous said...

I'm with BA on this. They have a clear line which allows some clothing items that are mandated by mainstream religions, but nothing else.

Once symbolic jewellery is allowed, where do you draw the line?

A crucifix? A fish thingy? A celtic squirl? A WHUFC badge??

Praguetory said...

Are these guys full-time anonymidiots?

Answer Iain's question.

Anonymous said...

Iain - a turban is not the same as a crucifix. There is no dress code for Christians. They can wear what they like. I have a scapular which I would take off happily.

It isn't as though they banned wedding rings.

Anonymous said...

BA's uniform policy requires jewellery to be worn underneath the uniform. This woman refused to comply with this policy, and was reprimanded as a result. This is a simple dispute between employer and employee and has nothing to do with religious tolerance or political correctness - that issue has been stirred up entirely by the media - including yourself Iain).

You're question "Would you be Ok with them banning turbans then?" is misplaced. Firstly, BA has not banned this woman from wearing the cross, just asked her to comply with its dress code. Secondly, turbans and headscarves are not comparable with a crucix necklace - not because either is more important than the other, or more in need of protection - but simply because they are worn on the head. I assume that the BA uniform policy has a section on the wearing of headgear, which allows the wearing of headscarves and turbans. If the Christian faith had a similar requirement, I am sure that would also be accommodated

Anonymous said...

If non-Christians are permitted to wear external manifestations of their religion eg a turban or veil then there seems to be religious discrimination where Christians are not.

Paul Evans said...

Iain, a turban is an integral article of faith of Sikhism. A Christian wearing a crucifix is displaying a physical manifestation of their faith, but they would not be deviating from a central tenant of their religion if they were to remove it. There is a clear difference here.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 4.28, last sentence
I equally sure it wouldn't

Anonymous said...

1. Frankly we should boycott BA because of their incompetence [they've 'misplaced' my luggage too many times/ employees suffer from 'not my department not my problem' fever] let alone their intolerance!

2. As I understand it, this lady is a Coptic Christian which explains her belief in the importance of the symbolism of wearing a cross [please note cross -not a crucifix].

3. Cranmer informed us some time ago that BA accepts the 'Kara' [a piece of jewelery].

Anonymous said...

she said:

"It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them."

this is proselytising. she can do that in her own time, but not at work, if her employers dont want her to do so.

personally, i think thsat if people want to be religious, they should pay an extra couple of pence on their income tax, to go some way towards paying for the extra policing etc which their beliefs impose on other people.

the investigation of this kind of case will cost public money and will also cost BA money, which shareholders and customers have to pay. why should non-believers have to subsidise people who just can't keep their beliefs to themselves?

Johnny Norfolk said...

You either ban all religious symbols or non.

This ia an atack on Christianity if other religions are allowed to display their beliefs.

I can not believe this is happening in Britain, but with blair at the helm nothing is safe.

Anonymous said...

An employer has every right to prescibe a dress code and if this results in a ban on the crucifix, Star of David' Flying Yogi logo and nose studs, thats tough. Its not anti christian and Ann Widdicombe's example is not one I would follow. She is self righteous and self important.

Anonymous said...

I was on her side until about an hour ago when she told BBC News 24 that she would continue to act as an ambassador for Jesus on earth. They're off their heads, all the religious types. Cranmer will be on here soon, spouting off about Muslims and homosexuality and God knows what else. As mad as a box of frogs, the lot of them. If all religions were banned this sort of nonsense would end overnight. Amen.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 4.42. Well you are wrong. If they did so they would be found guilty of some crime against religious freedom and sued for significant moneys.

The difference here is explained very well in the post above yours. Read that and do try to understand the difference...

Anonymous said...

"Do you think that, when Jesus comes back, he's ever going to want to see a f***ing cross?" - Bill Hicks

Christianity has not been, is not now and never will be about its symbols.

Anonymous said...

A tricky one - I can see both the arguments for and against wearing the cross. However, having read all the arguments I think, if pushed, I prefer BA's stance. She was allowed the wear the cross - but they asked her to do so underneath her uniform. That sounds acceptable to me. And besides, I've never liked the State interfering with the private sector.

nsfl said...

I shall be placing my handkerchief over the whole airline, not just the tailfin of a model 747.

Anonymous said...

Well, I for one will be boycotting them, even though, God forgive me, she is a bit of a bible basher.

