News

Crazy Christian Nadia Eweida is still banging on about that bloody cross

DETERMINED as ever to prove that she was a victim of “religious descrimination”, British Airways employee and all-round pain-in-the-arse Nadia Eweida says she is planning to take her case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Nadia Eweida and her damn cross. A thought: if Jesus were to return to earth, would he want to be reminded of his crucifixion by zealots like this?

Eweida, you will recall, was sent home from work in September 2006 after she refused to abide by the airline’s then dress code which required employees to keep religious symbols covered. She insisted on displaying a cross.

Eweida was able to return to work in 2007 after BA changed its uniform policy. Now she is hoping that the ECHR will rule that she was the victim of “religious discrimination”. She is also seeking “just satisfaction” for lost wages.

However, it may be some time before Miss Eweida hears if her case has been accepted.

She said:

I have been given to understand that it will take four to six months before I hear whether my case will be accepted and heard.

Earlier this year the Court of Appeal upheld a decision by an Employment Appeal Tribunal which found that she was not a victim of religious discrimination. More to the point, it decided that she was an insensitive troublemaker, whose attitude and behaviour towards colleagues had prompted a number of complaints.

The tribunal heard that Eweida had foisted religious materials upon fellow employees, or spoke to colleagues in a judgmental or censorious manner which reflected her beliefs.

One striking example was a report from a gay man that the claimant had told him that it was not too late to be redeemed.

Writing in the Guardian’s Comment is Free, Terry Sanderson, National Secular Society President, said:

Eweida and her Christian activist backers managed to foment such a backlash that BA was forced into changing the policy. Now she can wear her cross visibly, and the airline offered her £8,500 compensation and a return to her job, with her point successfully made. But no – she decided to continue pursuing the airline at the industrial tribunal. She was funded in her action by a rightwing religious law firm in Arizona called the Alliance Defence Fund, whose affiliated lawyer was Paul Diamond, a familiar figure in court cases demanding religious privilege.

The Court of Appeal decision was greeted with dismay by critics who said Christians are the poor relations of equality law.

The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, said:

The news that Nadia Eweida’s appeal has failed is a sad blow both to her personally, and the cause of religious liberties and freedoms.

Earlier this year a group of leading bishops warned that Christian beliefs on marriage, conscience and worship are being ignored by UK laws.

Seven bishops, including Lord Carey, said that the “apparent discrimination” against Christians was deeply concerning and the major political parties need to address the issue.

In the letter to The Sunday Telegraph the group of leading Church of England bishops also expressed concern at the numerous cases of Christians being pushed out of their jobs.

They drew particular attention to Shirley Chaplin, a Christian NHS nurse who was told she could not wear a cross on hospital wards.

The bishops wrote:

This is yet another case in which the religious rights of the Christian community are being treated with disrespect.

They continued:

We are deeply concerned at the apparent discrimination shown against Christians and we call on the Government to remedy this serious development. In a number of cases, Christian beliefs on marriage, conscience and worship are simply not being upheld. There have been numerous dismissals of practising Christians from employment for reasons that are unacceptable in a civilised country.

Hat tip: Stuart W

43 responses to “Crazy Christian Nadia Eweida is still banging on about that bloody cross”

  1. Newspaniard says:

    Religious zealots have become so used to being deferred to that when someone stands up and says “WTF?” they go running tearfully to their mums, (or their lawyers) demanding that they get their own way. If they are part of the Desert Death Cult, they usually win (in the UK) but otherwise, they get laughed at. This woman should be told to “get over it” and sent packing… however, there are so many (closet) religious fundies in positions of political power in British society that (alas) she may yet win her “case”.

  2. Freeminder says:

    An alternative idea:
    let the sky fairy worshipping loony wear whatever symbol, icon or clothing she wants but then insist that she also wear a badge saying
    “Warning! This person suffers from Religion (Variant CofE) and is therefore unstable. May burst into tears at any moment.”

    Maybe extend it to all religiots and they might start seeking a cure…or maybe not. Just wish they would take thier lunacy elsewhere.

    Meanwhile, only the legal jackals prosper…..

  3. Stuart H. says:

    This nutter probably has the distinction of being the only BA employee we should have no time for. Guess plenty of us sympathised when their general workforce went on strike and couldn’t even be identified when giving media interviews for fear of managment retaliation, but this is something totally different.
    BA treat her dipstick beliefs with much more dignity than they deserve, and she’s still whining. Kind of lets the cat out of the bag -looks like a moneygrabber in league with ambulance chasing lawyers, no better than those parasites who ‘trip over’ paving stones then try to sue the council for life-threatening injuries.
    Just a shame she doesn’t work for Ryanair. I’ve got a feeling their head honcho would have expressed himself far more bluntly, and then their marketing department would have played it up so much her zombie worshipping supporters would never have dared raise the topic again.

  4. sailor1031 says:

    “numerous”? I see two cases mentioned here. I can recall one or two others in recent years. This is “numerous”? What about all the christians who go to work and don’t have these kind of issues because they obey the rules of the workplace? What about all the non-religious people who have had similar issues because they don’t obey the rules of the workplace? we don’t get to hear about those…….

    As a certain general said – “stop it, stop it. this is too silly, and rather suspect”.

  5. tony e says:

    After the policy change BA said ‘she can wear her cross visibly, and the airline offered her £8,500 compensation and a return to her job.’

    To me that is a victory, but being the typical nasty hypocritical christian she wants blood. I hope BA’s lawyers tear her apart.

  6. Angela_K says:

    This stupid bitch and her ilk should have a crucifix on the forehead then everybody would have a clear indication of an approaching zealot. These religious types are always whinging about discrimination yet it is they who are the most discriminatory.

  7. Harry says:

    No, sailor, you misunderstand. There have been numerous cases of Christians being sacked for reasons which, while they are sufficient to sack non-Christians, employers should consider the innate moral superiority of Christians and thus require more serious violations before sacking them.

    If a Christian punches a non-Christian in the face then you should consider that the non-Christian is inevitably to blame and sack them, not the Christian who would never punch someone without severe provocation.

    I think that’s the point they’re trying to argue. I shall refrain from making a judgement on its validity because I notice that the freethinker delays posting comments if I use the kind of language it would take to describe it.

  8. Don says:

    Employer: OK here’s a copy of our dress code and code of conduct for dealing with clients, which emphasises professionalism and respect to all regardless of ethnicity, religious belief or sexual orientation.

    Employee: Right. But they don’t apply to me, of course.

    Employer: Um, yes. They apply to everyone.

    Employee: Lord, I am persecuted for thy sake, send thou lawyers and much wonga to thy servant that mine enemies shall be discomfited and brought low, and I shall buildeth a new patio in thine honour with the compo therefrom.

    Employer: Look, just do your job, take your pay cheque and go home. Do whatever you want in your own time.

    Employee: Let my martyrdom be pleasing in thy sight, oh Lord. Though they scourge me with barbs…

    Employer: What?

    Employee: … and pierce my flesh with spikes, yet still I shall proclaim thee.

    Employer: OK, OK. Whatever. Here’s a wad of cash, now STFU.

    Employee: More.

  9. Derek says:

    To Harry….

    Unless you’re being sarcastic, you need to talk to your family about supporting you better, and get some serious psychological assistance.

    Derek

  10. ZombieHunter says:

    if muslim women employees of BA are allowed to wear a headscarf and sikh’s allowed to wear a turban then I don’t see why she shouldn’t be allowed to wear a crucifix, don’t get me wrong I’m no fan of religion but the way I see it if you have turbans and headscarves then you have to have crucifixes around the neck too either that or ban the lot.

    maybe if this moron had stuck to that arguement she might have some sort of valid point to make and she’s already won by getting her job back and compensation to boot but she’s obviously that much of a fucking loser she doesn’t realise when she’s won.

  11. Har Davids says:

    Couldn’t agree more, ZombieHunter, but for laughs, let Nadine wear a cross just like her Lord and Saviour had to tote. That might stop her whining.

  12. AngieRs says:

    I think you are missing the point, Zombiehunter. Certain religions have, as I understand it, articles of faith which their religion demands they wear, such as a turban or skull cap etc. Christians do not. There is nothing in the bible which demands that they wear a cross and that is the argument with which BA went to court. The fact that BA bottled it big time and when on to pay her wads of cash made it ridiculously harder for other employers to enforce their dress codes.
    Leastways, that’s how I understood the argument.

  13. William Harwood says:

    The one thing the Soviet Union ever got right was its recognition that incurable religion-peddlers like the above-mentioned stewardess and nurse belong in cages with padded walls where they cannot pass on their mind-AIDS to the uninfected.

  14. Broga says:

    This provocative nutter wants to wear her cross to show she is a christian. With Tony Blair, Rowan Williams and Ratzi in support you just know she is a bigot. But let us, just for a moment, look at the consequences of being a christian nation. The nation being the most christian, literal in its beliefs, pro Creationist in the Western World: the USA.

    A mass of documents, close to half a million, have been leaked about the behaviour in Iraq of the forces representing this pious nation. What we find is a nation carrying out in practice, and complicit with its vassals in Iraq, of war crimes, slaughter, murder, torture and an indifference to whether, in its christan fuelled blood lust, the victims are civilians or children. You need a strong stomach, a christians stomach?, to even read some of this stuff. Just three brief examples if you can bear it:

    1. A six year old child was found with six holes in its body. Initially, these seemed like bullet holes. They were not. The child had been tortured and the holes were inflicted by an electric drill. Torture of children is common.

    2. A man hung for hours by his wrists, his back burned with chemicals, and missing some fingers.

    3. A vehicle shot up, after guidance sought from higher authority in the USA military, and filled with civilian parents and children and the children drenched with their parents blood.

    What is the response from the USA government? A complaint that these documents have been leaked. They should have remained secret. They are putting American lives at risk.

    And the UK poodle, reared and nurtured by the ghastly Blair, is still is still alive and, in the form of the UK MOD, yelping in support of its American masters.

    Meanwhile, on the wider religious front it seems that murder and torture by the two main religious groups in Iraq continues with enthusiasm and with ever more ingenious ways of making each other suffer.

    Now, against this backdrop, what are we to make of the puling from Blair, Ratzi and Rowan Williams about this woman and stupid bloody cross?

  15. tony e says:

    If the plane is going down all I want is someone who will keep calm and direct me to the exit, not someone who will grab my hands and say ‘now’s a good time to repent your sins!’

    I’ve yet to hear of an atheist worker try to push their non-belief down fellow workers throats.

  16. Don says:

    Harwood,

    Not really.

  17. andrea says:

    she could have worn the sodding thing under her uniform all the time without comment if she’d wanted to.
    I thought piousness was about being devoted without crowing about it?
    Don’t nuns and suchlike go around in hair shirts so they could suffer without banging on about it to everyone else?
    Or could it be this sad bitch is just looking for a cheapy from seeing herself in the gutter press?

  18. Sean Reynolds says:

    Wonder if she makes the sign of the cross in those big arm movements they use to show exits. “In the event of an emergency, people who will be damned to hell are the brown people at the front, those filthy catholic nuns at the back, and probably this butch looking girl sitting here.”

  19. Dan says:

    William Harwood is being a dick. Apologists for the USSR tyranny are little better than apologists for Hitler. It’s an embarrassment for serious atheists to share the same page as idiots like him.

    To me, you don’t give up your free speech when you walk through the door to work. That’s point one. You have a reasonable right to freedom of expression.

    Secondly, Eweida contravened BA’s policy on the wearing of jewellery with uniforms. She claimed that because the cross is a Christian symbol, it was religious discrimination to ban it as though it were “ordinary” jewellery. That’s the case in a nutshell.

    Eweida’s case was nonsense, but so was BA’s uniform policy. That’s why they’ve amended it since. They didn’t really need such an inflexible policy, there were no health and safety issues. If someone wants to wear a necklace over their uniform, why is that such a big deal? Answer: it’s really not.

    However. It is also clear that there are people out there who want to evangelise their workplaces. Wearing a crucifix is not something that bothers me at all, however it would not be reasonable to subject people to religious propaganda at work. That thought tempers my natural tendency to support blows against pointlessly restrictive uniform policies.

    Dan

  20. Buffy says:

    I’m so sick to death of these whiny Christians who think they deserve Special Rights, and want to flaunt their chosen lifestyles everywhere.

  21. JohnMWhite says:

    Buffy wins. Gold.

  22. Broadsword says:

    I agree with Stuart H

    Our present government says they’ll crack down on our compensation culture.
    Two years ago a lady drove her car into the rear bumper of my van and caused enough damage for it to be an insurance job. My insurers arranged the repair and their legal department contacted me to ask if I was injured. I said no, just fix my van please. Then I was treated to the “are you sures?” and “what if in six months’ time?” for a little knock that happened at walking-pace on the approach to a roundabout. They make me sick and I don’t use them anymore.

    As for the xian. It’s hard for me to have anything but an emotional response to her. Please forgive the profanity. All I can say is, Fucking Christian Cunt, you wouldn’t work for me.

  23. Broga says:

    The Christian is loving the attention. Probably feels like a martyr. Isn’t it lovely that even Williams, Carey, Ratzo and the egregious Blair support her. The inconvenience, deflection of attention in the airline, waste of time and money beggars belief over this one pious bigot who was, and is, looking for trouble. Real shame that there is not some debate with her about the nature of her god.

  24. Broadsword says:

    Nadine Eweida is probably lacking the attention of a loving partner or family and is enjoying the plaudits of fellow god-botherers.
    She is looking for compo bankrolled by religiots with an agenda. I hope the current economic crisis gives BA the excuse it needs to sack her and that future potential employers give her a wide berth. Am I right in thinking you’re not entitled to certian benefits if you lose your job for being a cnut?

    She could’ve worn the crucifix inside her clothing without contravening company policy. Surely that was a fair compromise? I agree with JohnMWhite’s pronouncement on this issue, “Buffy wins gold”, a few lines that said what I took a few paragraghs to express.

  25. Stuart W says:

    Andrea, Zombiehunter and Broadsword – Ms Eweida was actually told years ago after brief deliberation by BA that she could wear a cross as a lapel pin. As pointed out in the Terry Sanderson quote, she was also offered a huge compensation sum (for what exactly?!!) and her job back. But oh no; that wouldn’t make her a big enough martyr so the show must go on.

    Btw, her name is Nadia, not Nadine.

  26. elainek123 says:

    I do get upset when I see a cross around someones neck as I believe it represents murder of thousands crusified on the cross. I would not wear a noose around my neck as this represents blacks being hung from trees because of the colour of their skins, and Whites feeling superior.
    Would this woman want to work beside me wearing my badge ‘Godless’, no so why should she wear a cross representing death.

  27. William Harwood says:

    Could any sane person really misinterpret my comment as an endorsement of a tyranny every bit as evil as Hitler’s, or is the person pretending to do so simply a liar?
    Now that my stalker has again exposed himself as a jackass, presumably he will find yet another pseudonym through which to throw shit at the educated.

  28. Barry Duke says:

    Whoops. Corrected now Stuart.

  29. Don says:

    Harwood,

    What other interpretation could be put upon a plain endorsement?

    The one thing the Soviet Union ever got right …cages … padded walls…

    Seriously, what other interpretation? That’s scarcely ambivalent.

  30. William Harwood says:

    On the remote chance that the brain amputee is not lying, “The one thing they got right” is an unambiguous declaration that they were wrong about everything else.

  31. Marcus says:

    Will these nutters ever grow up and get a life?

    Surely the message has to be, wear your stupid feckin’ cross under your clothes if you want to, Nadia. Just stop poking it in the faces of people who don’t give a flying f**k about you or you insane beliefs. Please, just go away and leave us alone. Go back to the Dark Ages. Now. We really couldn’t care less about you or the madness that you represent.

  32. Don says:

    Harwood,

    And what was the one thing they got right?

    Padded cells and torture for those who would not concede their beliefs? That’s the one thing they got right?

