Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that this is religous discrimination.

151 replies

reallytired · 18/04/2011 11:36

It seems over the top to have an investigation and threats of disciplinary action.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bradford-west-yorkshire-13108578

If the company really objects to a palm cross then surely they could just ask him to remove it. Unless he has repeatly ignored reminders not to have personal artifacts in his van, then it seems a bit heavy handed.

I think the tenant who complained is just plain malicious. Its not as if a palm cross was hurting anyone.

Would this company allow a muslim electrician to carry a prayer mat in his van?

I think that this company need to do a spot check to see that EVERY van is clear of personal artifacts during the working day.

OP posts:
FourFingeredKitkat · 18/04/2011 13:19

It's a bit of a non-story really, but managed to make front page of the Sunday Mail! Hmm

diabolo · 18/04/2011 13:20

MaisyMooCow, you are right. The only point of this story is to get people up in arms and say "ooh I bet those Muslims don't get treated like this".

And it's worked.

DuelingFanjo · 18/04/2011 13:22

why does every thread like this and every newspaper article about this kind of thing always bring the Muslim religon into it. Aren't there several other religions they could pick on?

oh, no, wait... it's another one of those anti muslim storm in a teacup things. doh.

knittedbreast · 18/04/2011 13:28

the nicest way of looking at this is that the company do not want to show aligience with any one religion, as when he drives around he is representing the company and their views.

im not sure i believe that though

dreamingofsun · 18/04/2011 13:28

maisymoo - but whats the alternative to these stories being printed? it would mean that rules get introduced with no right to challenge them except in the courts. if its such a clear cut decision the media would not be able to drum anything up.

why should it matter so much if the religious symbol is on his dashboard rather than on his person? this seems to be splitting hairs to me and i think the company should be more tolerant. they seem very accommodating in every other way

limitedperiodonly · 18/04/2011 13:33

He is 64. What on earth would be the point of performance managing him out when he is coming up to retirement and will still be entitled to his pension?

Milly I don't know. It's just a guess. I could be wrong. I'm trying to make sense of it and guessing there might be a history here.

FWIW I think the company is right to ask him to remove the palm cross from the van.

I also extend that to the Che poster because it would undermine the person's authority in my eyes.

A former colleague festooned his office with comic book and fantasy film memorabilia. It was childish tat that should have been in his single bedroom.

It wasn't a public part of the building but it's surprising how many outsiders came in for business meetings either with him or other staff and passed his glass-walled office.

I don't know about them but I could never take him seriously because when discussing business matters with him my eyes kept wandering to the life-size cardboard cut-out of C-3PO behind him.

SpringchickenGoldBrass · 18/04/2011 13:37

This fucker's another superstitious racist who's been spoiling for a fight, just like that stupid cow who took on British Airways. He will have been increasing the extent to which he rubbed everyone's noses in his witless superstitions to the point that his employers could no longer ignore his attention-seeking, all so he and his supporters (that needledick loser Stephen Green is going to be mixed up in this somewhere) can go 'Waah, Christians are being persecuted, they don't treat the darkies like that, it;s Political Correctness Gorn Maaaaaaaad!'

DuelingFanjo · 18/04/2011 13:46

Grin a SGB

limitedperiodonly · 18/04/2011 13:49

Maisy you're partly right. If the driver had displayed the Daily Sport while on his rounds it wouldn't have been picked up unless he'd done it while fixing the electrics at the local mosque.

Then it would have been about muslims interfering with the British man's traditional right to gawp at tits regardless of his surroundings.

It is, as you say, all about religion. Did you spot the totally spurious reference to a hypothetical burqa-clad member of staff, btw?

MIFLAW · 18/04/2011 13:57

"why should it matter so much if the religious symbol is on his dashboard rather than on his person? this seems to be splitting hairs to me and i think the company should be more tolerant."

They can split all the hairs they like because, wait for it, IT'S THEIR VAN! Why on earth should they change their rules to tolerate a notorious religious nuisance?

If someone is wearing a cross or crucifix you can ask them to tuck it away inside their clothing; and, more importantly, because it is on the person, it only makes a statement about that person.

Anything on view in the van makes a statement about the owner of that van; which, in this case, is not an evangelical church, but a firm of sparkies and pipe fitters.

It is SO, SO simple.

sis · 18/04/2011 14:16

He is 64. What on earth would be the point of performance managing him out when he is coming up to retirement and will still be entitled to his pension?

Milly Unless he is going to be 65 years old before October 2011, t a compulsory retirement age of 65 is no longer allowed in law unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Original poster
reallytired · 18/04/2011 14:40

SpringchickenGoldBrass there are loads of black christians in this country. They suffer religous discrimination too.

