Here’s the answer, courtesy of the official reply being sent to people who write to ministers on this topic:
Unfortunately, some recent media coverage has misrepresented the position with regard to the ability of employees to wear crosses, or other religious symbols, while at work. The Government believes that people should be able to wear crosses openly at work. The law allows for this, and employers are generally very good at being reasonable in accommodating people’s religious beliefs.
There is no law stating what people can or cannot wear as this is considered a matter of personal choice. The Equality Act 2010 maintains this position. However, it is possible for employers to apply certain rules, for example about not wearing jewellery, which may have an impact on people of certain religions. If any policy has that effect, then the employer must have a proportionate and legitimate reason for adopting it, for instance for health and safety reasons or in order to comply with a legitimate uniform policy.
The current law applies in the same way to people of all religions and beliefs. It makes clear that any actions that would directly discriminate against those of a particular religion, such as Christianity, are unlawful. In addition, where a policy indirectly discriminates against those of a particular religion and this policy cannot be justified, that is also unlawful.
The Government believes that the Equality Act 2010 strikes the right balance between employees’ rights to manifest their religion or beliefs at work and the business needs and requirements of the particular employer.
With specific reference to the applications currently before the European Court of Human Rights, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as part of its liaison role with the Court, submitted the written observations of the Government on the admissibility and merits of those applications to the Court in October 2011. These observations represent the Government’s legal position.
The applicants claim that domestic law has breached their human rights, a claim which the Government denies. The Court will consider the applications in due course and the Government will consider its findings carefully when they are made.
The Government greatly values the vital role that Christian organisations have in our society and the part they play in national life, inspiring a great number of people to get involved in public service and providing help to those in need. The Government is committed to ensuring fair treatment and equal opportunities for all, including people of all religions.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Vince Cable: we will force a referendum vote in Parliament
Clegg leadership plot: Gove's 'crazy grenade' detonates, briefly, before Tories revert to arguing about Europe
Ukip surge to 18% in latest ICM poll: Lib Dems at 11%
Liberal Democrat MPs to be given free vote on all aspects of Same Sex Marriage Bill
Where Ukip won (or almost won) on 2nd May 2013
Lord Roger Roberts writes: Don’t try to win votes by coming down hard on migrants
Edward Davey writes… Helping consumers to get cheaper energy bills
Duncan Hames MP writes… Must we continue to use food for fuel?
Opinion: The green centre ground
Saturday Six 34 - Poverty, Equal Marriage, Texas and Pulled Pork
The new Reading station
Quote of the day. - Liberator blog on disagreeing with Tories on the EU & equal marriage
I'm not against caucuses. I'm against Liberal Youth caucuses.
Mad swivel-eyed loons? Think before you laugh
50 years a Southport Councillor Ronnie Fearn's presentation photos
The 'loons' have it
My Free Televised Sport For All Bill
Today's Link-Love: May 18, 2013
Nonconformistradical
Simon Banks
David
Moggy
paul barker
18 Comments
Wow the media misrepresenting something, Never!
Yep, the only worrying thing regarding this issue is how easily untruths propagate, and just how little these newspapers care.
Rick at Flip Chart Fairy Tales has an amusing take on this: http://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/red-tape-is-ok-for-christians-it-seems/
“The Government believes that people should be able to wear crosses openly at work.”
But the government also believes that people should not have the RIGHT to wear crosses openly at work, which is the nub of this case.
It may suit some to dismiss opposition to the government’s position as mischievous media misrepresentation, but it’s worth noting that the two ladies bringing these cases enjoy strong support from reputable civil liberties organisations such as Liberty and the Equality and Human RIghts Commission. It would be nice to see more politicians from all parties speaking up in their favour.
What an utterly mendacious statement. In fact the Government does not ” believes that people should be able to wear crosses openly at work” as they are actively opposing those who argue this at the European Court.