  33. Angela_K says:

    elainek123, I agree the cross thing is offensive, so is that stupid fish symbol the xtians wear as a lapel badge; the fish “bumper stickers” are just as irritating. You make a good point about the zealots not wanting to work with you if you wore your godless badge because the religious would whinge that you were being disrespectful, so as usual the respect is one way. I have a badge on my motorcycle jacket that states: “Religious belief is a mental illness”

  34. William Harwood says:

    I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an opponent who is unarmed.

  35. Don says:

    You refuse to defend your assertions.Buffoon.

  36. Dan says:

    Freethinkers should support freedom of thought (and freedom of speech). The Freethinker’s founders did not fight for their right to attack Christianity, and suffer imprisonment, only to demand that Christians suffer imprisonment instead.

    Those of us who are loyal to what the Freethinker has always stood for are hardly likely to let William Harwood’s advocacy of Soviet anti-religious repression go without adverse comment.

    Harwood’s original repressive comment and subsequent irrational outbursts when confronted mark him out clearly as an opponent of Freethought, not a supporter of it.

    Dan

  37. Dan says:

    Angela K and lainek123 come across as overly sensitive. I would hope that atheists wouldn’t be taken in by the prevailing culture of “offence” (which I don’t believe even exists as a real emotion).

    Come on, what’s really so upsetting about a fish symbol or a cross? Nothing whatsoever. Most people who wear crosses as jewellery don’t even do so for religious reasons, so the power of the imagery has been completely watered down. I could understand a negative reaction to a cross with a figure nailed to it, as perhaps in bad taste. But otherwise it’s just you who comes across as the one with the problem.

    The crucifix has no magic power! It’s just a bit of metal/plastic! Get over it (and Eweida should too)!

    Dan

  38. Dan says:

    elainek123:

    >>I do get upset when I see a cross around someones neck as I believe >>it represents murder of thousands crusified on the cross.

    This is absurd. Come November 11 millions of people will wear poppies (red or white), to commemmorate millions of war dead. Are you overcome by emotion then too? Are you incapable of leaving the house in case your brain explodes when confronted by all those people wearing symbols representing murdered soldiers? Are you scared to turn on the TV in case you see a presenter wearing a flower the colour of spilled blood?

    >>I would not wear a noose around my neck as this represents blacks >>being hung from trees because of the colour of their skins, and >>Whites feeling superior.

    Um. Well, maybe it would, though that wouldn’t be my first thought at seeing someone wandering around with a noose around their neck! Which so far as I know nobody does, not even racists.

    >>Would this woman want to work beside me wearing my badge ‘Godless’, >>no so why should she wear a cross representing death.

    Polemical badges might be a different kettle of fish, but what if you wore a pansy as an item of jewellery (the pansy being a traditional symbol of freethought, from the French “pensee”)? Perhaps we should encourage atheists to do that.

    The “representing death” thing is a red herring. For a Christian, of course, the cross represents new life and hope (I know, I know, but it does, you’ll recall all that resurrection stuff), not death at all. And anyway, what’s wrong with wearing symbols representing death? Poppies aside there are skull pendants, which lots of people wear (but perhaps not BA stewards), but also bats, black cats, owls and crows. And then you have the Buddhist wheel.

    You’re taking the cross too seriously. The problem in this case is an ideologically motivated individual pursuing a ridiculous legal case, not the supposed “offensiveness” of the symbol.

    Dan

  39. AngieRs says:

    Give it a rest for christs sake

  40. Nurse Ratched says:

    Here in the Cuckoo’s Nest we have a name for persons whose only means of justifying their existence is to disagree with everything, even if the only way to do so is by falsifying the positions of the persons with whom they claim to disagree. We call them “inmates.”

  41. Thoreau says:

    For some reason I can’t get past the curious fact that her glasses have a dull tint and she is wearing greyish clothing.

    No idea why this is what slaps me around the face, but it is very striking to me. Very odd.

    Perhaps she has a need for the world to be a muted, joyless dismal place?

    Grey tinted glasses are not as fun as rose tinted ones.

  42. The Woggler says:

    I think we should celebrate people like Nadia Eweida, who shine a light on just how stupid these beliefs are. Having said that, I imagine a fair number of ordinary christians would find her a complete embarrassment.

  43. Metal Brake : says:

    british airways is the best airline that i have been into, great crew and great service~’*