This is freakin’ outrageous!

Telegraph Article.

It is written in the article that wearing the cross is not a requirement of the christian faith, unlike the muslim headscarf, which, as we all know, is also not a requirement of the faith.

This is an example of out-and-out discrimination.

Yes, I know, I don’t care a hoot about any form of organised superstition, but I do defend freedom of expression to the bitter end and, I am especially [passionate about one law for all. (Which is why I obey the stupid smoking discrimination laws, apart from being the considerate person that I am.)

(And yes, there is a difference between public and private freedom of expression, jut like the B&B lady and the queers.)

34 thoughts on “This is freakin’ outrageous!”

  1. Bravo,

    As an aircraft engineering instructor, I insisted that no trainee wore jewelery of any kind, and would refuse to teach any student who refused to remove necklaces, rings or studs. Without question or exception.

    It was simply downright dangerous. Could this be a case of hygeine rules and a pushy nurse trying her luck?

  2. I hadn’t thought of that Ferret. My mother nursed and was only allowed to wear a wedding ring. It could easily be down to the reporting.

  3. Hi Bravo, I feel your pain.

    Crap link from you. Doesn’t work. Worked it out eventually and read about this woman. In my opinion, she is a religious fruit and nut case who is milking the situation for all that it’s worth. Don’t doubt her convictions. Do doubt somebody who, according to your link, has been ‘personally convicted’ to wear the emblem since 1971 in her 71(?) point personal statement.

    See, that’s what judges have always done and should always do, in my opinion. They read the facts of the case, they listen to all the evidence and they make up their mind in the full possession of said facts and evidence. Obviously, they may get it wrong but that’s what the appeal procedures are for.

    I am not in possession of all the aforementioned facts or evidence but I do not personally believe that you are either. I could, of course, be wrong.

    And the ruling can’t set a precedent and does not seem to be perverse
    to me. There is absolutely nothing that I can seeiin the link that you give that mentions the ‘muslim headscarf’ so why are you referring to it?

    As my personally self-selected guide, guru and mentor, Ferret, has already said, this decision was allegedly made on the grounds of health and safety. Seems totally reasonable to me, given what I have read so far in this particular case.

    I could again, of course, be wrong.

  4. The rules for nurses and jewellery when I trained were that no rings but wedding rings and no necklaces (as far as I can remember) but a blind eye was turned to a crucifix worn so that it didn’t show blatantly at the neckline… that is on a longer chain. One of the reasons given for no necklaces was that the wearer could be at risk if a disturbed patient grabbed the chain and it didn’t break.

    One wonders if the wearer of this cross had it more ‘on show’ than necessary?

  5. Mr Mackie,

    Once again you prove yourself to be a complete gent and an all round bon oeuf. Not bad for a sweatie. 😉

  6. I have now followed the link which backs what I said about the risk a chain can bring.

  7. Actually it does say this in the piece:
    “She said she received a letter in September telling her the cross was not a ”mandatory requirement” of her faith, unlike Muslim headscarves, which ”therefore could be exempted”.”

  8. Ah, I’m a little bit behind you all here; I have been trying to sort the link out, before commenting.

    Bravo; it is not difficult to post live links here. In fact it is much easier and more reliable that some Other Places. The support pages are very helpful and it saves wear and tear on the shredded nerves of those who support us.

    Translation: what is the problem, and can we help sort it before Australia comes on line?

  9. Pseu (and Bravo), my apologies. You are right and I am wrong. It was mentioned, but it would appear that it was part of her evidence and not part of the actual judgement.

    So, could I please be only slightly and non-materially wrongish?

  10. This does not detract from the simple fact that jewellery is a hazard in the workplace and that rules have been in place to prohibit its use.

    This nurse claims she wears it because she wants to and iy has been found in a court of law that there is no religious precedent that she must wear the crucifix.

    There can therefore be no exemption from the rules of the workplace on religious grounds. I say the woman should leave the necklace in her personal locker or at home.

