Oh dear oh dear oh dear. So at least we now know where we stand thanks to a very interesting article in the Telegraph. For the full story visit http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9136191/Christians-have-no-right-to-wear-cross-at-work-says-Government.html.

The story is in relation to two ladies who were told by their employer that they must remove their crucifix, both lost their tribunal cases.

The Government claims the two women’s application to the Strasbourg court is “manifestly ill-founded”.

Its response states: “The Government submit that… the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not a manifestation of their religion or belief within the meaning of Article 9, and…the restriction on the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not an ‘interference’ with their rights protected by Article 9.”

The response, prepared by the Foreign Office, adds: “In neither case is there any suggestion that the wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was a generally recognised form of practising the Christian faith, still less one that is regarded (including by the applicants themselves) as a requirement of the faith.”

Lets see how this one plays out, if lets say my, case was to be re examined.

I wonder if Amicus Unite defended these ladies, god help them if they did.

We now have two members of  the current UK Government who in two seprate letters have stated they were “concerend” with one also being “shocked”.

Cabinet Ministers Owen Patterson has been supportive of the case and Justice Minister Ken Clark has written that “although I am unable to comment on or intervene in Tribunal judgments this is not through any lack of concern or interest“.

As they say they “cannot intervene” in my case we have drawn their attention to the fact that as it stands it’s legal for a British employer to state that anyone must remove an outward sign of their own faith an replace it with an outward sign of a different faith. If you refuse you can legally be dismissed.

We have been asked to reply to the UK Bill of Rights Commision. We have done so. We have asked for a change in British law.

We are  requesting that her Majesty’s Government, as a matter of urgency, by statute, as is the case in the USA, make it illegal for any person, company or organization to demand that an individual replace an outward sign of their own religion and replace it, for what ever reason with a demand to wear an outward sign of following a different religion.

New Leader Of The Free World Is Saudi Arabia

Very interesting article.

It would appear that the Saudi’s are more aware of what is required in the their country than the British legal system is..oh hold on, its supped to be like that.

Lets see if the next volley of information presented to this Government will make them see sense. Or maybe it’s only about money…..can’t be…can it?

Hello…just to let everyone know that I had a live interview with Emine Dalik on Blogtalk Radio. Really enjoyed putting my story and views across and would like to than Emine, her crew and all who participated with comments and questions. Thanks also Emine, for playing my new single, “Summer Shine On Me” as my alter ego, Marcelle Ash. Click on the link to hear the the show. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/womens-voice/2011/05/22/should-western-women-be-forced-to-wear-abayaburqa I will keep you updated Emine as news becomes available. Thanks everyone.

Contrast and Compare

Well I hope that the English Rugby Union are pleased with their association with BMI.

I wonder if any of the crew who appear in the  video are the same crew who are happy to follow BMI demands to walk behind the men and wear the Islamic  abaya when the Saudi authorities themselves confirm there is no requirement to do so.

The word hypocrisy could have almost been invented for the following. Maybe it shows that in actuality the management at the time of  Lisa’s dismissal from BMI  had a”certain view” on female cabin attendants and were more than happy to “borrow on stereotypes” associated with “trolly dollies”.

To quote a famous journalist ” You could not make it up”

Having dealt directly with Georgina Hirsch of Amicus Unite why are we not surprised at the following story ……..

Sacked Amicus Official Wins Unfair Dismissal Tribunal
Sacked Amicus Press Officer and ex-Gazette editor Des Heemskerk has won his case against the union for unfair dismissal. The case collapsed after the union’s legal Director (and highest paid official*) Georgina Hirsch changed her story. Throughout Des’s suspension, sacking and appeal, Hirsch and the union claimed Des had stolen the‘Baylissgate’ documents from Hirsch’s computer network drive. When forensic evidence was presented to the Employment Tribunal that the documents leaked to amicus.ccwere paper copies and not electronic ones, she changed her story, literally at the last minute.