Its quite simple – employers should not be able to ban employees (apart from on genuine H&S grounds) from wearing symbols of their religion. Just in the same way as ( entirely correctly) Sikhs a re allowed to bear turbans in the police and armed forces.
Here’s what Liberty have to say about it
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/media/press/2010/overwhelming-support-as-case-of-ba-employee-banned-from-wearing-cross-is.php
Simon, would genuine H&S grounds include the NHS prohibiting front-line staff from wearing any type of necklace?
I’m genuinely opposed to the wearing of suits, and ties in particular (I’m honestly not being facetious). Should I be free to wear what I like, or should my employer be free to control what I wear at work (and even the length of my hair)? H&S and pragmatic grounds are fine, but what about the supposed image projected to clients/customers? Are you saying employers shouldn’t be able to control that image (I’d like that!)? I could give some heart-felt moral reasons why I don’t support uniformity: could I take my employer to court and win if (s)he disagreed? What level of employee freedom is acceptable? How large can symbols be? Are my beliefs irrelevant unless they’re shared by an organised religion (of what size?)? I’m sure businesses will love exploring all these issues in the courts.
@Simon McGrath – did you actually read this piece, or the comment before yours?
Chaplin and Eweida have gone to the ECHR to seek a ruling which would create a legal right to wear religious symbols at work. It is this that the government in opposing. There is no contradiction between believing that, in general, people should be allowed to wear crosses at work yet opposing the creation of a legal right to do so.
Extending the religion-based rights in the workplace would create all sorts of problems. What is a religion and who says? Should a committed Nazi have the right to wear a Swastika?
Inevitably a legal right to wear a cross would conflict with some health and safety regs. Employers would be faced with expensive court cases to clarify the law.
A government opposed to red-tape should be opposed to the creation of extra legal rights . Opposing this makes absolute sense.
@Simon MacGrath So in the case of Shirley Chaplin her employers, the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust moved her from a front line role specifically for H&S reasons, which you cite as an exception.
In the second case, BA have changed their policy anyway, so that crucifixes are allowed to be worn visibly. They did not sack Nadia Eweida. The court case to the ECHR, as I understand it, is about full payment during her suspension which was made under previous BA rules which did NOT ban the wearing of crucifixes but did not allow them to be worn visibly.
The point is that there is nowhere in the bible which tells Christians to wear crucifixes visibly. Indeed, one could argue that Matthew 6:5 is suggesting a quiet, closeted approach to one’s faith.
Indeed, on March 11th, Archbishop Williams said in Rome:
“I believe that, during Lent, one of the tasks we all have to face is to look into ourselves and ask how far we are involved in the ‘religion factory’. Because in spite of all this, Christians have been quite good at religion factories in their day, and the cross itself has become a religious decoration – not a call to renewal of life, not a call into a new world, but another thing that religious people make and hang onto. ”
@Paul Walter
Whilst I do not think you need to wear a cross to be a Christian I think you interpret Matthew wrongly. In this passage Jesus is referring to prayer, in other words you do not need to make a huge issue to the world of the fact you are praying. There is a similar passage about fasting later in Matthew 6 where those who choose to fast are instructed not to make their fast obvious to others. Prayer and fasting, where carried out as an individual, have no need for anyone’s involvement but the individual and God. If you need others to see, you are should question the reason you are doing either. …
In my view (as a practising Christian) Christians should use their actions as an advert of their faith and not the cross or any other symbol. I have no objection to them being worn, I just do not see it as an intrinsic part of my faith. I spent many years in the armed forces where I would not be allowed (rightly) to wear a cross, indeed any jewellery except a wedding / engagement ring. I would however only ban their use where there is a good reason, and whilst it may upset some who share my faith, I include the requirement to wear uniform (and not just service uniforms) as a good reason.
As ever when faith is debated the airtime and publicity goes to the minority rather than the mainstream.
Hilarious really that people are suddenly so concerned about the trouble this would give employers.
