This should draw a line under the veil

A bit hypocritical of the CoE mind you. Look at all their complaints about a woman not being allowed to wear her crucifix outside her uniform on BA whilst all other staff were forbidden from doing do (special rights for Christians?) but when a Muslim exercises her right to publically express her beliefs they sack her. They cannot have it both ways. One law for Christians and another for Muslims it seems! :roll:

They really should read what the New Testament has to say about hypocrisy these Christians. They'd be in for a really nasty shock! :evil:
 

slim

War Hero
Always_a_Civvy said:
A bit hypocritical of the CoE mind you. Look at all their complaints about a woman not being allowed to wear her crucifix outside her uniform on BA whilst all other staff were forbidden from doing do (special rights for Christians?) but when a Muslim exercises her right to publically express her beliefs they sack her. They cannot have it both ways. One law for Christians and another for Muslims it seems! :roll:

They really should read what the New Testament has to say about hypocrisy these Christians. They'd be in for a really nasty shock! :evil:
Comeon Steve, there is a world of difference between a small cross and a veil which effectively covers the face.
If the veil was mandatory wear for Muslims perhaps she would have been on safer ground.
 

F169

War Hero
There doesnt seem to be any hypocrisy in this particular case. Had there been they wouldn't have employed her in the first place would they?

Always a civvie - "these christians" also have pretty firm views about sexual orientation dont they?
 

slim

War Hero
Wearing the cross is not compulsory for Christians. I think we are rapidly approaching a point where all religious symbols should be banned. They seem to be creating animosity wherever they are used.
However as the Queen is the head of the country and also head of the Christian church it seems fairly obvious that the UK is still supposedly a Christian country. Its about time we stopped bending over backwards to accommodate all and sundry and do same as other countries. Thailand is a Buddhist country but allows freedom of religious expression, Northern Cyprus is a Muslim country but allows freedom of expression, China is communist but to a point allows freedom of expression. These countries allow this freedom but do not bend over backwards to fund religious activities from state funds.
The UK bends over backwards and of course gets shafted for it!
 
F169 said:
There doesnt seem to be any hypocrisy in this particular case. Had there been they wouldn't have employed her in the first place would they?

Always a civvie - "these christians" also have pretty firm views about sexual orientation dont they?
:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Well I learned recently that a government Minister, who shall remain nameless, demanded that a non-religious belief group seek the consent of the Church of England before the Government would consider acknowledging their human rights in law under Article 9(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights [link to pdf document]. You can bet the CoE would express outrage if they were subject to similar requirement viz, say, the National Secular Society!

What we have is a clear violation of the rights and freedoms of the non-religious by this government, who whilst consulting the religious about such things as providing public services and the "right" of the faithful to opt out of providing services to those they disapprove of, ignore their obligations towards the whole population. They wilfully ignore Article 9(2) of the above Convention, which constrains any freedom to manifest, etc., ones belief (whether religious or philosophical) where it seeks to impinge upon or deny the rights and freedoms of others. This is most typically demonstrated in Ministers stating that Bill X complies with the Human Rights Act 1998 when in a number of cases it clearly violates it!
[hr]
Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom,
either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and
observance.

(2) Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
 

F169

War Hero
F*** the European Convention on Human Rights, F*** the European Court,
F*** the European Commission - they are all unelected/unimpeachable constrain the sovereignty of the nation state, asphyxiating the very freedoms of the British people.
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Book Reviewer
They can stick their European law up their arse, we didn't vote for it.
Well I doubt you'll be saying that the next time you're in a country without a British Embassy and you need help - as a member of the EC you have the same rights and assistance from any European embass/consulate in the EU as all other European citizens... when you're in the sh!t and someone is trying to help get you out of it, do you really care they're from Denmark rather than the UK?!

Most people's perception of the EU is jaded due to the media picking out the 'bad' things it does. I am far from a Europhile myself, but unlike some of the xenophobic POVs in RR I like to do a bit of reasearch before I spout of about something I know (little) about! :lol:
 
slim said:
Always_a_Civvy said:
A bit hypocritical of the CoE mind you. Look at all their complaints about a woman not being allowed to wear her crucifix outside her uniform on BA whilst all other staff were forbidden from doing do (special rights for Christians?) but when a Muslim exercises her right to publically express her beliefs they sack her. They cannot have it both ways. One law for Christians and another for Muslims it seems! :roll:

They really should read what the New Testament has to say about hypocrisy these Christians. They'd be in for a really nasty shock! :evil:
Comeon Steve, there is a world of difference between a small cross and a veil which effectively covers the face.
If the veil was mandatory wear for Muslims perhaps she would have been on safer ground.
My feelings about this case have nothing to do with women covering their faces - if they want to do so they can go ahead. I'm fine with that. What I have an issue with is someone in a public position covering their face - like the lawyer who was in the news the other week. If you are in a position of trust and authority then you are publicly accountable for your actions. This accountability ceases to exist when the person holding this post does so in an anonymous fashion from behind the screen of the veil. It is perfectly possible to carry out a one-to -one conversation without seeing (I think Jack Straw was wrong in this though I hope he got someone to check the ID properly of the woman in question) what is more problematic is any form of participation in the wider community. You can't tell if someone is smiling behind the veil unless you know them quite well and in this society with the exception of a few nutters women aren't generally veiled to prevent their participation in the broader community, they don't need this protection they have the protection of the law. I have worked with several women who wore scarves and it made absolutely no difference, but a veil, I wouldn't like that at all.
 

slim

War Hero
golden_rivet said:
slim said:
Always_a_Civvy said:
A bit hypocritical of the CoE mind you. Look at all their complaints about a woman not being allowed to wear her crucifix outside her uniform on BA whilst all other staff were forbidden from doing do (special rights for Christians?) but when a Muslim exercises her right to publically express her beliefs they sack her. They cannot have it both ways. One law for Christians and another for Muslims it seems! :roll:

They really should read what the New Testament has to say about hypocrisy these Christians. They'd be in for a really nasty shock! :evil:
Comeon Steve, there is a world of difference between a small cross and a veil which effectively covers the face.
If the veil was mandatory wear for Muslims perhaps she would have been on safer ground.
My feelings about this case have nothing to do with women covering their faces - if they want to do so they can go ahead. I'm fine with that. What I have an issue with is someone in a public position covering their face - like the lawyer who was in the news the other week. If you are in a position of trust and authority then you are publicly accountable for your actions. This accountability ceases to exist when the person holding this post does so in an anonymous fashion from behind the screen of the veil. It is perfectly possible to carry out a one-to -one conversation without seeing (I think Jack Straw was wrong in this though I hope he got someone to check the ID properly of the woman in question) what is more problematic is any form of participation in the wider community. You can't tell if someone is smiling behind the veil unless you know them quite well and in this society with the exception of a few nutters women aren't generally veiled to prevent their participation in the broader community, they don't need this protection they have the protection of the law. I have worked with several women who wore scarves and it made absolutely no difference, but a veil, I wouldn't like that at all.
I think that you have put the situation in a nutshell.
 

F169

War Hero
SgtPepperband - please list those countries where they are "without a British Embassy and which European embass/consulates exist in those countries. Thank you.
 

slim

War Hero
F169 said:
SgtPepperband - please list those countries where they are "without a British Embassy and which European embass/consulates exist in those countries. Thank you.
For starters try Laos. No British embassy or consulate. Nearest is Bangkok.
Laos does however have a french consulate.
 

F169

War Hero
Well they probably wouldn't want me knocking on the door, like Nelson I believe in hating the French as you hate the devil!

The EU is a waste of space, is costing the UK a fortune and if thats the best reason you can come up with you've bought into Eurospin hook, line and sinker. What the f*** are they doing with representatives all around the world (the EU not the French) as accreditted diplomats EG. in Australia when they aren't even a country? You are slepwalking toward an abyss and sound as though you'be happy falling into it!
 

RoofRat

War Hero
Well they probably wouldn't want me knocking on the door, like Nelson I believe in hating the French as you hate the devil!

The EU is a waste of space, is costing the UK a fortune and if thats the best reason you can come up with you've bought into Eurospin hook, line and sinker. What the f*** are they doing with representatives all around the world (the EU not the French) as accreditted diplomats EG. in Australia when they aren't even a country? You are slepwalking toward an abyss and sound as though you'be happy falling into it!
Here,Here F169
RoofRat
( English first, British second, European never!)
 
F169 said:
F*** the European Convention on Human Rights, F*** the European Court,
F*** the European Commission - they are all unelected/unimpeachable constrain the sovereignty of the nation state, asphyxiating the very freedoms of the British people.
F169,

The ECHR is nothing to do with the EU. It predates the Union and the EEC. It was established in response to the revelation of the horrors of what occured in Nazi Germany and the Convention itself was masterminded by Britain. It was one of Britain's great post-War achievements, establishing an international model for basic human rights.

All states aspiring towards, or holding membership of, the EU must ratify the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, which is enforced through the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (not to be confused with the EU's Court of Justice which adjudicates disputes arising from breaches of Community law). The ECHR cannot directly impose changes in the law of states who have ratified the Convention, rather they have an obligation under international law (by Treaty) to put into effect the decision of the Court. The reasoning of the Court allows Governments to limit the scope of any legal changes to those specific circumstances, if the jurisprudence permits this.

