Woman wins right to wear the cross
Nadia Eweida
An employee who was asked by British Airways to remove a Christian cross from around her neck has won a religious discrimination case at Europe's human rights court but three other claimants lost similar cases.
The ruling by the European Court of Human Rights will mean private companies will have to reconsider how they treat their employees' rights to express their religious beliefs in the workplace.
Nadia Eweida was sent home without pay from British Airways in 2006 for wearing a necklace with a small silver cross that the company said violated its dress code.
The court ruled that British Airways' request for Eweida to remove the cross "amounted to an interference with her right to manifest her religion".
Reacting to the ruling, British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Twitter: "Delighted that principle of wearing religious symbols at work has been upheld - people shouldn't suffer discrimination due to religious beliefs."
Cameron had pledged to introduce legislation allowing individuals to wear religious symbols at work in response to Eweida's case in July 2012.
However, Shirley Chaplin, Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane all lost appeals in which they argued that British courts had not protected their rights to religious expression.
Nurse Chaplin was told by her employers to remove a crucifix around her neck as it could cause injury if a patient pulled at it.
The court ruled that the reason for asking her to remove the cross - protection of health and safety on a hospital ward - was "of a greater magnitude than that which applied in respect of Ms Eweida".
Both Eweida's and Chaplin's case were originally dismissed by British labour courts.
CIVIL PARTNERSHIP
The two remaining cases pit gay rights against the right to religious freedom.
McFarlane was dismissed from a national counselling service when his employers judged him unwilling to offer sex advice to homosexual couples. The fourth claimant, Ladele, refused to officiate at civil partnership ceremonies for gay couples as part of her duties as a registrar.
Both lost their cases.
Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission has suggested that the British courts' interpretation of the law on the manifestation of religion and religious discrimination is too narrow, a position underlined by the European court's ruling in the case of Eweida.
Commenting on the case, London-based employment law specialist Fraser Younson said the British courts fully protected the holding of religious beliefs but not how they were demonstrated.
"These cases are about the extent to which an employee can manifest their religious beliefs at work," he said.
In one previous case, the European court ruled that a French school could make its Muslim students remove their headscarves during sports classes for safety reasons.
In another, it found that an Italian state school did not violate the rights to religious freedom or education by displaying crucifixes in classrooms.
Rulings by the human rights court cannot be appealed and signatories must comply or risk exclusion from the Council of Europe.
Popular Stories
Money has to serve, not to rule - Pope
Update 7 - Bombs kill 3 people, wound...
Updated - Boston bomb suspect 'identified'
Margaret Thatcher dies after stroke
Update 2 - Three missing women found...
Update 2: Gunman held in Rome police...
Investigators scour video, photos for...
Updated: Boston lockdown as bomber hunted
Many dead, injured in huge Texas...
In Discussion
Margaret Thatcher dies after stroke
Almost 500 migrants rescued in 24 hours...
Clashes as France approves gay marriages
More migrants arrive in Lampedusa
Boy, 8, killed in Boston blasts...
EU approves Cyprus bailout plan
England to ban wild animals at circuses
Pope washes feet of young inmates -...
Update 7 - Bombs kill 3 people, wound...
26 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Antoine D'Arcy
Feb 2nd, 16:57
If she's such an ardent believer, she should live by the principles of her faith and turned the other cheek....
M Mercieca
Feb 12th, 05:48
True..
Ray Pisani
Jan 15th, 20:28
Good for you Naidia Eweida, and for all democratic free peoples.
In some societies it is ok to wear a gun but not a symbol of faith.
Robert Cassar
Jan 15th, 15:20
Bil proposta tal labour il Maltin masra ha ikolna ma onqna :) can we also go to EU court? :)
Mr Tony Gatt
Jan 15th, 16:51
As far as I know if you have exhausted all means of redress in any EU country anyone can go to the European court.
Alfred Falzon
Jan 15th, 15:19
D Crucifix is d symbol of social justice & it's no one's monopoly!
Christ represents ALL good Christians, & various religious factions should desist from using His name for their own ulterior motives.
British Airways had no right to violate freedom of expression like d Maltese ecclesiastical authorities did in d 1960s when they refused religious burial to Labourites who opted for d CROSS.
aaf
gil falzon
Jan 15th, 14:40
Some nihilist militants are still trying to curb people's right to conscientiously object to homosexual marriage for example. This is not right as it obliges people to adhere to views that they do not share.
