Religious symbolism...

Fekkwittery hits the news stands once again.

In two contrasting reports over the weekend, editors have been getting into a froth over the British Airways employee crucifix row whilst taking a completely polarised view on the Muslim teaching assistants veil row - shock, horror, disgrace, why did we win the war, etc.

Both stories are unworthy of the numerous column inches that have been devoted to them, both stories could and should have been sorted out quickly and simply with a little on site common sense - both stories were created by management who are either afraid to manage or afraid to offend and so hide behind "company policy" and their legal advisors.

The BA story is so much of a non-story that it is incredible to comprehend - a woman who works on a check-in desk tells the news media that she has "effectively been forced to take unpaid leave" (whatever that means) after being told that she cannot wear a simple chain and cross around her neck in an act of "religious discrimination".

BA have stated that they have no such banning policies in place. they have stated that employees can choose to wear whatever jewelry they like as long as it is concealed under their uniform - which is reasonable.

But the woman and the news media have managed to mobilise lots of quotes from "church spokespersons" and even MP's such as Northern Ireland spokesperson Peter Hain who is quoted as saying "I think the BA order for her not to wear the cross was loopy" - well actually Peter, nothing of the sort happened, I'm afraid your comment is the loopy one and a prime example of a reporter phrasing a question to a rent-a-quote minister who is unaware of the story up until that point.

My solution ?

Explain to the employee what the company rules are on wearing of jewelry - BA check-in staff do not wear plunging necklines and as such it is a non-issue for the employee to wear the chain beneath her clothing - end of story.

*********************************************************************

The muslim veil story attracted similar rent-a-quote comments from uninformed, ill advised MP's - everyone has a comment to make in Westminster and it seems to be very important to have your say in the news media, even if you haven't a clue what the topic is.

The bottom line in this story is that a muslim lady was employed to assist in English lessons in classrooms where the majority of children were from homes where English is not the first language, she was interviewed on TV this morning and despite her wearing a burqua style headcovering she was very comprehensible and from her Yorkshire accent I'd guess that she is of a second generation asian background, born and raised in this country with a knowledge of her parents first choice asian language but who uses English as her language of choice - she is a very typical British woman of asian descent.

Because of her religious beliefs she has to wear a head and face covering when in the company of men, although its not considered necessary when only women and children are present. In addition to this it also appears to be her personal choice to wear the veil whenever she feels necessary, and despite the protests in the press that children and parents have objected to this and found her difficult to understand, her legal advisors have not been able to trace anyone who has complained.

My solution ?

The headteacher of the school interviewed her for the job.
The school is in a predominantly asian part of Dewsbury.
The post was for a teaching assistant to liase with asian speaking children
She would appear to be eminently qualified and was offered the job.

It shouldn't be beyond the wit of a headteacher or a school governor in that situation to raise the issue of the veil given that the ideal condidate for the job would be such a muslim woman who may or may not need to wear such clothing.

The school fooked up and are now using the news media to claim the innocent party line.

They will lose the tribunal and rightly so, however the next time they may learn from their mistake and employ someone who doesn't have to wear the veil - they just might not be as good in the job thats all.