Legal Mishmash

Now I don't know about you, but I got the impression from recent court cases in the UK, that employers could ban certain religious symbolism .... well, actually mainly Christian crosses.

Crosses Banned In 2012

..... Others such as the Muslim headscarf, beards or shaved heads etc, couldn't be banned. This had something to do with the others having human and religious rights, and, well, apparently Christians didn't. So Sikhs with their turbans, or Jews with their Kippah (the little hat they wear on their heads), are also OK, but what about those Jewish hair locks (called Payot's), the ultra orthodox Jews wears?

Or how about secularists and atheists, who might well object to any religious activity in public places and work places?

In fact the whole thing has become something of a legal minefield, particularly after various semi-official bodies like the BBC, and Local Governments became driven by political correctness, and started to interpret the rules according to their own lights.
 
So it was perhaps something of a relief when in March 2017, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg, ruled that symbols and garments can be banned by employers and governments, as part of a general policy covering religious and political symbols in the workplace. But only when such a policy is in place for all groups.

Questions About Religious Symbols Have Been Increasingly Asked

The ECJ issued a joint judgement in the cases of two Muslim women, one from France and the other from Belgium, who were dismissed for refusing to remove head scarves at work. The ECJ judgement stated that “An internal rule of an undertaking which prohibits the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign does not constitute direct discrimination.”

Just for explanation, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), is the high court of the 47-member Council of Europe, and not part of the EU. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg, is the EU’s highest court, rulings apply to all member states. The boundaries over which court has precedence is very blurred.

However in January 2015, the European Court of Human Rights had ruled that Nadia Eweida should be awarded €2,000 compensation, after being prevented from wearing a Christian cross while working for British Airways. The ruling stated that her 'right to manifest her religion' was breached.

But three other Christian applicants, who also claimed they had suffered religious discrimination lost their appeals. One lost because of health and safety considerations (she worked in a hospital), being deemed "inherently more important", than her right to manifest her religion. The other two lost not because of religious symbols, but because they said it was against their consciences to administer to certain groups social groups, or provide certain services to all.

One of these last two was disciplined by Islington council for not being prepared to conduct civil partnership ceremonies for same sex couples, and in a minority ruling, two of the ECHR judges stated that ....

"We are of the view that once a genuine and serious case of conscientious objection is established, the state is obliged to respect the individual's freedom of conscience. In the third applicant's case, however, a combination of backstabbing by her colleagues, and the blinkered political correctness of the borough of Islington (which clearly favoured 'gay rights' over fundamental human rights), eventually led to her dismissal." 

So where does this leave everyone? Well, probably no further forward. In May 2018 Christians and others in the UK were confirmed as having the right to wear religious symbols and clothing, just as long as symbols do not interfere with the ability to do the job. So we are going with the ECHR ruling, rather than the ECJ.

A mistake for integration as far as I am concerned, as its Islamic symbolism that's most evident in UK work places these days, and this can make others feel very beleaguered ....