Mr E Phillips
Jan 16th, 00:41
Great comment. If someone opts to work in a public service then they have to treat everyone, irrespective of their lifestyle choice, colour, religious belief, shoe size, hair colour. If Mr Mcfarlane didn't want to work with homosexuals he should have gone to work with a church organisation. How about if a homosexual counsellor refused to counsel a christian couple, would that be acceptable to you
Dennis Ramstedt
Jan 15th, 14:17
"McFarlane was dismissed from a national counselling service when his employers judged him unwilling to offer sex advice to homosexual couples. The fourth claimant, Ladele, refused to officiate at civil partnership ceremonies for gay couples as part of her duties as a registrar.
Both lost their cases.''
Righlty so.
Ignorant idiots, we live in 2013, not 1950.
wayne scicluna
Jan 15th, 14:31
Living in 2013 does not make the homosexual act any less repulsive to certain people. Tollerance is preached everywhere so how about a bit of it here?
William Spencer
Jan 15th, 16:02
Rightly so ???
They were unwilling to go against their religious teachings / beliefs, and refused to be associated with perverts who go against decency and the teachings of the Word of the Lord.
As they lost their case, what is next, approving the perversions of paedophiles ?
If this is progress in 2013, lets go back to the 1950's !!
Dorielle Soler
Jan 16th, 07:44
A registrar who cannot, in all conscience, perform a ceremony for gay couples cannot be called 'an ignorant idiot' - rather the registrar has made an informed choice, whether it agrees with yours or not.
Teresa Pace
Jan 15th, 13:44
A very well done.
Pippo de Marco
Jan 15th, 13:31
Oh No. - This has probably opened the door to people wearing of all sorts of supposedly religious artefacts and clothing.
Although quite why anyone would want to proclaim and publicise their belief in the intangible simply astounds me. - If I wore a sign declaring a 'faith' in Fairies I would be ridiculed, and rightly so.
People should keep their superstitions to themselves.
Joseph Aquilina
Jan 15th, 13:31
I congratulate Ms Eweida!
Leo Bartolo
Jan 15th, 13:31
If British Airways have no respect for the religious beliefs of its employees, then I as a Christian have no respect for their airline and decided not to travel with BA
Mr Lawrence Mifsud
Jan 15th, 12:28
Surely most of those wearing gold crosses are doing it to display their Christian Belief! Will they be ordered to stop wearing them? Will jewellery shops stop selling cross-shaped ornamental wear?
Is wearing particular traditional clothes by non-Christians also Religious provocation?
TOLERANCE is the way to go by.
Mario Buhagiar
Jan 15th, 12:25
I'm atheist, and I do not believe that crosses or religious symbols be held in public areas like schools, buses etc. However if a person wants to wear a cross or religious symbol its really up to them. Their beliefs. However the country should be religion-less and treat its citizens indifferent of their religion
jimi Xerri
Jan 15th, 12:16
Are we Maltese Roman Catholics stounch believers as Ms Eweida is?
Luap Grob
Jan 15th, 12:09
Well done ! a spot of good news for Christians !
Matthew Saliba
Jan 15th, 13:03
This nothing to do with Christianity!! It's about ALL religions.
Charles Bayliss
Jan 15th, 15:47
Does a simple cross on a neck make any difference for Christianity? It is the way some Christians live that matters. first they go for Holy Communion and then, as soon as they leave, the church they spill all their venom towards their fellow mankind.
Reuben D. Spiteri
Jan 15th, 11:55
I can hardly imagine a thin chain like that causing serious injury even if brutally pulled. I don't mind people wearing their religion's symbol as long as they don't stick it down everyone else's throat.
John Grima
Jan 15th, 12:31
While it might not cause serious injury it could still mean that a person will have to take time off work if she has a deep scratch around her neck which could easily become infected as the lady concerned works in a hospital. This will be to the detriment of patients, other colleagues who will have to cover for the absence and also to the employer who will have to pay for sick leave.
Paul Hawker
Jan 15th, 13:42
Hear Hear. just as a matter of interest judging by your name are you by any chance of Jewish fate?
Henry S Pace
Jan 15th, 11:45
TRUE JUSTICE PREVAILS.
CONGRATULATIONS.
Please choose the reason of your report below: