It’s a pity (for you) that nobody else here is as stupid as you are. I forgot you used to be grienspace.
Good Lord! Thanks for ruining a perfectly fine fantasy. You sir, are a cad!
Really? I mean that would explain quite a bit.
Did I mention that you really are a strangely angry little man?
Interestingly, the BBC interview I heard on the radio today (with the BBC guy absolutely going after the BA representitive) stated that BA has an actual turban that is part of an alternate BA uniform. (And I presume a hijab as well.) Its blue and white, he said.
The point he kept making was - if a religious item can be hidden under a uniform, it should be. If it cannot be for purely practical reasons - i.e., bangles, a hijab or turban - then BA will make it part of the uniform.
From a purely personal standpoint, I thought Jesus was on the cross, this woman should get off it, it’ll be might crowded.
Cheers,
G
She admited as much, and was cited as saying so.
Perhaps.
Did you read the article? Or anything about BA’s position? If it can be hidden, hide it. If not, we’ll accomodate it pretty well sums it up.
Now you’re just making shit up.
In this instance, yes by the woman’s own admission. In this instance. I’m really trying not to call you a moron…but this is a great big jump you’re making there, sparky.
You’re making shit up again.
Er…she wasn’t smeared, sparky. BA tried to accomodate her. BA offered her a job where she could wear her cross, if that was important to her. She refused.
Tell me again why its important that I value Christians above all others? Cause they are squeaky wheels? Is that why?
Cheers,
G
Okay. In what tv show or movie did that line (or one almost identical to it) appear?
No - it depends on what the law is. And that ‘right’ only applies to Parliament. It is a common practice for MP’s to use ‘parliamentary privilege’ to pint accusatory fingers and name names without fear of prosecution.
Sorry, I’m not sure if it does. It’s more than likely I’ve heard it from somewhere else, but a quick google search of likely sources (even the 2nd or 3rd entries) doesn’t reveal much. Possibly a Peter Cook quote? He’d certainly have been able to say it with the right amount of amused disdain.
Buzz Lightyear calls Woody a “sad, strange little man” in Toy Story?
If they’re “pinting” them, then they’re probably Charles Kennedy.
Badoom tish.
A company couldn’t really allow anyone to do anything they wanted as long as it was in the name of religion. If they did, someone would say their religion mandated they drink three martinis every day at lunch, and someone else would say that their religion mandated that they come in late and go home early every day, and someone else would demand the right to pass out tracts to co-workers and customers, and so on and so forth. If what constitutes a religious requirement is left totally up to the individual, there’s no way to determine who’s actually motivated by genuine religious belief and who just wants to slack off or be a pain.
You know, I think The Flying Dutchman is getting unfairly beat up here. There seems to be four points that people are advancing to suggest, in very strong language, that he’s incorrect, stupid, etc. I don’t buy it. I think he’s got a good point, but perhaps not being very familiar with the English legal system, he’s not been able to defend his position very well. I’m going to respond to the four points that people are making against The Flying Dutchman’s argument:
-
The contempt being heaped on him by some, such as Diogenes, for the reference to constitutional rights, with the position being taken that that’s nonsense from the start because the U.K. doesn’t have a constitution;
-
Further along the same lines, the response that he’s mistaken because there aren’t constitutional rights in the U.K.;
-
Further along the same lines, the criticism that since the airline is private, employees don’t have any rights akin to constitutional rights in any case; and,
-
Finally, the meat of the issue, that the lady has no fair grievance and the airline has done all that it needs to do to accommodate her.
For the reasons to follow, I think points 1, 2, and 3 are just plain wrong. Point 4 is certainly arguable, but I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand as so many of you seem to do.
To avoid this post getting unseemly long, I’ll post each of these four points as a separate points.
Several posters jumped all over The Flying Dutchman for his reference to constitutional rights, saying that Britain doesn’t have a constitution. The clear implication was that since he got that wrong, his whole argument was worthless.
The problem with that response is that Britain does indeed have a constitution, as Polycarp elliptically pointed out. It’s quite true that the British constitution is not on the same sort of model as the American constitution, but it is still a constitution, referred to as such by the British themselves in their legal texts.
For example, one of the most authoritative British legal texts, sort of equivalent to Am.Jur., is Halsbury’s Laws of England, currently in its fourth edition. It’s called “Halsbury’s” because it was first published under the authority of the then-Lord Chancellor, Lord Halsbury. The fourth edition was published under the authority of Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone. Their Lordships quite clearly labour under the apprehension that the United Kingdom has a constitution. They devote an entire title in Volume 8 to the topic of “Constitutional Law”. They define the British Constitution as follows:
Stating that the U.K. doesn’t have a constitution is incorrect. If posters want to try to argue that a country only has a constitution if it follows the U.S. pattern, I would respectfully suggest they are mistaken, and frankly, a tad arrogant.
The second challenge to The Flying Dutchman was a bit more sophisticated. He referred to constitutional rights, and several posters jumped on him, saying that since the U.K. doesn’t have a constitution, by definition British folk don’t have constitutional rights, and that was taken as further weaknesses in his position.
The problem with that argument is that the British do indeed have constitutional rights. Given the organic nature of the British Constitution, they’re not set out in an entrenched document like the U.S. Bill of Rights, but rather by the U.K.’s treaty obligations as a member of the European Community, implemented through a British statute.
As a member of the European Community, the U.K. has voluntarily committed itself to the European Convention on Human Rights. To make the rights set out in that document effective against the British government, Parliament passed the Human Rights Act 1998, which provides that individuals whose rights have been infringed can go to court to defend them against the government.
So are these rights “constitutional rights”? I would argue that they are, in the common sense of individual rights which are legally enforceable against the government in the ordinary courts. “Constitution” is here being used in the sense of the legal relationship between the individual and the state.
