BA's Cross U-Turn

So BA has climbed down over its refusal to allow a check-in desk worker to wear a cross. Now, says the company, it will allow staff to wear religious symbols openly and give "some flexibility for individuals to wear a symbol of faith on a chain".

If BA thinks this is the end of the matter, I fear the company is very much mistaken.

When BA announced it would be reviewing its policy, back in November, I was deeply concerned about their apparent intention to allow staff to wear a religious symbol on their lapel badge.

In my experience, it is mostly conservative evangelical Christians who wear a cross or ICHTHUS fish on their lapel. While I am proud to wear a cross around my neck, as more than just a piece of jewellery, I would not choose to wear a lapel badge as I would not wish to labelled 'evangelical.'

So, personally, I would have dropped the lapel idea altogether and just stuck with allowing religious jewellery. A symbol on a chain around the neck is often ambiguous. If, for instance, you saw someone wearing a cross, or a five or six pointed star on a necklace, you might not immediately think it was a religious symbol. You almost certainly wouldn’t make an issue about it and ask the wearer for more details. A lapel badge on the other hand, is a clear, unambiguous symbol of faith, one that - unless you share the wearer's faith - automatically signals that they are ‘different’ to you.

This is why I sense trouble ahead. A Wiccan wearing a five-pointed star on her lapel meets a Christian wearing a cross on his. Are they going to meet each other in a neutral way? Or is religion going to get in the way of a good working relationship?

A current court case in the USA centres on a Wiccan ex-Starbucks barista, who claims she was asked on several occasions to remove the pentacle from around her neck, despite the fact her colleagues, including her Christian Manager, all wore crosses. She claims they also refused to promote or transfer her to another branch.

I fear it won’t be long before we see a similar case here. Evangelicals in all faiths often will not accept open proselytising by those of other faiths, too often refusing to afford them the rights they demand for themselves.

How long will it be before the complaints start, complaints that Satanists, Scientologists and other minority faith group members are wearing badges when ‘they shouldn’t be allowed to?’ How long before atheists start campaigning to be allowed to wear their own badges? No doubt Nadia Eweida would be horrified by the idea, yet all faith groups have equal rights under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003.

I also wonder what BA will do to stop their believing employees sharing their faith when asked by customers what their lapel badges mean?

Nadia Eweida and her supporters clearly didn’t think this through before starting their campaign and neither, in consulting only with faith groups, and mainstream faith groups at that, has BA.

The fact remains; BA should have just ignored that tiny, ambiguous silver cross. As an innocent piece of jewellery that happened to have significance for her, no one but the BA bureaucrats batted an eyelid. As a visible, unambiguous symbol on a lapel, I fear a whole new can of worms has been opened.

BA is wrong to ban the cross

British Airways check-in desk worker Nadia Eweida will learn this week whether or not she can keep her job. She is currently suspended for breaking BA’s uniform code by wearing a discreet cross around her neck.

This is the second time this year that this particular issue has risen in relation to an airline. Back in January, BMI suggested flight crew who were not prepared to remove their crucifixes or crosses and wear traditional Arab dress on flights to Saudi Arabia should be transferred to short-haul flight crews.

It is also the second time in as many weeks when the issue of wearing a cross has hit the headlines. Apparently there was heated debate in BBC boardrooms recently as to whether TV newsreader Fiona Bruce should be allowed to wear her cross when reading bulletins. It seems she is to be allowed to continue to do so. Whether BA will make the same concession to check-in worker Nadia Eweida, 55, of Twickenham, remains to be seen.
BA refused permission for Miss Eweida to wear her cross on the grounds that ‘jewellery is not allowed.’ But this is no fashion statement for her: her tiny cross, the size of a 5p piece, has deep religious significance. “I will not hide my belief in the Lord Jesus,” she told the Daily Mail. “British Airways permits Muslims to wear a headscarf and Sikhs to wear a turban…I stand up for the rights of all citizens.”

Okay, well let’s not get carried away here Miss Eweida, because I’m not convinced you’d be first in the queue to campaign for the rights on Muslim women to wear the veil. And, as my Druid friend Mark Graham points out, there is nothing in the Bible or Christian teaching that states followers must wear crosses and that BA surely has a right to stipulate a standard uniform for employees. I agree with his conclusion; this is not strictly a religious discrimination matter.

Nevertheless, it infuriates me beyond belief. I am becoming increasingly concerned at the numerous instances in this country where expressions of religion and belief in the workplace are accepted unless that faith is Christianity. As Miss Eweida said, sometimes it feels as if Christianity is being treated as a faith that is ‘null and void,’ despite the fact that 71% of us called ourselves Christian in the 2001 census.

Since 2003 we have had legislation protecting workers from discrimination on the grounds of their religious belief and, if anyone dares complain about a Sikh turban or Muslim hijab they are, quite rightly, considered to be out of order. So why, if Sikhs must be allowed to wear their turbans and steel bangles in the workplace and Muslim women should be allowed to wear hijab, is there an issue about Christians being allowed to wear small crosses? If Miss Eweida was wearing a giant crucifix, fine. She would be well out of order. But is making a fuss about a tiny silver cross really worth all the bad publicity BA has had as a result? I don’t think so. They have made a major blunder.

And what precisely is BA worried about anyway? It seems that in prohibiting the cross from being worn “outside the uniform” BA thinks it will offend its customers. This is nonsense. Apart from a small handful of secular fundamentalists who would do away with any form of religious expression, anywhere, and turn us all into a miserable bunch of atheists, I really don’t think people care. Many non-Christians wear the cross anyway, simply as a fashion accessory and those I have spoken to of other faiths certainly don't find it offensive.

“I feel BA have acted without thinking in this matter and have placed themselves in an absurd situation, Dr Indarjit Singh, Editor of The Sikh Messenger and regular BBC Radio 4 Thought for the Day contributor, told me. “An item should not be dismissed as jewellery if it has another significance. A Cross is clearly a religious symbol and wearing one suggests that the wearer wishes to be identified with Jesus Christ's uplifting teachings. Banning it shows gross insensitivity.”

And this from Ronald Alexander:

"I was raised Catholic and am now a practicing Buddhist and ordained Zen Monk. To not allow one to wear a sign such as a cross to work on ones body and or on ones clothing is disrespectful to the rights of a spiritual person. All faiths are important and symbols are resresentations of ones faith."