British Airways and the Battle of the Cross

The story broke on Saturday October 14 when it was disclosed that a Christian woman was suspended by BA for wearing a cross as a pendant hanging from a chain around her neck. The story said that the woman, Heathrow check-in worker Nadia Eweida, was suspended, although Muslims and Sikhs were allowed to wear headscarves and turbans.

According to staff at Heathrow, she was sent home after refusing to remove the cross which breached BA’s dress code. Senior executives at the airline upheld the action taken against Miss Eweida, saying that she failed to comply with uniform regulations. But they soon came under fire from Christian groups and members of other faiths.

The woman, said to have an unblemished record during seven years at BA, is believed to be suing the airline for religious discrimination. She is quoted as saying that her treatment is all the more extraordinary, as she and fellow employees have just undergone “diversity training” which includes advice on how to treat gays and lesbians in the workplace.

The airline’s uniform code states that staff must not wear visible jewellery or other “adornments” while on duty, without permission from management. It makes exception for Muslim women to wear hijabs and Sikh men to wear turbans. Sikhs can also wear the traditional iron bangle and Muslim workers are allowed prayer breaks.

As I understand the story, Miss Eweida, a 55-year-old Coptic Christian, was ordered to remove her cross or hide it beneath her company cravat. She then sought permission from management to wear the chain with the crucifix but was turned down. When she refused to remove the necklace, she was sent home on unpaid leave.

So far, she has insisted that her cross is not jewellery but an expression of her deep faith. She said, “I will not hide my belief in the Lord Jesus. Muslims can wear headscarves and Sikhs can wear turbans. Only Christians are forbidden to express their faith. I am a conscientious BA employee but I stand up for the rights of all citizens.”

The backlash to the story has been one of fury by many. Anne Widdecombe, for many years a member of parliament and now also a newspaper columnist, vowed that she would no longer travel by BA. She wrote: “Those who are outraged by this discrimination against visible Christian emblems can also take a conscious decision not to fly BA.”

Personally, I think that is a bit heavy, especially since Miss Widdecombe may very well not have all the facts. But other politicians seem just as furious. Miss Emeida’s MP, Vince Cable, said, “It is absolutely mind-boggling that Britain’s flag-carrying airline could treat its employees in such a disgraceful and petty manner.

“Nadia is a devout Christian who was displaying her faith, but in a totally modest and unprovocative manner. It is absolutely right that other religious minorities be allowed exemption from the dress code but why can’t a Christian be treated in the same way?”

Two senior ministers have also joined what has now become a growing campaign to force BA into retreat over the crucifix ban. Environment Minister Ben Bradshaw has added his name to a growing list of MPs vowing to boycott BA flights. And Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain condemned BA’s decision as being “loopy” (slang for mad or crazy).

That was up to last Wednesday. But by yesterday, nearly 100 MPs had joined the backlash. They have signed parliamentary motions condemning BA’s “deplorable” ban on Miss Emeida’s cross. Among them are 16 former ministers as well as Muslim Labour MP Khalid Mahmood and Hindu Conservative MP Shailesh Vara.

At the same time, there are signs that the campaign is spreading around the world where the case is being cited as an example of religious oppression. The issue will also be raised in Prague at a UN conference on human rights, while in Africa, where BA flies to more than a dozen destinations, there are calls for a boycott of the airline if it does not change its policy.

On the local religious front, the Archbishop of York, Ugandan-born Dr John Sentamu, denounced BA’s decision as nonsense. He said, “BA needs to look again at this decision and to look at the history of the country it represents, whose culture, laws, heritage and tradition owe so much to the very symbol it would ban.”

Sheikh Ali Hassan Barakat, a South London imam who works with Sikh, Christian and Jewish leaders on multi-faith issues, said Miss Eweida had every right to wear her cross. He added, “If I see a lady wearing a cross, I respect her because that is her faith. This is really harsh treatment by BA. Islam says she is free to worship who she wants to worship.”

Dr Indarjit Singh, director of the Network of Sikh Organisations, said, “It is very silly and narrow-minded of British Airways not to allow her to wear her cross.” Dr Patrick Sookhdeo of the Christain charity, the Barnabas Fund, said, “Discrimination against Christians is commonplace in Muslim-majority contexts. Now we see it increasingly in the UK.”

BA has defended its position by saying that its 34,000 uniformed staff, many thousands of whom are Christians, had “happily” accepted the jewellery ban for years. It added, “The policy recognises it is not practical for some religious symbols such as turbans and hijabs to be worn underneath the uniform. There is no discrimination between faiths whatsoever.

“In Nadia Eweida’s case, we want her to come back to work. We have explained to her the need to comply with the uniform policy like all her colleagues, whatever their faith. She is refusing to do this. We have also offered her an alternative non-uniform post in which she would be able to wear her cross openly.” A silly but interesting case, don’t you think?