How unfair can you get?! Why is a crucifix different than a hijab or turban? And it's STUPID! Guys, do any of you even CARE what the airline staff wear as long as we and our luggage get there in one piece?

Robert, what's good for cleaning your monitor when your head explodes?

Posted by: GoldieLox at October 14, 2006 7:51 PM

This is ridiculous and preposterous. How can they forbid something unobtrusive as a cross? Unbelievable.

Posted by: EliasAlucard at October 14, 2006 8:22 PM

And like I said, STUPID! Think about the last flight you took - did you even notice what the crew wore? Even care?

BTW - I was doing some housework this afternoon with the TV in the background and I heard a bit about this on the news, but I didn't think anything of it, because they just said the airline was banning all jewelry. At this point if they want to play fair they should just allow the uniform only, for everyone. No exceptions. BA needs to either allow all such expression or ban all.

Posted by: GoldieLox at October 14, 2006 8:54 PM

No one should be shocked that a cross is forbidden and a hijab is acceptable. Christianity has been being slowly dismantled for some time now and no one seems to get too upset about it. Prayer in school, the Ten Commandments in a court room, God's name in the Pledge of Allegiance, who cares? The FACT that our founding fathers based their beliefs on the existence of a creator and set up our Constitution and our laws accordingly hasn't seemed to matter much to those who want to live their lives their own way without any pesky Supreme Being getting in their way. God gave us a freewill so that we can choose Him or deny Him, yet there are a lot of people who are working very hard to eradicate any memory of Him from our collective consciousness and from the landscape. Why? You already can ignore Him if you choose to. Why do you care if I don't choose to?

And here's the irony of it: we've kicked Christ out of our schools, our public life, our private lives, our major decisions, everywhere. And it is exactly those places that Islam is creeping in and taking over. Coincidence? I don't think so.

And the other thing is that it's not the Christians that are making unfair demands and trying to destroy our way of life. Those who believe they are also chase windmills and are afraid of paper tigers. There are no Christians blowing themselves up, raping teenagers, marrying children, beating the crap out of women, subverting governments or intimidating their fellow man in the name of Christianity. There are , of course, people who are Christian who do these things in isolated cases, just like there are Jews, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, Animasts and whoever that do these things in isolated cases.

This is what comes from two decades of embracing political correctness in order to try and eliminate the rights of groups that we don't agree with. We end up eliminating our own.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 14, 2006 9:02 PM

Islamisbad,

You are absolutely dead on right. Boycott them. The threat of that very thing straightened out the problem with Muslim taxicab drivers at a major airport earlier this week who didn't want to transport alcohol carrying passengers. The alcohol carrying passengers got really ticked and that was the end of that.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 14, 2006 10:25 PM

Scratch another airline off of my list.

Posted by: Monkeywho at October 14, 2006 11:17 PM

Here we go again!
Crosses bad
Buddha statues bad
Islamo mumbo jumbo good

Yes, Isabella you are right.

Crosses keep disappearing as I keep reading and as I wrote on another post about Columbia University. Crosses in old vampire movies were a threat to the evil monsters. It used to destroy them. Hmmmm. The world is upside down.
I think I will start wearing a necklace with a cross.
Isn't British Airways the one that did away with the union jack flag? I have never flown them and guess I never will.

Posted by: pigtails not veils at October 14, 2006 11:39 PM

Okay Islamisbad, I will not fly British Airways!
I agree with you too!

Posted by: pigtails not veils at October 14, 2006 11:42 PM

British Airways under the chairmanship of Lord King flew a passenger airliner from Heathrow into Kuwait after saddam's invasion had started, full of SAS troups whe were hiding amongst civilian holiday makers, in an effort to rescue Kuwaitis deemed of importance to the froeign office.
i have since refused to fly that airline.
As a result a french family on their way to a malysian beach holiday spent many months as "guests and political pawns' of saddam hussein.
I believe they were never compensated by BA and BA was never held to account for this discracefull act.

Posted by: chevalier de st george at October 15, 2006 12:43 AM

Time for the diversity trainers to get some diversity training. Since this story mentions only Muslims and Christians does that mean the feelings of others are being ignored? That is intolerable!

