Hallalujah! Cross-wielding zealot's case comes unstuck

Hallalujah! Cross-wielding zealot's case comes unstuck January 29, 2008

FAR from being the poor Christian victim whose religious sensitivities were cruelly stomped upon by British Airways when they told her to wear the symbol of her superstition under her uniform, Nadia Eweida was, in fact, an insensitive zealot who had no consideration for her colleagues.eweida.jpg
That’s the nub of the verdict of an employment tribunal, to which Eweida complained after refusing to comply with BA’s rules on jewellery. She insisted of wearing a cross for all to see.
The tribunal, to which she complained, has just published its judgment – and not only did it kick out all her claims of religious discrimination and harassment, it also criticised her for her intransigence, saying that she:

… generally lacked empathy for the perspective of others … her own overwhelming commitment to her faith led her at times to be both naive and uncompromising in her dealings with those who did not share her faith.

One example of this was her insistence that she must never be required to work on Christmas Day, even though she had signed a contract that made it clear that she, like her colleagues, would be working in an operation that functions 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and therefore required shift working and bank holiday working, too.
The tribunal commented:

[Eweida’s] insistence on privilege for Christmas Day is perhaps the most striking example in the case of her insensitivity towards colleagues, her lack of empathy for those without religious focus in their lives, and her incomprehension of the conflicting demands which professional management seeks to address and resolve on a near-daily basis.

Writing in the Guardian’s Comment is Free, Terry Sanderson, National Secular Society President, said:

Eweida and her Christian activist backers managed to foment such a backlash that BA was forced into changing the policy. Now she can wear her cross visibly, and the airline offered her £8,500 compensation and a return to her job, with her point successfully made. But no – she decided to continue pursuing the airline at the industrial tribunal. She was funded in her action by a rightwing religious law firm in Arizona called the Alliance Defence Fund, whose affiliated lawyer was Paul Diamond, a familiar figure in court cases demanding religious privilege.

The tribunal concluded:

The complaint of direct discrimination fails because we find that the claimant did not, on grounds of religion or belief, suffer less favourable treatment than a comparator in identical circumstances.

The tribunal also heard how Eweida’s attitude and behaviour towards colleagues had prompted a number of complaints objecting to her:

Either giving them religious materials unsolicited, or speaking to colleagues in a judgmental or censorious manner which reflected her beliefs; one striking example was a report from a gay man that the claimant had told him that it was not too late to be redeemed.

Indeed, points out Sanderson, the proselytising motivation of her desire to wear the cross over her uniform instead of underneath it was underlined when she said:

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

"In the usual sense “mutilation” means harm or disfigurement. Circ is neither, therefore it is ..."

UK body modification trial raises questions ..."
"Inapplicable. It would only be argumentum ad populum if I was using the point to ..."

UK body modification trial raises questions ..."
"No one said HIV was spread by “foreskin cheese”. But the inside lining of the ..."

UK body modification trial raises questions ..."
"Commenting on this site gets a bit complicated at times as we approach subjects from ..."

Evangelicals who don’t support Donald Trump ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • browser

    Or like when Dick Gregory said:
    If jesus was killed by a beer bottle, we would be wearing beer bottles around our necks.

  • I’m sure BA explained quite a while ago that this silly woman was allowed to wear her cross as a brooch, proving that the symbol wasn’t the issue, the pendant was.
    £8,500 compensation after she went crying to the press rather than follow her employers handbook? You Couldn’t Make It… uh, oh!

  • If that’s the case then I’m glad she was found out at the tribunal. No one wants to work with someone giving out tracts all the time.

  • Pingback: The Freethinker › Another bloody cop-out!()

  • James

    I find your line very offensive.
    You would not dare to make those remarks if she were a Moslem.

  • Richard

    The parallel is that Moslem employees are being incredibly offensive to Christians and Jews by wearing headscarves and should be stripped of them.
    Are you going to say that ?!

  • Oh, don't be silly James. Islam get as rough a ride as any other damn fool religion on this site. Clearly you haven't bothered to check out our other posts.

  • The religious take great delight in rubbing the noses of non-believers in their piety, and demanding respect for their beliefs. This is offensive, and we make no apology for ridiculing these provocative tactics.

  • Pingback: Why political correctness does not exist « Property is Theft!()

  • Pingback: The propaganda function of political correctness « Property is Theft!()

  • Pingback: Crazy Christian Nadia Eweida is still banging on about that bloody cross()