Mary Ohounha, a UK nurse who worked in the surgery department of Croyden University Hospital in London was dismissed from her job for refusing to remove a cross she wore. The Employment Tribunal has since found that she was the victim of harassment and discrimination. Good! https://rmx.news/poland/i-am-so-pro...ho-faced-discrimination-over-wearing-a-cross/
Quebec has recently instituted a law which forbids people from wearing religious symbols to work when they are publicly employed. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/20/world/canada/quebec-religious-symbols-ruling.html I kind of agree with it in the sense that Quebec was a province that was highly controlled by the Catholic Church for a long time. When you consider the trials of Canadian First Nations people with the residential schools you can also see why religious expression in the public sphere can be problematic. A teacher recently lost her job for wearing a hijab which has caused a lot of people to feel her freedom of expression has been compromised.
What is the link between the nurse and your pride in being a Christian? What are we meant to discuss?
That was taken for the title of the article, it’s the nurses comment. But, it applies to me as well, being a Christian.
Personally, I'd prefer that all religious symbols be allowed in the workplace or none, but it should be up to the employer, as for all dress code rules. It isn't really discrimination unless some symbols are allowed and some aren't. Should Christian symbols be allowed? Sure, so long as Wiccans, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Satanists, etc. have the same right.
To clarify, I personally feel more comfortable in the former scenario: where all such symbols are allowed rather than none. But I can see where, for example, uniformed law enforcement positions might not want to allow them while out on calls. That said, if we make uniform exceptions for Sikh and Muslim officers to wear religious garb (and I can see why we would), then Christians should be allowed to wear crosses. It isn't an easy decision, but it should be an equitable one. In a standard office environment, I'm actually a little weirdly relieved when I see coworkers displaying this sort of thing, regardless of how I personally feel about their religion.
Well, in this case, when she was asked to remove her necklace, it was for health and safety reasons in clinical areas: "However, Croydon Health Services NHS Trust’s uniform policy prohibited the wearing of necklaces in clinical areas on the basis that they could be a health and safety risk."https://www.theguardian.com/society...at-work-was-unfairly-dismissed-tribunal-rules I also find NHS general guidelines in Uniforms-and-Workwear-Guidance-2-April-2020.pdf to list the following as poor practice: "Wear neckties/lanyards (other than bow-ties) during direct patient care activity. Wear jewellery while on duty other than a smooth ring or plain stud earrings."So I'm more confused over why lanyards and other people's jewellery was allowed. Reading the tribunal case (Onuoha_v_Croydon_Health_Services_NHS_Trust__2300516.2019_-_Judgment.pdf) I see that a Hindu woman had also been asked to remove a religious necklace. That being said, the tribunal seems to have concluded that personal effects like these were common in the work place, and that the rules had been applied arbitrarily and discriminatorily. There I agree with you and everyone else, that's not how it should be done.
It has always bothered me that we allow some religious people to break rules we enforce on others. If that Sikh fellow can carry his ceremonial dagger and that Muslima can cover her face in a bank or airport terminal, everyone should be allowed to carry small blades and wear face masks hiding their faces. I see zero logic to exceptions made for religious conviction, which always favours particular established and recognized religions. Accomodations and exemptions based on physical need,.such as seeing eye dogs being allowed where others can't have animals I can agree with. Allowing a man to sacrifice a live chicken while swearing in at a court room to satisfy his religion calling for animal sacrifice as part of taking an oath, not so much. All that said, as Swensson noted, this seems to be a case of uneven enforcement, so she seems to be the right.
Proverbs 16:18 King James Version 18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