The EU itself has both the elected European Parliament which is increasingly asserting its power - and which should be encouraged to do so - and the European Commission whose Members, like the Council of Ministers, are appointed by the elected Governments of Member States. There have been opportunities to change this democratic deficit in favour of more direct representation, but Thatcher vetoed these proposals so they were never enacted, requiring as they did, unanimity.

Now go to the Chief and ask him for a square inch of Pussers Hard to eat, F169 and then make us all a nice, hot, cup of tea. No sugar in mine please! :wink:

Steve.
 

dondon

MIA
RoofRat said:
Well they probably wouldn't want me knocking on the door, like Nelson I believe in hating the French as you hate the devil!

The EU is a waste of space, is costing the UK a fortune and if thats the best reason you can come up with you've bought into Eurospin hook, line and sinker. What the f*** are they doing with representatives all around the world (the EU not the French) as accreditted diplomats EG. in Australia when they aren't even a country? You are slepwalking toward an abyss and sound as though you'be happy falling into it!
Here,Here F169
RoofRat
( English first, British second, European never!)
Ditto mate
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
C Should I inform my afco about going to doctors? Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 6
M Should I join the Reserves or Regular? Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 4
MoD_RSS General public should not have to pay for 101 non-emergency calls from tomorrow MoD News 0
MoD_RSS Should an oral hearing be impacted by the coronavirus? MoD News 0
J Joining as a chef, should I join the RFA or the RN? RFA 11
J Should I join the RN or RFA as a chef. Joining the Royal Navy 6
MoD_RSS Housing Secretary: beautiful homes should become 'norm' MoD News 0
P How long before should you prepare for the PJFT? Joining the Royal Navy 20
MoD_RSS Charity can and should lead the way in taking people’s expectations seriously MoD News 0
slim Anyone should be allowed to 'identify' as black regardless of the colour of their skin or background, say university leaders Current Affairs 16
slim Should ID be required when Voting? Current Affairs 36
D Should I wait until PRNC? Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 2
slim Should Retired Old and Bold Pharts Leave RR? Diamond Lil's 59
U First deployment coming up soon, what should I bring? RFA 12
MoD_RSS All new rapid chargepoints should offer card payment by 2020 MoD News 0
B What should I do. Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 2
MoD_RSS Speech: International community should be united in demanding peace in Sudan and Darfur MoD News 0
skyvet Chas Cooke (Why Should Britain Tremble) The Book Club 5
B What should I do? UPO/Careers Office 36
MoD_RSS Speech: Effective solutions to gender issues should be sustained: speech by Philip Smith MoD News 0
MoD_RSS News story: Key facts you should know about the apprenticeship levy MoD News 0
MoD_RSS Speech: ‘What should the Spending Review focus on?’: speech by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury MoD News 0
slim Should the average white person apologise for Slavery? Diamond Lil's 26
MoD_RSS Press release: Damian Hinds: School leaders should ditch email culture to cut workload MoD News 0
MoD_RSS Press release: Girls’ education should be a development priority for the Commonwealth MoD News 0
MoD_RSS Press release: Business and communities should plan now for climate change MoD News 0
MoD_RSS Press release: Five steps motorists should take to avoid deer collisions this autumn MoD News 0
N Should I even be considering this? Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 9
B Should I have received an application form in the post? Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 2
vauxhall What is Abatement and Why Should I Care? Finance & Pensions 0
T what format and how long should my urn be. Joining the Royal Navy 14
R Should I wait? Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 28
Maxpowers AET What aspects of math should I practice? The Fleet Air Arm 52
R How long should I expect to wait for my start date? Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 5
TechFin Heading to the Careers Office, Anything I should ask? Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 8
S How far past basic fitness requirements should I aim for? Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 5
A How much should I be able to squat? Health & Fitness 5
Hooly How can the Navy operate with 35% of PO(ET) missing. Should Industry be taxed for poaching Engineers The Fleet 18
Walter_white Should I do A levels and become an officer even though I've already applied as a rating? Joining the Royal Navy 25
Sumo Just another day at the office or should have been? Miscellaneous 4
U temporary medicaly unfit - how long should it take Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 12
BillyNoMates Every Forum should have its' own theme music. The Gash Barge 1
joeG How much money should i take to raleigh? Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 2
Jack90 How long should I wait? Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 2
taffscrivs Who should appear on the new £20 note? Diamond Lil's 50
D Which engineering branch should i go for? Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 22
Guns Should staff assginments be longer than two years and should we advertise the posts? The Quarterdeck 23
K Medical, what should I expect? Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 19
fishhead Should we relax the current drug laws Current Affairs 103
soleil Herald: "Should Women Serve In Combat Roles?" MoD News 52
Similar threads


















































Top