In her revised witness statement Hirsch told the tribunal she is very forgetful but had just remembered giving her office keys to one of the other officials they sacked, Cathie Willis, and that Cathie must have opened her office, broken into her desk, taken some more keys and opened her locked filing cabinet. These allegations had never been aired before despite the union investigation (conducted bizarrely by Hirsch herself), the lengthy disciplinary and the appeal. Cathie Willis denies these new charges, her tribunal is scheduled for August.

At the tribunal Des Heemskerk’s barrister told the three member panel:

“Amicus is one of the largest trade unions in the country and claims to be dedicated to defending the rights of employees and ensuring they are treated fairly by employers. Therefore it should be expected to treat its own employees properly and to ensure that any investigation or disciplinary hearing is conducted fairly. In fact Amicus fell well below the standards that would be expected of any ordinary commercial employer, let alone an employer ostensibly committed to protecting the rights of employees.

Hirsch also let slip to the tribunal that the union regularly spies on its own employees, using, in her words, “deep electronic tags” on internal memos to all staff, in order to track who they forward them to.

According to TUC guidelines Amicus must now re-instate Heemskerk. However General Secretary Derek Simpson has already told the tribunal this will be over his dead body. More details shortly…

An interesting story in News.co.au, regarding Cathay Pacific’s cabin crew union and its concern of over-night stops in Saudi.

It is clear that the Cathay Union care about its members. Contrast and compare with the British Union Amicus/Unite handling, or rather non-handling of my case. Remember? Amicus Unite would not even represent me at Tribunal.

Taken from News.co.au

The demand follows an incident last month in which a man tried to force his way into the hotel room of a junior Cathay attendant, Tsang Kwok Fung, general secretary of the Cathay Pacific Flight Attendants Union, said.

Other complaints have been made involving unwanted telephone calls to female staff also staying at the Marriott Hotel in Riyadh, he added.

Last month, Cathay switched its layovers to Riyadh from the Gulf state of Bahrain because of political unrest that has swept across much of the region.

The union has now called for overnight stops to be moved to Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates, but is yet to receive a “positive response” from management, according to Tsang.

“We will write to the government on this matter if (the airline) does not act swiftly,” he said. “The safety of our staff is of utmost importance.”

In a statement, a Cathay spokeswoman said the airline was “taking this very seriously and are monitoring the situation closely to ensure that all crew are safe and well taken care of.”

The airline spoke to the hotel’s management immediately after the incident was reported, she said, adding that the hotel responded by enhancing security and closed-circuit television inside lifts.

On February 28, the female flight attendant answered a knock on her door by a man dressed in “Arab clothing” who then tried to force himself inside the room, Tsang said.

The woman screamed and tried to push the door closed while threatening to call police. The man then left.

Other female cabin crew members staying in Riyadh received unwanted calls in their rooms on the same day, Tsang said, adding Cathay’s female cabin crew have now refused to leave their hotel rooms while staying in the city.

Rt Hon Owen Paterson

Cabinet Minister Informs Justice Secretary

Further to the European Commission stating that they are concerned about the details of the case of Lisa Ashton v BMI and that it should be dealt with by the UK authorities, the British Cabinet is now also fully aware of the accusation  that  BMI manager Sharon Campbel, on oath, stated that all crew  required to operate to Saudi HAD been rostered a Saudi course, as per the official BMI document. As Lisa had never been rostered or indeed attended said course this would appear to have been untrue. If a statement is made under oath and it is found to be untrue this is perjury.

The Right Honourable Owen Paterson, has directly, and being fully aware of all the details of this website and supporting documents is now, on Lisa’s behalf dealing directly with the Justice Minister Ken Clarke.

Mr Paterson, on Lisa’s behalf, when in opposition wrote to Labours  then Justice Secretary Jack Straw. Mr Jack Straw refused to intervene in a Judgement that it was acceptable for a British Company to Discriminate against it’s Female workforce.

We look forward to bringing you the response from the Current UK Govt.