Muslim women don't have to wear the veil - they chose to so what is the difference?

Jeff said...

This woman should be able to wear her cross in any way she see's fit.

There are times when it is not mandatory for a Muslim woman to wear the veil, but they do so because a cleric has said that he feels it is right for them to do so. Aishah Azmi never wore the veil at university, she made do with a head scarf.,,2087-2426770,00.html

Azmi has maintained that her decision to wear the veil was driven entirely by her personal beliefs, rather than the advice or instruction of a third party. But this weekend it emerged that she refused to take the veil off at school after receiving a fatwa, or religious ruling, from Mufti Yusuf Sacha, a Muslim cleric in West Yorkshire.

Would BA turn around to a Muslim in those circumstances and say that they didn't care what had been said by some cleric, take off the veil?
I don't think so.

This is an issue of personal faith, and as such what is good for one group should be good for all.

Archbishop Cranmer said...

Cranmer will be on here soon, spouting off about Muslims and homosexuality and God knows what else. As mad as a box of frogs, the lot of them.

Not at all, not at all. His Grace does not spout off.

At least His Grace tries to make sense of the frogs, strains to understand their croaks, attempts to engage with their hoppings, analyse their warts, empathise with their greenness, which, as Kermit told us, it is not easy being. There are simply too many of them to ignore, and, unfortunately, the great amphibian extermination you advocate is not going to happen, however much you will it. It is therefore more politically effective and spiritually edifying if one seeks to understand and engage with them, however slimy.

Anonymous said...

Thinking back to the school that wanted to ban certain scarves in order to promote a uniform policy I can only recall defending the school and its right to do so. The same standards apply to BA in this case - the right to wear a cross was not denied, simply the company wanted a policy where such items were worn underneath uniform.

Anonymous said...

I'm with UK Daily Pundit on this one. She probably had the support of all agnostics and non-aligned until the rhubarb about being Jesus' ambassador on earth.

All of a sudden, it wasn't about the persecution of a modest, sensible Christian who was wearing something that wouldn't offend a single decent man or woman from any world religion, but instead a miniscule crusade, Nadia vs Big Heathen Corporation.

Having said all that, the bogtrotter in charge of BA should go on the telly and publicly proclaim his contempt for all PC nonsense and assure us that he runs a common sense company.

Anonymous said...

Rosemount man has got this one right in his second point. This lady is a Coptic Christian and wearing the cross is an important part of her faith. Wearing a veil is not essential to Islam, however if a women wants to wear it, then it is up to her. How on earth can any reasonable person object to someone wearing a cross the size of a five pence peice? I can tell you one thing; Jewish friends of mine ceratinly don't.

Archbishop Cranmer said...

His Grace wishes to add, as Mr Rosemount Man has already mentioned, that there is considerable theological and cultural ignorance on here, masquerading as fact.

There is, in fact, absolutely no religious compulsion at all on Sikhs to wear a turban or upon Muslim women to wear a hijab. Both are cultural adornments which have considerable practical use, yet have been somehow hijacked as expressions of faith. Their use became fused with religious identity, but they began as external advertisements of what is supposed to be an inner devotion. His Grace knows personally of devout Muslim women and dedicated Sikh men who do not wear this attire. BA has been sold a cultural choice masquerading as a religious imperative; in short, they consulted their politically-correct advisors who urged them to be over-sensitive to ethnic minorities.

In this context, the decision of a Christian to wear a cross should be treated no differently. It is not a matter of compulsion, though even here some devout Catholics may insist on wearing a very visible crucifix (as opposed to a plain cross), but it must remain a valid choice.

And as His Grace asked on his blog, why is the Sikh kara permitted but not a cross? And if religious head dress is permitted because it is 'impractical to conceal it' beneath a uniform, would BA permit the wearing of a niqab, and if not why not?

Little Black Sambo said...

"If all religions were banned this sort of nonsense would end overnight. Amen."

A true libertarian.

Anonymous said...

British Airways is a mess of an airline; why it turned out to be so priggish and pompous it is hard to know. I find it a particularly unpleasant airline and have for years tried to avoid it.

Something about the way it presents itself is very offputting and the image it presents of Britain is not a pleasant or endearing one.

I just wish it had not been so politically favoured over British Caledonian or British Midland

Paul Evans said...

I concur with Cranmer’s assertion on the Islamic habit of wearing hijab, but I have always understood that all baptised Sikh men followed the pañj kakār, which requires hair be uncut and held by a comb, which in practice is done within a turban. I could be wrong though.

Anonymous said...

I suppose they could just be setting the playing field for when the time comes to ban a veil.

Anonymous said...

BA's statement that wearing the cross is against their uniform regulations is being rather economical with the truth.

They altered their precious regulations to allow the wearing of turbans, Sikh bangles and the hijab.

However, they won't alter them to allow a Christian employee to wear a cross.

So some uniformed employees are apparently more equal than others.

Whether you share the lady's Christian beliefs or not isn't the point - their regulations can be altered when it suits.

Machiavelli's Understudy said...

What exactly are you wanting to boycott them for?

I can appreciate that they should be boycotted, but perhaps my reasons are different to yours and other readers on here.

James Higham said...

This is precisely the PC madness we are trying to stop. PC respects no traditions, no cultural heritage. Boycott BA? If necessary.

Anonymous said...

BA have acted stupidly. Why ban jewellery at all, unless it is a health and safety risk? And it patently isn't. A bracelet, a ring, a St Christopher is neither here nor there.
I heard the woman on PM. She seemed a sweet, pleasant, unthreatening person. Leave her alone you berks of BA?

Anonymous said...

So what should BA's policy be?

Those who think that crosses should be allowed on a BA uniform should describe what should be allowed and what not.

Is this different to the Army? I've no idea what they allow, but I'm sure I've seen films with soldiers wearing turbans.

As I wrote earlier, where do you draw the line?

Anonymous said...

The UK is going barmy. Most people here seem to believe they have a right to do exactly as they like as individuals come hell, or high water. If everyone on this planet adopted this selfish stance then there would be absolutely no order, no moral code no responsibility, no laws and very soon we would descend into a chaos from which we would never recover. In fact, I think we're almost there!

Anonymous said...

As a private company, BA should be allowed to decide any dress code or employment policy it likes. And we should be able to withdraw our custom if we don't approve.

Anonymous said...

"That sounds acceptable to me. And besides, I've never liked the State interfering with the private sector."

Do you therefore believe that BA should be permitted to introduce racially or sexually discriminatory employment policies?

Anonymous said...

I'm with UK Daily Pundit on this one.

She probably had the support of all agnostics and non-aligned until the rhubarb about being Jesus' ambassador on earth.

All of a sudden, it wasn't about the persecution of a modest, sensible Christian who was wearing something that wouldn't offend a single decent man or woman from any world religion, but instead a miniscule crusade, Nadia vs Big PC Heathen Corporation.

Having said all that, it would be helpful if the bogtrotter who runs BA would go on telly and tell us that he has contempt for PC nonsense and runs his company in fair and common sense fashion.

Anonymous said...

A free society such as the UK can, I hope, tolerate a wide variety of beliefs, diversity of tastes and pursuits, customs and codes of conduct. Such a society should be able to afford equal concern and respect to all.

The exercise of religious freedom in a free and democratic society entails the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person freely chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination. That includes the right to proselytise, a point that posters on the CU thread seem to have difficulty with. A sign of the illiberal times no doubt.

Freedom can be seen as an absence of coercion. Thus if a person is compelled by the state or the actions of another such as an employer to a course of action or inaction which he would not otherwise have chosen, he is not acting of his own volition and he cannot be said to be truly free. Coercion and control can be direct or indirect, as it is here.

In a liberal democracy religious freedom embraces both the absence of coercion and constraint, and a right to manifest beliefs and practices, subject to the necessity of an objectively justified public policy exception. Can BA point to any objective justification here? No. Its PC PR.

Now for something flippant. As tolerance is often claimed as a British characteristic perhaps BA might like to try another disastrous attempt at rebranding itself. No longer are they tolerant and thus British. Thus how about Air PC? Who knows perhaps they might still have the nobby tailfins kicking about.

Anonymous said...

When railways first came to Russia it was a requirement that all railway stations have Orthodox icons and a place for prayer....................with the state of security in modern flying and the prevalence of certain sections of the community to blow up aircraft (planned attack in Germany thwarted and 6 persons arrested Friday) I feel the presence of BA staff wearing Crosses reassuring..................should I have to board an aircraft with bearded men in kameez or women in chadoor; I should prefer the pilot and co-pilot to come into the cabin and kneel in prayer with me prior to take-off

Anonymous said...

How does British (Bleeding Awful) Airways feel about its employees wearing the star of David, then?

And does it no longer have Chaplains?

Perhaps they also are required to conform with the 'official' dress code. No dog-collars allowed - even for the clergy.

Anonymous said...

"Maybe We Should Boycott All Companies with Dress Codes"


Anonymous said...

Please, please no more boycotts. I had the misfortune to be an undergraduate in the early 1980's when student unions were boycotting everything and anything in the name of political correctness. I would have left my student days considerably wealthier if I had not had to buy many items simply in order to show that I was not supporting the boycott.

Anonymous said...

Bloody religion. If the woman wants to wear it then let her do so.

Guessedworker said...

BA is in an unusual position because its end-users aren't compartmentalised in their own homelands, but on the contrary are made mobile by air travel. Cultural accomodation is, therefore, a legitimate interest of the business, and some consideration of it (not necessarily that as it applies to this Egyptian employee) must be expected.

I do not, therefore, find their stance objectionable. I think it is being confused by typical Daily Mail thinkers with the all too familiar accomodations demanded of English natives with black and Asian Third World peoples in England.

These two issue are not the same.

towcestarian said...

Taken from the instruction manual for BA executives.

"Take pistol. Release safety catch. Point at foot. Pull trigger."

indigo said...

It has got polarised - but that's BA's fault. The British love the spectacle of a plucky amateur standing up to a megalithic organisation. BA walked into it.

On a related subject: I understand that London boroughs have agreed - or are about to agree - that the Easter holiday in 2007 will not include the days of Easter. Cretins. Even Muslims are aligning themselves with Christians against the PC-mad plonkers who want to ban all reference to Christmas (preferring "Winterval"), Easter etc, while having themselves photographed for the local press celebrating Divali, etc.

Anonymous said...

BA are free to use the force of tribunal; to enforce their ideas; we are free to boycott them if we so like.

All is working well.

BA would help if they spoke on the subject. Without their evidence they appear (as we all are now if we remain silent)) guilty as charged of being PC mad.

Welshcakes Limoncello said...

Very difficult, this. I was on the lady's side, too, till I heard her an hour or so ago on Sky. But how can BA say it's a jewellery ban when we all know they like their ground and air hostesses to look as sexy as possible and I've not seen one who has not sported at least some gold jewelley to show off with their tan yet! Philosophically I'm with the French on religious symbols but there is a part of me that wants to say that there have always been rules about what you can and cannot wear to work - even if these are as basic as men having to wear suit and tie and women having to look, well, smartish. Yet if you just said "If you don't like it, go and get another job", then women would never have been allowed to wear trousers to work [and I am old enough to remember that controversy] and where does it end?

Anonymous said...

This is indeed, johnny norfolk, an attack on Christianity. For the naifs who brought up the Sikh turban and the loathesome hijab - frankly, these people should not be allowed to bebillboards for their religion while working their shifts. And that is what they are doing. They're at work. The customer doesn't give a crap about their worshipping habits and I don't see why their religions have to be shoved in our faces.

On the other hand, British Airways is prejudiced against the religion of the country named Britain, which is Christianity.

Why, I wonder? A cross is the symbol of Christianity. If newcomers can shout in people's faces, via their clothing, "I'm a muslim!" and "I'm a Sikh!" why can she not declare her Christianity in a quiet and modest way?

Finally, the killer point is, BA are lying and slithering around looking for an escape route because Sikhs are allowed to wear their steel bangles round their wrists. Not hidden under their uniform.

Game, set and match to Ms Eweida, who I hope sues BA with great viciousness and greed and who I hope wins. I hope she gets an amount they will really feel, and that will make their shareholders angry.

And I hope enough British people - Christian or not - and Christians around the world - British or not - are infuriated by this that their traffic drops off noticably - again so their shareholders are angry. And sack the board.

Archbishop Cranmer said...

I have always understood that all baptised Sikh men followed the pañj kakār, which requires hair be uncut and held by a comb, which in practice is done within a turban.

Absolutely correct. The stipulation is for un-cut hair - kesh. The turban - the 'practice' - was simply a practical method of 'keeping it all together'. For a mature approach to the problem, ask how Sikh boys in France are coping with the ban on religious dress in state schools. Simple. A kind-of hair net. It is kesh that is important, not the turban.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

All of a sudden people are rushing to assert their religious identity and everyone is jockeying for a position, including, it seems, large corporations like BA, who are demonstrably (in court) unethical in dealings with competitors and ruthless over its staff relations and sub-contractors.

Oldies will remember that BA funded the Conservative Party until Lord King stopped donations in order to put pressure on the then Conservative Government when it effectively ended its monopoly.

They are currently undergoing a criminal investigation into price fixing (two senior execs have quit) and have a £2.billion pension deficit.

The saddest part of this is that in the end, what does it matter? It was a small item, either a symbol or a mere adornment, depending upon your point of view.

British Airways should be boycotted, not only because of its hypocritical stance, but because of its misuse of shareholder's funds in pursuing this case.

Peter Hain recently described BA's stance on the crucifix affair as "loopy".

These are not nice people at B.A. Perhaps you might consider that next time you have a choice.

Anonymous said...

Griswold said re Anne Widdecombe: "She is self righteous and self important." And, I am willing to guess, Griswold, considerably more famous than you, which gives her a more powerful voice than you. Unless Griswold is a nomme de guerre for a blogging Queen, that is.

The hijab and all the other boring variations on veils and head coverings originated in the sands of the Sahara for practical purposes, and they predate islam by thousands of years. The veil has absolutely no religious legitimacy.

UK Daily Pundit - it doesn't matter if she said she would continue to act as an ambassador for Jesus on earth - an irritating statement, I agree. But this is not about her personally. It is about the refusal of BA to allow a Christian to wear a manifestation of Christian faith. It is about religious discrimination. Welshcakes Limoncello makes the same mistake of personalising it. It is nothing to do with this particular woman. It is the principle that we are discussing.

NSFL - Yours is the best comment on this thread!

Anonymous said...

Wrinkled Weasel - I also agree with you. This is a vicious company and always has been. It was they who drove Freddie Laker out of business. They're a contemptible bunch. I won't fly them. But I have boycotted them for several years, so I'm already at the max.

Gavin said...

Taking this incident in isolation and regardless of any wider context, BA as a private company has the right to make up its own dress code, to amend it as it sees fit and to enforce it among its employees. The woman in question is obliged to adhere to the terms of her employment contract or else face whatever disciplinary measures are outlined therein. I'm fine with that.
I think the issue that Christians such as myself have here, is when you look at all the numerous examples in this country over the last (approx) 15 years, a pattern does seem to emerge, that Christianity in general is being systematically undermined, discriminated against, chipped away at bit by bit, whereas other (so far) "minority" faiths are afforded protection against the slightest hint of offence being caused. In that sense, I broadly agree with Verity's point of view.

Anonymous said...

Why is BA going through so much bad publicity over a complete trifle?

Is an employee wearing a tiny piece of jewelry really such a show stopper?

And why are they trying to void their employees' personality to that extreme extent anyway? Uniforms are useful for customer to spot staff, but small discrete items of adornment add, rather than detract from whom I am dealing with.

Anonymous said...

there have always been rules about what you can and cannot wear to work - even if these are as basic as men having to wear suit and tie and women having to look, well, smartish.

I would ban engagement rings altogether as they have been known to cause major damage to photocopier drums as diamond scores them quite nicely when extracting jammed paper.

I do hope BA bans wedding bands, engagement rings, bindis, nasal studs etc.............

Anonymous said...

Bloke next door to me wears a long black frock with white lace undies peeping out and on high days and holidays he has a silk embroidered tunic over the top; I wear Jil Sander myself -sober but with just that touch of gay chav , very chic.

indigo said...

Apropos my earlier post about London Boroughs and school Easter holiday, London boroughs have agreed - or are about to agree - that the Easter holiday in 2007 will not include the days of Easter. - that should read the Easter holiday in the school year 2007-2008.

Anonymous said...

I have already informed BA that until this lady is reinstated I will not fly with them.As Iain has said sikhs are allowed to wear turbans and JEWELLRY, quite rightly, so why not a crucifix the size of a 10p in a Christian country. If people, and I doubt it, are offended then tough.

Anonymous said...

I come back to my point that people should not be billboards for their faiths while at work. Why would I have their religion thrust in my face when I'm just there to get a seat assigned on a plane? How does what god they worship come into the transaction?

The islamic crap is the worst because the veil is never even referred to in the q'ran or the hadiths. There's no mention of it at all. This imposition of circus headgear on British people is a deliberate ploy to make their religion more visible. There is also no religious instruction to Sikhs that they have to wear turbans. They do it because they want to. I've known plenty of Sikh men one would never have identified as being Sikh had one not caught sight of a steel bangle.