And it’s not just me who thinks these are constitutional rights. The British Department of Constitutional Affairs has produced an introductory booklet for British public servants, to explain their duties to the public under the Convention and the Human Rights Act 1998. The booklet, Making Sense of Human Rights – A Short Introduction (Warning – pdf) states:
Clearly, the British government itself considers the Human Rights Act to be constitutional in nature. It sets out legally enforceable rights of individual against the government, to protect the basic fundamental freedoms such as freedom of thought, conscience and religion, which includes the right to manifest one’s beliefs, in public or private, by practice and observance (see Article 9 of the Convention). Even if the Convention is not directly applicable in this case, this definition of freedom of religion certainly seems germane to the discussion of someone who wishes to wear a cross in public to witness to her religious beliefs.
In summary on this point, I would suggest that those who attacked The Flying Dutchman’s credibility by ridiculing him for his reference to constitutional rights in Britain were simply incorrect.
Now, it’s quite true, as some posters pointed out, that since British Airlines is a private company, it’s not subject to constitutional rights. Some posters have used this point to further ridicule The Flying Dutchman’s reference to constitutional rights. There are two points to make in response.
First, in popular language, “constitutional rights” are often used as shorthand to mean the rights of the individual, even if the speaker is actually referring to a situation with a private employer. It’s not uncommon to see other posters on these message boards using the term in that way, when really they mean similar rights guaranteed by statute and applicable to the private sector (such as by the Civil Rights Acts in the U.S., or human rights statutes in Canada). It’s a mistake, but unless someone is well-versed in this area, it’s an understandable one. We all understood what The Flying Dutchman was getting at, even if he the term he used was technically inaccurate, and I don’t think his mistaken terminology completely undermines his argument, as some posters seem to suggest.
The second, and perhaps more important point, is to ask: in British law, what rights do employees in the private sector have against their employer in the area of fundamental rights and freedoms, such as freedom of religion? If the British government has not set out any legally enforceable rights for employees in this area, then The Flying Dutchman was barking up the wrong tree. However, if there are such rights, then he’s likely got a point worth investigating.
A little bit of poking around, and we find that the British government has enacted The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, which are intended to protect the religious rights of employees in the private and public sectors. The relevant provision is section 3, which provides:
Thus, British law creates rights for individual employees which they can assert against their employer in defence of the employees’ religious beliefs. That really was the basic point that The Flying Dutchman was trying to make with his reference to constitutional rights. So the final point is to ask, does the flight attendant in this case have a potential claim under these regulations?
What exactly do the regulations protect? Well, I cast about a bit on the web and found an interesting site operated by the Citizens Advice Bureau, which appears to give general advice on matters such as employment law. Clicking on their Employment Fact Sheet – Religion (warning – pdf), I found an interesting summary of the law respecting religious dress or ornaments:
Assuming this is an accurate statement of the effect of the regulations, it suggests that the attendant has a potential claim against British Airways. It certainly fits with the text of the Regs I quoted in the previous post. By allowing some employees to wear religious items, but not allowing her to wear a cross, the employer appears to be treating her less favourably than it treats other employes, based on her religion, contrary to s. 3(1)(a) of the Regs.
As well, the cases would appear to be the same, or not materially different, as required by s. 3(3) of the Regs. The employer is allowing some employees to wear religious items, but not the attendant in issue. It strikes me that the employer would have a hard time with the argument that it tried to accomodate her by offering her a different job. By allowing other employees to wear turbans, hijabs and bangles, all with religious significance, the employer has shown that it can in fact accommodate exceptions to its uniform policy, for religious grounds. Once it makes that concession, I find it hard to see how it can justify only making it for some employees who wish to wear items of religious significance, but not others.
Obviously, whether the lady is successful or not in her claim is yet to be decided. However, based on the wording of the Regs, I think she certainly has a possible case of religious discrimination, which is exactly what The Flying Dutchman was arguing.
You know, as oxymoron’s go “respectfully suggest they are…a tad arrogant” is a goo’un. Call us arrogant by all means, but don’t try to claim you’re being respectful in doing so.
Now, let’s begin. We don’t have constitutional rights. As stated above the use of the term “constitutional law” by the lords is little more than a convenience to cover a constantly changing hodgepodge of different sources. Because of this, the rights that we have are constantly changing, and governed by a number of different statutes. Any one of these can be amended by the Houses of Parliament at any time. In effect, even if we ignore any points about entrenchment or limits of government, and purely focus on a constitution as being the established rules and principles by which a country is governed, then in Britain the rules that could be viewed as being a constitution do not specify our individual rights. That is why the Houses of Parliament can chop and change our rights, whilst completely following the rules.
So, even if you restrict the definition of a constitution to one so vague that it’s practically meaningless, and ignore any requirements for entrenchment or scope of power, then you still do not come up with constitutional rights.
See my above post. Hell, see your own cite. We “voluntarily committed” ourselves to a convention. That commitment can be quite legitimately rescinded by Parliament. It is not a constitutional right, it is a statutory right.
Northern Piper, compliments on well balanced counterargument. I can see your point on a few issues.
The main objection, I think, is that by his statement “Like its okay to be gay, but don’t tell anybody. Ring a bell ?” is in clear reference to “don’t ask don’t tell”, which is predominantly a US issue, and used as a prelude to comments about the constitution, implies he thinks we share a constitution with the US
That said, you’re flat wrong on this:
BA is allowing her to wear it, just not in breach of its codified uniform regulations. Furthermore they offered her alternative employment where she could display it too. She turned both reasonable options down. The courts agree (though she’s appealing).
My personal objection to Dutchman’s position is not necessarily that his arguments are shoddy, but that he’s claiming persecution of Christians by BA, which is clearly not the case.