That only refers to:
(emphasis added).
It has nothing to do with what you say or write outside Parliament.
All the cites in the world couldn’t prevent that.
Perhaps you might explain it to me. One person is allowed to express their faith while the other isn’t. Both are compromising the uniform. I thought gays were being discriminated against because they don’t have the same rights as heterosexuals in the work place .
Nothing in the link suggest attempting to convert. If a Muslim tells me verbally that Allah loves me even though I’m not Muslim, (like that is going to happen :rolleyes: ) I wouldn’t regard that as proselyization. I do realize that the accusation of proselyzation plays well around here.
Speak for yourself. I’m not surprized
I have the feeling that because of this woman’s fuss, and all the fundy crap being spewed, the company is simply going to outlaw ALL jewelry. That’s usually what happens in this type of thing.
And if they do, I HOPE her coworkers will make sure to personally thank her for that.
Depends on how you parse it doesn’t it.
In the case of the hijab, it’s not a matter of expressing faith, it’s a matter of doing something that is required by your faith. AFAIK, there is no sect of Christianity that requires its adherents to wear a visible cross symbol at all times.
Oh yes, lets attack the fundies. You don’t know the woman is a fundy. With her Egyptian Arab background, she’s most likely Coptic, the most oppressed religion in the world and that religion has never been described as fundamentalist. Furthermore, she is backed by the Anglican heirarchy, a mainstream church associated with the very liberal Episcopalians in the US.
The hijab is not always required since there are plenty of Muslim women who do not wear it when not forced to. Besides, the practice of religion and spirituality are not confined to the dictates of groups, but quite often are a matter of individual conscience.
um…no. How could you parse it so that it isn’t referring specifically to Parliament?
So what?
The point is that some feel the hajib is a requirement and there is no practical wy to conceal that garment under a uniform.
There is no Christian denomination which requires adherents to visibly display a cross.
It’s already been explained to you. Repeatedly. Muslims and Christians both have exactly the same rights in the workplace. They cannot be refused work or advancement because of their religion, and they cannot be forced to do something that violates their religious principles. Forcing a Muslim woman to uncover her head would violate her religious principles. Forcing a Christian woman to wear her cross pendant under her shirt does not. As so often happens with people like yourself, you have managed to confuse, “Not discriminating against a group I don’t like,” with “Discriminating against me personally.”
Well, as you’ve amply demonstrated in post #79, reading for meaning isn’t exactly your strong suit, is it? Strictly for your benefit, there are not very many different ways to parse the phrase “freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament.” Certainly, there’s no way to parse it to refer to “speech, debates, or proceedings occuring outside of Parliament,” as you seem to be claiming.
You have the capacity to learn? Well, I’m certainly surprised.
Guinastasia did not describe the woman as being a fundamentalist. There’s that almost total lack of reading comprehension biting you in the ass again.
There are plenty of Jews who eat pork. Does this mean that kosher dietary laws are not a religious requirement? The point (which you have almost certainly missed) is that just because some practitioners of a particular religion have interpreted their beliefs in one way, does not mean that you can force all practitioners of that religion to behave in the same way. Lots of Muslim women do not feel their religion requires them to wear a headscarf. This is not an excuse to force those women who do believe as such to remove their headscarves. Just as freedom of religion means you cannot force someone to adhere to a particular religion, so too does it mean you can’t force them to a particular interpretation of their religion.
I love a little education, really I do. As such, I’m rather disappointed to find that you’ve made such a pishpoor attempt of the job.
See, if I was trying to educate someone on a subject, or at least appear as if I knew marginally more than fuck all about it, I might just have done a little bit more than, for example, doing a google search on the phrase “British Constitution” and then just throwing up the first link it returns as some evidence that there is such a thing.
I mean, you could at least have gone to the trouble of perhaps reading that link first, or even the 2nd or 3rd links Google gave you. Then you might have found out that references to a British “constitution” are reallu just a handy shorthand term for a combination of an ever changing range of sources that include statute, EU law, common law, conventions and even writings by learned sources.
You know - no separation of powers, no doctrine of limited government, no entrenchment…no actual constitution.
Now, if you maybe wanted to talk about statutory rights, you might have a leg to stand on. If anything, you’d probably really want to talk about the European Convention on Human Rights, which was adopted into British law by statute through the Human Rights Act 1998 - then you might even have a chance of finding something. But constitutional rights? Care to cite the constitution that covers this one?
Which he clearly didn’t, since it says in his own cite (my bolding);
So it’s not only a shit cite, it’s also one that goes completely against his point. Oh, but it depends on how you parse it, of course. 
Really? How on earth do you parse the words “in Parliament” such that you conclude that they really mean “in Parliament and also not in Parliament”? It’s a preposition and a noun; how much parsing can take place, precisely?
Mind you, I’d love you to come over here and argue in front of a judge that parliamentary privilege applies to airport check-in staff. I think judges over here don’t get enough laughs, and someone as falling-down-stupid as you trying to argue constitutional protection in the absence of either governmental action or for that matter a constitution might be just the ticket for our ennui-ridden judiciary.
I know you likely don’t have ready access to the British media, but she’s been interviewed several times today, and I have to report that she appears to be of the “Take me now Lord, take me now!” sort. Which by UK standards makes her a bit of a nutter.
Good god, what a complete pile of bollocks you spout on UK law.
The freedom of speech mentioned in the Bill of Rights purely and simply defined it for parliamentary proceedings. It established the principle that went on to become parliamentary privilege. You can parse it any way your frantically clutching little mind may want, but 300 years of case law make it pretty fucking clear just what it covers. For reference, see it’s appearance in Neil Hamilton’s little legal fiasco:
"On 21 July 1995, a libel case brought by Neil Hamilton, then an Member of Parliament, against The Guardian was stopped after Mr Justice May ruled that the prohibition on the courts questioning parliamentary proceedings contained in the Bill of Rights would prevent The Guardian from obtaining a fair trial. "
Fuck me, if you’re going to try to bluff knowledge, at least do a halfway credible job of it.
She is Coptic, but of the fundie kind by all appearances. She was on the radio earlier saying “people must hear The Truth!” and shit.
Recreational outrage, meet stupid. Stupid, meet recreational outr…
Oh, he’s off Googling again.
Short of citing an episode of the Backyardigans, I just don’t see how he can beat his current level of fuckwittery.
He could quote Doodlebops lyrics.