Why is BA allowing people to promote their religion to their customers?

Anonymous said...

I'm not normally a fan of 'thin end of the wedge' or 'slippery slope' type arguments.

But in this case we have to make a stand, or our freedoms will have been eroded to the point where we will no longer be able to get them back.

What is scary is that this is nothing to do with Islam, it is secular profitmongers worried about losing money. Well, folks, let's give them something to really worry about.

Anonymous said...

anonymous 5:35 - You are correct. This has nothing to do with islam at all and everything to do with aggression.

It actually, in the case of the islamics, has nothing to do with their religion. It is aggression and a desire to dominate and their religion is just a tool. This ridiculous outfit - just right for the shifting sands of the Sahara - is ridiculous. I don't like mohammed and think he was a nasty piece of work, but this is one thing that cannot be laid at the flap of his tent. He only said women should dress modestly, and so should men.

Anonymous said...

Why doesn't British Airways rename itself the Anti-British Airways or Blair Airways, which amounts to the same thing?

Anonymous said...

Since the Christian Church is the established church and the head of state rules "by Grace of God", it would be appropriate to require British Airways and all references to Britishness (the "B") from their name. A private member's bill would suffice.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

well 500 years opf the ottaman empire from the Turks into Bulgaria was all about religion and control.....

Anonymous said...

UK Daily Pundit said...
They're off their heads, all the religious types. As mad as a box of frogs, the lot of them. If all religions were banned this sort of nonsense would end overnight. Amen.

4:57 PM

Absolutely, but then we would still have you wouldn't we?

Anonymous said...

Apart from anything else, BA is a terrible airline. Bloated, smug, inefficient. It cannot stand up against Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Thai Air, Emirates, Gulfair or Quantas. (And I've always had a soft-spot for Alia, but not because they're a great airline. Just that they're so sweet.)

BA's a dinosaur. When airlines and people try to be trendy and show how youthful and daring they are, you know they are total drips. BA's tail covered in multiculti vomit was the end of the line for BA. I don't know how it is still staggering on against superb competition.

Anonymous said...

How many times do I have to say this - I never said women should wear the veil! Any kind of veil. You'd think BA could get its facts straight. Jeeesh!

Anonymous said...

I trust you will also be boycotting organisations that do not allow the wearing of the Hijab?

Anonymous said...

I agree that we should boycott BA over this issue. It's another example of putting the boot into Christianity. The cross she wears is not 'jewellery' but is in fact a symbol of her faith and she is being told that she cannot display her faith at work. If BA tell other religions that they cannot wear veils, tubans etc then that would be fair but to single out a Christian for displaying the defining symbol of her faith is totally out of order.

Get booked on one of the many other air lines - that will give BA something to think about. Money is power.

Anonymous said...

I’m a BA check-in worker,
I’ve had trouble with my boss.
You see, I’m a devout and holy Christian,
And he won’t let me wear my cross.
You can witness how devout and pure I am
By my appearances on TV
And my interviews in newspapers,
All at God’s decree.
“Go forth my child and spread my word,
Shake those blasphemers to their bones”
I said, “But Lord, I speak so softly,
In hushed and holy tones.”
The Lord said, “Do not worry
About your gentle voice,
Just bore the nation rigid
And give them little choice!”
Well listen, little check-in worker
Give us all a break!
We’re not the slightest interested
In your cross, for goodness sake!
Faith is something private,
For an individual to embrace,
Not for some skin-crawling loony
To push right in our face.
There’s nothing more repulsive,
Than a Christian on crusade
Pontificating over society
As if they’re someone to be obeyed
There’re other religions in this world,
Such as Muslim, Agnostic and Jew
So reduce your self importance
The world does not revolve round you.

Bart said...

Beautiful. Ill make sure that the next flight I take is BA. The boycott is a great idea. I will try to boycott any airline that allows their employees to proselytize to me in any way.just

Anonymous said...,com_philaform/Itemid,214/form_id,6/

Check out this sight to boycott britik airways

c sogbesan

Anonymous said...

You might want to check out this programme on Channel 4 13th October 2008 at 8pm.

The despatches programme is titled 'The trouble with British Airways'

Looks like all the passenger/staff abuse is catching up on them!