@Rick – you seem to be under the impression that being a Nazi is a religion – it isnt.
@Steve Way agreed
The Health and Safety argument is irrelevant in the Eweida case and nonsensical in the Chaplin one. A hijab is just as easy to grab as a chain (if not more so), but hijabs were not banned.
I totally agree with Shami Chakrabarti’s comments on this case :-
“Safety concerns about the wearing of crosses can easily be met with breakable chains but freedom of thought, conscience and religion should bind people of all faiths and none together. There are many who seek to create divisions in society and irrational bureaucracy plays into their hands.”
By fighting these women, the government is making the job of the Mail as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.
As Liberals we should allow people to express their own religious beliefs in the way they dress.
If Health & Safety were the issue then it would be much more important to ban the wearing of RINGS on a hospital ward – or in any establishment serving food or selling food which is not going to be cooked by the customer, such as cooked meats or cheese. Rings harbour billions of microbes and are definitely not suitable for anyone working in a hospital. Even nail varnish can become chipped and loose and shelter harmful bacteria.
@Judith of course we should allow people to express their religious beliefs in the way they dress. Of course.
But when someone enters into a contract of employment they agree to a set of rules which may or may not include legal rules about dress.
There are indeed rules about rings in many hospitals. At Great Ormond Street hospital the rules state:
“The wearing of rings and wrist jewellery (including watches) during health care is strongly discouraged. If religious or cultural influences strongly condition the health care worker’s attitude, the wearing of a simple wedding ring (band) during routine care may be acceptable, but in high-risk settings, such as the operating theatre, all rings and other jewellery should be removed (WHO 2009).”
The rules also state:
“Artificial fingernails or extenders should not be worn when having direct contact with patients (Rationale 14).”
@Adam
“Simon, would genuine H&S grounds include the NHS prohibiting front-line staff from wearing any type of necklace?”
Three things about necklaces: Firstly they dangle if you lean forward; secondly they conduct electricity; thirdly they are strong.
If you lean forward over some piece of moving machinery , you run the risk of having it caught, which could result in parts of your body being drawn into the mechanism and/or you being throttled. The same risk applies to ties, especially those made of artificial fabric. When tie-wearing was universal amongst men, the answer there was to tuck the loose ends of the tie inside the shirt between the second and third buttons down.
If your work involves live electricity, a dangling necklace (or other metal jewellery) could result in a shock or damage to the equipment..
In situations where cleanliness is vital, such as in clinical work or engineering jobs where contamination must be avoided, extra bits of jewellery hinder achieving the requied standard of cleanliness.
@Paul @Ian etc
Can anybody quote a single case where a necklace worn by an air stewardess or nurse caused a health and safety problem – preferably one where the problem would not have been avoided with a short, breakable chain?
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, surely the assumption should be that these women ought to have the right to wear their necklaces (as Shirley Chaplin did without incident for 30 years). Anything else would be, as Shami Chakrabarti put it, “irrational bureaucracy”.
I always thought that Lib Dems were instinctively opposed to the government meddling in people’s lives in this way so I am genuinely perplexed that anybody is defending the government’s position on this.
The BA case is not about health and safety. It’s not about the right to wear the cross at work either, since BA have changed their policy and allow visible religious symbols. It’ s a dispute about payment during suspension when the dress policy allowed crosses but not visible ones.
The Devon/Exeter case is about health and safety. The rules of that hospital are very similar to those for other hospitals.
The government isn’t defending these cases. So it’s a bit of a stretch to say this is an example of them meddling in people’s lives.
The bald legal facts of the cases are here: http://bit.ly/HAkzqs
Instinctively I wish these two ladies all the best with their cases. It is good that these cases are being heard at the ECHR.
@Paul Walter “Instinctively I wish these two ladies all the best with their cases.”
Well on that sentiment we can certainly agree. The Devon case is particularly sad.