    If you want to debate the headscarf issue, it was not that long ago that all nurses were required to wear headress of some description. Perhaps if they all covered their hair, there might have been fewer cases of MRSA.

  11. Hmmm, nurses hats have not ever really served the purpose of covering hair, except in the theatres. The hats were dangerous and in my view a health and safety hazard in themselves. As a paediatric nurse in the 80’s we were the first group in our hospital to give them up and quite quickly I realised how my posture improved when not having to consider a hat and its position on my head, particularly when tending to a child.

  12. I was chatting with a Geologist friend of mine who works on an oil rig off the Mozambique coast. Some poor idiot went and dropped a spanner down the shaft. Well over a mile deep. It cost US$3 million and 3 days to get it out.

    My view on this case is that there should be one rule for all. If she determines that wearing the crucifix is part of her faith then she should be allowed to wear it. It is irrelevant what her church states. Faith is personal. If it is deemed too dangerous (that sounds like Health and Safety nonsense anyway) then the same rule should apply to Muslims. If a chain is in danger of being snatched by a patient, I would imagine that a scarf is too. But as JM says, we probably do not have all the salient facts. On the face of it though, I think there are double standards being applied.

  13. 1. I am an old tank crewman. I am aware of the dangers of wearing jewelry in the workplace.

    2. Maybe this lady is a religious nutter – you are all aware of my views on that matter, makes no difference.

    3. What is freakin’ outrageous is the discrimination between one form of superstitious ostentation and another – which was, as Pseu pointed out, specifically and explicitly cited as a religious symbol, along with the flavour of organised superstition it is supposed to represent, when it is no such thing.

    4.

    Ferret :

    …iy has been found in a court of law that there is no religious precedent that she must wear the crucifix.

    So, where then does that leave the laws about wearing head-coverings in public places? Applicable to ‘hoodies,’ but not black sacks? What happened to one law for all?

    5. JM. No.

  14. I’ve always thought it’s the consultants’ ties that carry MRSA. I mean, they go around sitting on beds, chatting to patients, letting their neckties dangle in all manner of bodily fluids, then on to the next patient. Because they are gods, no-one dares mention it.

    Jewellery of any kind must be a hazard in the health service, though for purely practical reasons.

  15. This clarifies the MRSA transmission thing:

    “How Is MRSA Spread?
    Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (or MRSA for short) is a strain of bacteria resistant to certain types of antibiotics. It is a less common, but potentially more serious, form of the common “staph” infection.

    MRSA is categorized based on where the infection was first acquired — either healthcare-associated MRSA (for those infections that were acquired in a hospital or healthcare facility) or community-associated MRSA.

    Regardless of the type, transmission of MRSA occurs through direct contact with:

    * Someone who has an active infection
    * Someone who is a carrier of the infection (colonized)
    * A contaminated object.

    After a person comes into contact with a contaminated surface or object, he or she may become a carrier of the bacteria (colonized). An active infection with MRSA can develop when a person is colonized and the bacteria enter an opening, such as a cut or scrape in the skin.

    Direct Contact, Colonization, and the Role in MRSA Transmission
    Understanding how MRSA is spread through direct contact with someone that has an active infection is relatively straightforward. If a person has an active sore contaminated with MRSA and you touch it, you could become infected if you touch an opening on your skin.

    The idea of colonization is often less clear. “Colonization,” in the case of bacteria, means that a person is carrying a specific type of bacteria, but does not have any signs or symptoms of illness that this particular bacteria can cause.

    In the case of MRSA, it is estimated that up to 7 percent of people in hospitals and up to 2 percent of people in the community are colonized with MRSA, either on the skin or within their nose (the two most common areas).

    A person can become colonized with MRSA in a couple of different ways, such as:

    * Touching the skin of another individual who is colonized with MRSA, or who has an active MRSA infection

    * Breathing the tiny droplets that are expelled during breathing, coughing, or sneezing

    * Touching a contaminated surface.

