Victory for Dingemans and Aughton Ainsworth in ECHR religion case

  • Print
  • Comments (2)

Readers' comments (2)

  • Para. 93 of the judgment highlights the role of concrete evidence to strike a fair balance. Where the freedom to wear the cross and other religious emblems is concerned, these conclusions say it all.
    "Ms Eweida’s cross was discreet and cannot have detracted from her professional appearance. There was no evidence that the wearing of other, previously authorised, items of religious clothing, such as turbans and hijabs, by other employees, had any negative impact on British Airways’ brand or image. Moreover, the fact that the company was able to amend the uniform code to allow for the visible wearing of religious symbolic jewellery demonstrates that the earlier prohibition was not of crucial importance."
    BA has a vastly diverse work force. The judgment applies not only to Ms. Eweida.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • To quote from the last paragraph of your report:
    "The ECHR has upheld the principle of equality".
    Where is the information in the body of your report about the PRACTICE of that equality as experienced by those who are entitled to the 'protection' [term used in your last news report on this topic]' of that principle but are daily denied that both at the 'work place', in the rest of Society and when seeking "professional legal representation"?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (2)