Tribunal Judgement 

Over the next few weeks we will be posting relevant sections of Judge Robertson’s Judgment in the case of Lisa Ashton v BMI (British Midland Airways). It is a judgment that has caused the Queen of England to take “Careful Note” and the European Parliament to ask “Will the Commission ask BMI to explain why it is denying the human rights of Lisa Ashton, a stewardess, by sacking her for quite properly refusing to wear the abaya and walk behind her male colleagues in Saudi Arabia?” and the reply: 

Ms Ferrero-Waldner on behalf of the Commission: 

“The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concern over the case he refers to. 

Equality between women and men is a fundamental right, a common value of the EU, and a necessary condition for the achievement of the EU objectives of growth, employment and social cohesion. It should be noted that, although inequalities still exist, the EU has made significant progress over the last decades in achieving equality between women and men. A large body of European legislative texts is dedicated to equality between women and men. 

Implementation of these legislative texts, and their application by EU companies, remains with the competent national authorities. Any specific case should be raised with them. 

As regards the situation of women in Saudi Arabia and the EU’s policy approach to promoting women’s rights in the country, the Commission refers the Honourable Member to its answer to previous written questions, in particular E‑3644/08 by the Honourable Member“ . 

You will note that it states that the imlementation remains with the “competent national authorites”. Lets see if the new British government is more competent than the last. 

Judge’s Comments 

Justice?

Please read the Judge’s comments in light of the Saudi Embassy statement,  “There is no requirement for females to walk behind the men in Saudi nor for Western women to be required to wear the abaya, there is only a requirement for  women to dress conservatively.” 

Judge Robertson’s statements with regards to the case of Lisa Ashton v BMI (British Midland Airlines): 

• “It is not evident to the tribunal that women would regard the requirement to wear a particular item of clothing, the abaya, or to walk behind male colleagues in the airport, as anything more than part of the rules of a different culture.”
• “So did the requirement to travel to Saudi Arabia on the basis of the customs and practices set out in the 31st  August 2005 document, (which included these particular matters as to women in Saudi Arabia), place women at a particular disadvantage when compared with men? The Tribunal does not regard this as self-evident.”
• “Similarly in this case the claimant has adduced no evidence that a restriction on wearing a cross or crucifix as an item of jewellery disadvantages Christians disproportionately as a group. There is no evidence, and no basis for the Tribunal to conclude, that proportionately more Christians than non-Christians would wish to wear a cross or crucifix. The Tribunal does not accept, in the absence of any evidence to the effect, that women would regard the requirement to fly on the basis of the document as placing them under any disadvantage.”

From the comments you can see Judge Robertson displays quite a staggering, racially stereotypical view of Saudi customs, law and culture. He has, along with BMI come to the conclusion that it is the “rules of a different culture” for women in Saudi to walk behind the men and be required to wear the Islamic abaya. According to the Saudi Authorites, it is not.

European Parliament

European Parliament Outshines British Government

Despite the inability of the  British Government to  intervene or even make a comment on the discriminatory demands the airline BMI are implementing on it’s non-Muslim crew on its Saudi operation, the European Parliament have at least raised the situation.

The following question has been asked in The European Parliament.

“Will the Commission ask BMI to explain why it is denying the human rights of Lisa Ashton, a stewardess, by sacking her for quite properly refusing to wear the abaya and walk behind her male colleagues in Saudi Arabia?”

Click here for link to document

Answer given by Ms Ferrero-Waldner on behalf of the Commission:

“The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concern over the case he refers to.

Equality between women and men is a fundamental right, a common value of the EU, and a necessary condition for the achievement of the EU objectives of growth, employment and social cohesion. It should be noted that, although inequalities still exist, the EU has made significant progress over the last decades in achieving equality between women and men. A large body of European legislative texts is dedicated to equality between women and men.

Implementation of these legislative texts, and their application by EU companies, remains with the competent national authorities. Any specific case should be raised with them.

As regards the situation of women in Saudi Arabia and the EU’s policy approach to promoting women’s rights in the country, the Commission refers the Honourable Member to its answer to previous written questions, in particular E‑3644/08 by the Honourable Member“ .

Click here for  link to document