    Once colonized with MRSA, a person can remain a carrier of the bacteria from a few days or weeks, up to several years. During this time period, people colonized with MRSA are not only at an increased risk for infecting others, but also themselves.

    The process of transmission that occurs with colonized individuals is the same that occurs with direct contact with an active infection. The difference being, in the case of colonization, it is not apparent to either the person colonized or the person becoming infected that anything is wrong.

    Contact With a Contaminated Surface
    The third way that MRSA can be transmitted is through direct contact with a contaminated surface. Both types of MRSA can be spread through touching a contaminated surface.

    Although it is more common to acquire MRSA through direct contact with a contaminated healthcare provider, hospitalized patients may also acquire MRSA from contaminated surfaces. One study showed that things more commonly contaminated in hospital rooms include:

    * Bedside rails
    * Blood pressure cuffs
    * Television remote controls
    * Toilet seats.

    Transmission through touching contaminated surfaces is probably more common in community-associated MRSA. Community-associated MRSA can be spread when contaminated personal items from affected individuals are shared. This includes things such as towels, bedding, uniforms, razors, washcloths, and sporting equipment.

    This is why MRSA transmission is more commonly seen in the military, athletic settings, and other situations where there is close contact.

    How Long After Transmission Do Symptoms Occur?
    When someone becomes infected with MRSA, they do not immediately have any signs or symptoms; it takes about 1 to 10 days on average for symptoms to start. However, inside the person’s body, the MRSA bacteria are multiplying. This period between MRSA transmission and the beginning of MRSA symptoms is called the “MRSA incubation period.””

    http://bacteria.emedtv.com/mrsa/mrsa-transmission-p2.html

  16. My gut feeling is that the most Christian thing to do would be to consider the practical and physical demands of the people she is caring for. And if that requires removal of the cross for a few hours, then so be it.

  17. The problem of MRSA (and other less well-known nasties) has led to increasingly draconian regulations on what may or may not be worn by hospital staff. (Doctors’ white coats and consultants’ ties went out a long time ago) Some of these rules are justifiable, but others appear to be arbitrary, many have no strong evidence base; their main purpose is to show that the management are “doing something”. They may vary between one hospital trust and another. Jewellery is banned (quite reasonable) – but wedding rings are always exempt, and name badges are compulsory. Small discreet crucifixes or lapel badges used to be acceptable – but not any more, it seems.

  18. I’m reminded of those ‘upside down clocks’ that nurses wear on their lapels are they still around?

    Mrs Chaplin should consider a tattoo identical to the one she has been forced to remove, then we will see if it’s a ‘faith’ issue or a safety one.

  19. Levent, how about ‘Not Red Cross?’ 🙂

    I’m not sure this has the same resonance in Turkey – in UK it started with a programme called ‘Not the 9 o’Clock news,’ which was a parody of what used to be the BBC TV 9 o’clock news programme. Now, ‘Not…’ something is generally used as a title of some sort of spoof.

  20. Fob watches, Soutie, now come in a waterproofed plastic cover which is obviously wipable with the intent of keeping it clean.

  21. Slightly off topic, Bravo, but I read the other day that nurses in Bangladesh have all been banned from wearing burkas/niqabs. Apparently too many nurses were paying ward cleaners and other non-qualified people to do their shifts for them, hiding from recognition behind the “black sack”. So if that’s the respect they give to their own religion, I wonder why we bother bending over backwards to accommodate them.

  22. PS. Religion should have nothing to do with the law of the land. Just because some misguided old guy with a beard is arrogant enough to think that he can understand the mind of some wholly mythical and supposedly infintely unbounded being and therefore says ‘god says you musn’t eat lettuce on even-numbered Saturdays in June of a leap year,’ shouldn’t have any bearing on any matter of law.

  23. Pseu I listened to it – some of it was extremely interesting, even though I think like Bravo that religion should have nothing to do with the law of the land.

    BravoAs far as I can tell no one outside the UK can access TV. If you find a way of circumventing it – let me know.

Add your Comment

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: