HLE blogger James Wilson examines the controversy surrounding religion in the workplace
"The American humourist PJ O’Rourke once said that it was funny how those who wanted to share their religious views with you never wanted you to share yours with them. The European Court of Human Rights is about to share its views with all of us: this week it is hearing four cases on religion and the law.
All four applicants are practising Christians who complain that UK law did not sufficiently protect their rights to freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination at work. Nadia Eweida, a British Airways employee, and Shirley Chaplin, a geriatrics nurse, complain that their employers placed restrictions on their visibly wearing Christian crosses while at work. Lilian Ladele, a registrar of births, deaths and marriages, and Gary McFarlane, a Relate counsellor, complain about their dismissal for refusing to carry out certain of their duties which they considered would condone homosexuality.
One might be forgiven for thinking that the symbols cases were a relatively trivial matter. Almost no-one would be offended by someone wearing a cross.
The answer, however, is that we are back in the realms of legal principle, and while the crosses might well be seen as harmless symbols that merely reflect a mainstream faith, if they are permitted as a legitimate departure from the employer’s otherwise secular uniform policy, someone could turn up wanting to wear something offensive and citing religious grounds for doing so.
One possible response is that relatively inoffensive symbols should be permitted, but not ones that are blatantly offensive.
There are several problems with the court trying to decide what is offensive and what is reasonable. Is it to be judged from the perspective of the victim, the perpetrator or a neutral observer?...”
To continue reading go to: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
