h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Thanks Novo, I was just curious.

kea.

I do think BA are between a rock and a hard place. It makes sense that people are upset that some religious clothes or ornaments are acceptable but not others. But if the woman is allowed her cross then as someone pointed out anyone with a strong and committed conviction should then be allowed to wear a symbol of it. ALF badge?

One of the things I like about christianity is when it observes its humility. While I can see why this woman might want to fight, it actually smacks of a reaction against other religions rather than a need of her own. But then most christians I respect have their religion as a more private thing, not something to advertise (or at least it's not a requirement that it be visible).

Afternoon Doc,

Try this link,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5411320.stm



Novo

Interesting link Novo.


I think the full veil issue is a separate one from the BA issue. Cultures that violate the human rights of women are not something to be encouraged anywhere. If a woman has a choice in how much of her body she covers then she can choose a headscarf rather than a veil when in the UK. However if there is no choice, or she belongs to a culture that requires women to wear veils in the context of human rights violations then this needs to be resisted.

This isn't just an issue of British culture rights (and I do think there are valid cultural reasons for wanting to see someone's face if they are teaching you) it's also an issue of the human rights of women.

Thankyou Novo, I am now more confused than ever.........!

Hi whisky,

Sorry, but that is utter tosh,

Of course I can distinguish between a political statement and a religious belief. I just don't believe that is is fair to separate those who CAN make statements about their belief or faith in terms of dress from those who cannot. BA girl ,or Fiona Bruce e.g.


<< Does that mean _all_ beliefs are political/religious statements to you, and that unless someone is shouting from the rooftops "I am a Christian/Jew/Muslim/High Priest of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" they can't be religious >>

Of course not. A facile question. Read my posts.

My objection all along has been the bias towards a specific faith, and some ( I would sugggest ) deliberately provacative actions in this connection. eg the girl who wanted to wear the full covering dress as a pupil in school. Note I have not objected to the headscarf, the Yarmulke ,Rastafarians etc. We should ALL be free to demonstrate in some moderate way, our beliefs. However, in my view ALL faiths should be practised without causing offence ,........

Novo

"Of course I can distinguish between a political statement and a religious belief. I just don't believe that is is fair to separate those who CAN make statements about their belief or faith in terms of dress from those who cannot. BA girl ,or Fiona Bruce e.g."


If that's the case then why are you refusing to acknowledge that there is a difference between someone believing they _must_ wear a veil as part of their religion and someone who simply _wants_ to display their religion?

Whisky

I am not. I see the difference. But the perception of the outsider is the same ,regardless of motive. But you are still missing my point , which is of bias, not of intent.

Novo

"I am not. I see the difference. But the perception of the outsider is the same ,regardless of motive."

No it's not - I'm an outsider and I don't perceive the two as being the same.


"But you are still missing my point , which is of bias, not of intent."

But there we differ in our definition of biais...

As I consider the reasons behind wearing a veil/headscarf and wearing a crucifix to be different I have trouble considering it biaised to treat them differently.

To reduce it to complete absurdity just to get my point across:

On the one hand you have someone who _wants_ to wear a crucifix visibly, on the other someone has a religious _need_ to wear a headscarf/veil.

So, a blind person might _need_ to take their guide dog into a restaurant whereas someone with a pet Yorkshire Terrier _wants_ to take their dog into the restaurant... Do you think it's biaised against Yorkshire terriers if the restaurant staff let the guide dog in but not the Yorkshire Terrier?

I think its pretty difficult to practice most faiths without causing offence. Most of them have a fair chunk of condemnatory language for the unbeliever.

I agree with you that a full veil does not seem appropriate dress for a teacher. I suppose if they've tried it and it works then fine, but I can't see that it would.

Whisky, I don't accept that you distinction between what a person chooses to observe for their religion and what they're instructed to observe for their religion is important. Or at least it shouldn't be. You're confining people to a set of orthodoxies. The alternative is people making up any silly nonsense they like, but I think its fair to say that airline companies shouldn't be in the business of judging the strength of people's convictions.

I suppose this is part of my feeling that religions shouldn't get special treatment. I should be able to wear a lightsabre under my uniform, so long as it doesn't ruin the profile.

Which I suppose leads me to agree with Novo. Either BA should give up on trying to enforce uniform, or it should enforce its no religious symbollism outside your clothing rule without exceptions or playing favourites.

Or I suppose there could be some variety in the uniforms. Perhaps if they asked their employees what features they preferred from their uniforms, and they could implement a few of the most popular, which might well include a version with a headscarf, for example?

Do these religious dress codes not seem a bit silly to anyone else though? It boils down to this damned idea of moral authority. The Qu'ran says people should dress modestly, great. So why is no-one asking for what purpose it says this? Once you know why, you can work out what is the appropriate modern dress to fullfill that criteria. Instead they faff about trying to unpick a vague centuries old line to get to some definitive interpretation of what modesty should be in modern times.

"Whisky, I don't accept that you distinction between what a person chooses to observe for their religion and what they're instructed to observe for their religion is important. Or at least it shouldn't be. You're confining people to a set of orthodoxies. ... I think its fair to say that airline companies shouldn't be in the business of judging the strength of people's convictions."

With this I agree. And you said it better than I could.

TRiG.

Regarding the veil teaher. She didn't wear the veil to her interview, so when did she start wearing it?

Would it be scurrilous to suggest the day after Jack Straw's remarks

Veil teacher, sorry

The fact that she didn't wear it to the interview does somewhat discredit her position.

""Whisky, I don't accept that you distinction between what a person chooses to observe for their religion and what they're instructed to observe for their religion is important. Or at least it shouldn't be. You're confining people to a set of orthodoxies. ... I think its fair to say that airline companies shouldn't be in the business of judging the strength of people's convictions.""


Fair enough, I agree with that too to a certain extent.

However, in this particular case, the BA dress code is that _all_ jewellery (religious or not) on chains should be worn under the blouse. Now, in my opinion, in this case there is no religious reason for not adhering to this. The crucifix isn't too big to be worn under a blouse and there are no religious reasons for displaying it. Hence I have my doubts as to the motives of anyone insisting on breaking the rules.

Evening Whisky,

<< "I am not. I see the difference. But the perception of the outsider is the same ,regardless of motive."

No it's not - I'm an outsider and I don't perceive the two as being the same.>>

I should obviously have used better English - I meant to imply visual perception....

Novo

Is everyone happy that a company should dictate what staff wear when it doesn't affect the quality of their work ?

I'm happy with that but do think the companies without rigourous dress codes are the more friendly places. However I can see a good reason why a dress code is useful especially for people dealing with the public.

This goes a bit beyond a dress code though - proscribing visible personal decoration. Does this stretch to tattoos ? Caste marks ?

How far is it reasonable to take this ? Sorry we won't employ you because you are overweight and our uniform wouldn't suit you ? We can't put you in a customer facing role because you have a scarred face ? Sorry - you're not pretty enough !

Well that'd be a lot more honest than most companies - and most people - are prepared to be, but I'm sure it happens over and over.