Devon & Exeter are arguing that it is an H&S issue but of course Ms Chaplin contests that and claims that she is the victim of blatant discrimination since Muslim staff are allowed to wear the hijab. Unless one can demonstrate that a hijab is less “grabbable” than a chain (which doesn’t seem plausible) then the argument ceases to be one of H&S and instead becomes one of whether a hijab is a manifestation of a religion while a cross is not (the latter of which seems to be a central part of the government submission). But here again it is easy to see why some see this as discrimination, since many Muslim women do not wear the hijab (and many scholars will tell you that it is not compulsory), and anway this is a matter of personal conscience. It was a strong enough part of Shirley Chaplin’s faith that she felt unable to continue in the job she had loved doing for 30 years, no dout at great financial loss to herself.
As an aside, quite by chance last night I came across a photo of my wife in her nurse’s uniform circa 1997 (she left nursing a few years ago). Not only was she wearing a necklace and wedding ring, but she had a fob watch dangling from her front, and worst of all a pair of scissors sticking out of her breast pocket. It’s a wonder they let her anywhere near the wards – she was clearly a health and safety catastrophe just waiting to happen.
This has got rather heated and a bit like one of those debates in the Commons where the last thing people are looking for is common ground.
The concept of indirect discrimination, which has applied for a long time to race, gender etc and now to religion, means that applying rules which impact more on one religious or philosophical, gender or ethnic group than another is illegal unless there is objective justification of a sort that could be backed up by evidence. For example, a work dress code that insisted female staff must wear skirts rather than trousers would impact on Muslim women and would almost certainly be found illegal. However, insisting on building workers wearing hard hats can be objectively justified: this would impact on many Sikhs, but such rules have stood because the objective justification appears to be sound. The government’s letter is thus slightly misleading in that “a legitimate uniform policy” would become illegitimate in certain circumstances.
The rule within the religious group does not have to be an absolute requirement, but clearly the case is easier if it is. The basic rules of the Sikh religion – the Five Ks – require uncut hair (not a turban – that’s a method of satisfyiong the uncut hair requirment) and the wearing of a bangle. Health and Safety might reasonably require the bangle not to (sorry about the poetry) dangle on the wrist, but in most kinds of employment banning any bangle would be unlikely to stand. Operating theatre staff may be a special case. The arguments are essentially practical – whether meeting the religious (or philosophical) requirement impairs effectiveness.
There is no requirement on Christians to wear crosses. Christianity has no hard-and-fast rules about dress, though many more local or culture-specific rules do exist . However, banning crosses would create conflict for some Christian groups, so I think the issue under present law would be about objective justification for the rule. It would be quite easy to show that a police officer wearing a cross on a chain, for example, might be at risk, and less able to do his or her job, if someone grabbed the thing. No such justification would work for reception staff, say.
The law does indeed place limits on companies’ ability to specify dress in line with the company image, but only where the arguments for restriction are nebulous, factitious or based on personal dislikes, and where discrimination results.
Some employers – and schools – may impose complete bans because they think it would be easier to impose this position than a more nuanced and subjective one (“you may wear a small cross but not that huge thing!”). However, since it would be hard to argue that waering a big cross discriminated against any particular group, this may not be correct.
I suspect the concern of Christians is tied up with a supicion that some such bans have been imposed because the company fears a minority of Muslims, for example, would be offended by the crosses. A Liberal position on this would surely be that this reaction should not take precedence over the wish of some Christians to wear a cross. We should not be ordering people to stop doing things purely because other people don’t like them unless the act involves a deliberate attack on the others, such as would be involved in wearing an “ATHEISTS WILL GO TO HELL” badge.
On balance, if a right to wear religious (or philosophical) symbols is being sought subject to practical issues like health and safety, I’d support that, as equality legislation for understandable reasons concentrates on groups, and I might be the only Quaker in the world who wanted to wear a George Fox T-shirt while being paid to garden (not that I do want to wear one or get paid for gardening).