OP posts:
SpringchickenGoldBrass · 18/04/2011 14:47

Reallytired: I didn;t mean to imply that only white people can be Christians(any more than I would imply that only black or middle eastern people can be Muslims), I am perfectly aware that race and religion are not the same thing, but the sort of people who rally behind this fuckwit van driver are often racists who make a big deal about (for instance) Sikhs wearing turbans.

GetOrfMoiLand · 18/04/2011 14:52

I love SGB and Miflaw on this thread.

I don't see what all the hand wringing is about.

Is a fantastic story for the DM though, isn't it. You can hear the chuntering from here.

TiggyD · 18/04/2011 15:20

I get annoyed when Christians go on about wanting to wear a cross because other religions can wear stuff. The people from other religions are wearing turbans and bangles because their god/gods have said they have to, not because they fancy telling everybody what religion they are. Wearing a cross is more akin to wearing a badge saying "Hug me I'm a Muslim".

limitedperiodonly · 18/04/2011 15:31

Tiggy 'Wearing a cross is more akin to wearing a badge saying "Hug me I'm a Muslim".'

Er, no it's not.

TiggyD · 18/04/2011 15:55

People wear crosses because they want to. Not because their god has said they have to.

onagar · 18/04/2011 17:23

TiggyD, while there is some truth in that it's probably not a fair distinction to make. After all none of their gods have really told them to wear anything :) They simply choose to believe he wants them to.

Anyway if you do make that distinction the Christians will suddenly have a revelation that god wants them to wear one.

edam · 18/04/2011 17:30

What kind of prick complained about the palm? Seems quite nit-picking.

limitedperiodonly · 18/04/2011 17:43

Tiggy I may be mistaken but I think your knowledge of world religions isn't that sound. It risks upsetting Christians which I guess isn't your aim.

onagar I think it is a requirement of some branches of Christianity that you bear witness so a cross would count

Anyway, I'm not religious and discussions of overt religious symbols always make me think of this:

MIFLAW · 18/04/2011 17:57

"What kind of prick complained about the palm?"

Probably the kind of prick who is fed up of being surrounded day in day out by people wittering on about Jesus, having Christian screensavers, getting references to God in work emails and so on, without it even being challenged as odd, still less criticised.

The sort of prick I would queue up to buy a drink for, in other words.

MaisyMooCow · 18/04/2011 18:15

MIFLAW If someone is wearing a cross or crucifix you can ask them to tuck it away inside their clothing; and, more importantly, because it is on the person, it only makes a statement about that person.

Very true. The whole point of an individual wearing such items is to feel closer to their own God not make a statement to the world about what religion they are. That, we really don't need to know.

TiggyD People wear crosses because they want to. Not because their god has said they have to.
onagar TiggyD, while there is some truth in that it's probably not a fair distinction to make. After all none of their gods have really told them to wear anything They simply choose to believe he wants them to.

Again true, this takes us back to the Burka discussion. Muslim women state they choose to wear it to be closer to their God, not because the Qu'ran says they should.

I remember less than 10 years ago when I used to work in an office where a topless calender used to be displayed in one of the departments. I was outraged that in 2002 this was going on. I was fairly new to the company and although I voiced my views on this not a lot happened. It was only 6 months later when we relocated to new offices that we had a clear desk/clear wall policy that it was binned. I work in a professional office too!
The shit would hit the fan if anyone tried the same now.

Point is, personal preferences shouldn't really be on show in the workplace as they can show offence. We're all there to work at the end of the day.

onagar · 18/04/2011 18:20

Nice one Edam. So if a Jew complained about a swastika you'd call him a prick? How about one of those nice KKK crosses?

limitedperiodonly, I love blackadder so thank you for reminding me of that.

edam · 18/04/2011 18:27

onager, come off it, a palm ain't a swastika. Your comparison is a fine example of hyperbole.

MIFLAW, golly, where do you work? And why is it a problem if people have Christian screensavers? I am not a practising Christian, btw. But I'm used to working in offices where men talk about ruddy football, have football paraphernalia on their desks and posters on their walls. Which is profoundly irritating, I hate ruddy football. Never occurred to me to demand that football stuff be banned in the office, though.

MaisyMooCow · 18/04/2011 18:31

I have to agree with Edam here.

At the end of the day, what would the person who complained about it do had the company turned around and said 'yes, we are a christian company'. Would the person (if a customer) have refused to have done business with them. Surely then they would be the one discriminating against religion. Why does the company feel it has to be a neutral company so as not to offend anyone. I deal with Jewish companies, Muslim shopkeepers etc on a daily basis. I wouldn't refuse to do business with them because they were clearly stating their religious preferences.

Anyone showing a swastika or KKK cross really would be out of order. That's not a religious symbol but hatred against religion.