What a nutty world this has become.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 15, 2006 1:06 AM

With leg room on a plane being what it is, could someone please explain to me the logistics of an Islamic flight attendant performing ritual prayer on an airliner? I'm getting an hysterical mental picture, involving beverage carts and elevated backsides.

Why would a Moslem want to work in the industry anyway, especially as a flight attendant, when close quarters almost guarantee physical contact with kaffirs? I wonder if the airline provides the proper materiel for the required ritual scrub after touching an unclean thing?

Posted by: Shakey_Premise at October 15, 2006 1:06 AM

Boycott British Airways, and fly either Virgin Atlantic, or other airlines operating out of Britain. Not including Saudia, GulfAir, et al.

Talking about Sikhs, they are allowed turbans and bangles - none of which covers their face and disrupts their co-operation with the authorities. What would be interesting is whether they are allowed to carry their swords/daggers with them, which too is one of their 5 'K's. OTOH, one can cover one's face and everything else with the niqab, which is why it should be banned.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 15, 2006 2:06 AM

Yes!

- Boycott British Airways.
- Sue British Airways.

There are many other cost-effective airlines.

Posted by: Alert at October 15, 2006 2:11 AM

I wear a cross always. Members of my faith spent years in Communist prisons for wearing crosses. If British Airways wants to follow the example of the USSR, I won't fly with them.

Posted by: St. David, King of Georgia at October 15, 2006 2:44 AM

Just wrote to British Airways:

This is to strongly condemn the unfair treatment of Nadia Eweida forcing her to cover up her cross necklace. Unfair as it is, it is blatently discriminatory to Nadia because British Airways allows Sikh turbans and Muslim hijabs.

Very disappointing indeed.

Posted by: Alert at October 15, 2006 2:46 AM

Here is the actual cross in question:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3824/3815/1600/0010.jpg

Here is the way the BBC covered the story, please note the size of the crosses in the pictures:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6051486.stm

"While many Christians work happily for firms that do not allow crosses to be worn,"

wonder where the BBC got that "idea" from?:

http://www.express.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku=504

Posted by: kasper1062 at October 15, 2006 4:36 AM

Pity Swissair is no more - I used to like their tail-fin logo.

BA is accident-prone. Years back they removed the royal crest from their tail fin to put "multi-ethnic art" instead and lost passengers and had Thatcher even drape a handkerchief over a model aircraft so painted.

They are completely out of line and it is the Commissars who now run around like Secret Policemen who start this - it is amazing how often people whisper things to each other now just as in the GDR or USSR so the spies don't overhear them. It is a very strange and unpleasant atmosphere where you watch out for the Thought Police.

I wish this lady every success - her Union is backing her and has found a Barrister to act for her. BA has lost control of its "diversity" commissars and is heading for disaster

Posted by: Voyager at October 15, 2006 4:53 AM

Ah...well you know evil cannot bear the sight of the cross and it enrages it.

When will people of all religions or beliefs have the same/equal rights as the muslims?

They infringe upon everyone elses rights!!!!
Exactly WHEN will people stand up to them???
For once...no make that several times TELL THEM NO! Too bad if they can't handle it.

Posted by: Suz at October 15, 2006 5:02 AM

Looks like this dress code prefers false over true.

Posted by: DCWatson at October 15, 2006 5:44 AM

kasper1062, well spotted about the size of the crosses issue. The two celebs in the BBC article are simply wearing them as a "fashion item" (as the BBC picture describes the Cross as). Little more than a tacky item of bling that no one with any taste would want to wear anyway so what's the harm in banning it?

Posted by: Celsius at October 15, 2006 7:03 AM

Celsius

A little naive – because ban one cross and you ban them all.

Generally.

If I remember correctly the first instruction given to Christians of any denomination on baptism is,

“Not be ashamed to profess (or confess? i.e. admit to) the faith of Christ crucified".

Therefore by banning crosses and permitting headscarves, turbans, bangles etc they are not only discriminating against Christians, they are refusing to allow them exercise the most basic requirement of their faith.

However I think the whole issue is part of a much wider agenda we are not being told about.

Posted by: Fred at October 15, 2006 8:08 AM

Britain is probably lost. There seems to be no widespread resistance or public outrage there to this sort of thing. Here is yet another example of the ongoing outrage there.

Truthfully, the British government, and along with the entire ruling class, should be overthrown - by lethal force if necessary. Those who control Britain have clearly decided to support Britain's subjegation to a future Eurabian Caliphate. That's nothing less than bald-faced treason. Anyone supporting the regime there, whether they are a public school teacher, a police officer, a judge, or a government offical, should thus be considered a legitimate target. Such a scenario is extremely unlikely, sad to say. It's the stuff of our past, of brave souls who faced incredible odds to stand for what was true.

The deeper problem is that there are apparently very few left in Britain who could even consider such a thing. They might "feel" uncomfortable with news items like this, but they have no sense whatsoever of the kind of cultural rape this represents. Instead, they pathetically attempt to retreat and preserve the little they have left. Such a strategy cannot help but to fail.

Violence is of course a last resort (in contrast to Islam, which views it as a first resort). Perhaps I am premature here. Perhaps the electoral process - despite the fact that it is corrupted by the participation of numerous Muslims and others who have no business voting - could offer a means of real reform. That's as unlikely as the revolutionary scerario I offered above, however. The endless propaganda of multiculturalism has stupefied the native populace by and large - especially the women. They have been conditioned for their future state of slavery and dhimmitude - utterly clueless about what's going on. Apart from a miracle of major proportions - not of our own doing, for the sons of dust cannot produce miracles on their own - there is no hope for Britain.

Posted by: Carolus at October 15, 2006 9:19 AM

Fred, my last sentence was my take on the BBC's position. Not my own view. The BBC was depicting the Cross as a fashion item with the implication that that was all there was to it.

As you point out, if you ban the Cross as a fashion item, you ban the religious one too.

A typical lets-downplay-Christianity from the BBC.

Posted by: Celsius at October 15, 2006 9:25 AM

Celsius

Accepted - I think the "logic" is if we kick Christians in the b**** it will be OK to whisper "Boo" to everyone else.

Posted by: Fred at October 15, 2006 9:51 AM

I wonder if BA realise that they have three crosses (Cross of St. George, St. Andrew, and St David - ie the Union Jack), emblazoned on every one of their aircraft's tail fins, and flying all over the world.

---------------------------------------

I'm telling friends and relatives to avoid BA if they can help it.

Posted by: DP111 at October 15, 2006 10:15 AM

kasper1062,

Thanks for the links. The top one didn't work for me but I saw the woman's picture in the other links and her cross is small! If that offends you you're looking for something to complain about.

And now they're telling a newscaster she "shouldn't" wear hers? Hers looked even smaller. Well, I have a nice gold crucifix, a beeeeeg one, that I'm going to wear LOTS more now.

Posted by: GoldieLox at October 15, 2006 1:33 PM

This is the comment I tried to post on the Daily Mail about this; but they would not publish my comment. I wonder why?

Let's hope she squeezes millions out of the rabble! British Airways deserves all it gets. What can we do to help other than NOT fly British Airways EVER again! What a bunch of nancy boys! This is blatant religious discrimination against the ONLY valid religion here in Britain!!! Great Britain is NOT a MULTICULTURAL country; rather it is a CHRISTIAN country which merely tolerates people of other faiths.

Funny that they wouldn't publish it, isn't it?

Posted by: Mark Alexander at October 15, 2006 1:46 PM

I'm afraid that those on this thread who believe that this attempt to ban such a small symbol of this lady's faith is the work of intolerant muslims are indeed quite wrong.
it is worse
It is the work of progressive leftist secularists who have infected every stratum of British society and strive to control UK thinking
they are the Islamic extremists of british society and have caused far more harm to britain that the even the vile fascism of Muslim fanatics. They have over the past thirty years destroyed from within the very morals and culture which once made Britain a nation to be proud of.
Carolus is right and yes the rot starts right at the top with Prince Charles himself who can no longer be considered a hamless buffoon.
It will be a mammoth task to clean the Augean Stables that the UK has become.

Posted by: chevalier de st george at October 15, 2006 2:06 PM

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3824/3815/400/0010.jpg

Here is the first link again,hope it works this time?.

Posted by: kasper1062 at October 15, 2006 3:34 PM

Nice to see the BBC are reading these pages?.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6051486.stm

The page has now been updated since the link was first posted here,it now includes photographs of Fiona Bruce and ms Eweida

still not sure where they got "While many Christians work happily for firms that do not allow crosses to be worn," though?.

Posted by: kasper1062 at October 15, 2006 3:57 PM

kasper1062

still not sure where they got "While many Christians work happily for firms that do not allow crosses to be worn," though?.

This is BBC speak for "We live in a wonderful multi-cultural society with no problems"

To understand it you need to know that immediatly after 9/11 a senior Newsman refused to put out the report "Most British Muslims do not support Al Queda". His view was that we do not know what or who British Muslims support, so the statement has no foundation.

He was fired, he was invited to address the Royal Television Society, a few papers mentioned him on the inside pages and the report went out anyway.

They know how to deal with men of principal at the BBC.

Posted by: Fred at October 15, 2006 5:25 PM

Again the BBC highlight a comment that suits their elitist view of step in their "Have your Say" columns.

Quite simply, there should be no religious expression in public
The most recommened comment

I am sick and tired of employers banning Christian symbols, festivals etc so as 'not to offend anyone.' The backlash is nearly always against Muslims, who have never even been asked if they are offended. As a Muslim, I will always fight for the right of anyone who is not allowed to wear a cross.

It is time the Christians of this country realised that it is not us Muslims who driving this anti-Christian agenda, but is in fact the secularists/atheists who would rather see religion eliminated.

Salah Mohammed, London
Recommended by 70 people

Even Muslims who disagree with the BBC worldview that Christainity is not good are sidelined.

Mr Salah-- Bravo!

Posted by: chevalier de st george at October 15, 2006 5:55 PM

All animals are equal. Some animals are more equal than others.

Posted by: MP at October 16, 2006 1:53 PM

British Airways, fly the flag? Nah, Britanistan Airways.

They only did that to send a message to the terrorists, "don't blow us up, we are banning crosses, see!"

Boycott BA!!!

Posted by: IceDragon at October 16, 2006 2:41 PM

Yeah, not only boycott BA but ensure you write to tell them that you will be doing so.

Do let them know your thoughts on their anti-Christian discrimination policy here:

http://www.britishairways.com/travel/custrelform/public/en_gb

We should also be boycotting the BBC; they're going from bad to worse.

Posted by: Mo_was_a_nonce at October 16, 2006 8:05 PM

Although dhimmis were allowed to perform their religious rituals, they were obliged to do so in a manner not conspicuous to Muslims. Display of non-Muslim religious symbols, such as crosses or icons, was prohibited on buildings and on clothing.

From "Dhimmi"- Wikipedia. Is the UK already there?

Posted by: Dsinc at October 17, 2006 5:08 AM

Kasper1062 -

Still gave me a "forbidden" message, but thanks for posting it again. The BBC photos show her small cross.

Posted by: GoldieLox at October 17, 2006 7:29 AM

goldielox.

The first link i posted was a picture of Ms Edweida with the small cross,i posted this because the BBC link didn't include a picture of her.

here it is again:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3824/3815/1600/0010.0.jpg

The BBC site link was updated after i posted the link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6051486.stm

Last Updated: Sunday, 15 October 2006, 14:44 GMT 15:44 UK

It now includes the picture with the small cross.

Posted by: kasper1062 at October 17, 2006 1:47 PM

Thank you.

Posted by: GoldieLox at October 17, 2006 5:51 PM

There was a case in Canada recently in which a Sikh high school student was given the right (by either the )ntario or Canada Supreme Court) to wear a kirpan in public school. FYO the kirpan is a small "ceremonial" dagger that all baptized Sikh males are supposedly "required" to wear at all times under their clothes (strapped to the lower leg, I believe), although of course many of them don't now. Those behind this and other cases are a minority of -hard-line ultra-conservative Sikhs who have decided to make it an issue. The kirpan, "ceremonial" or not, is a real dagger and bloody sharp. It could certainly be used either as a deadly weapon, either by the student carrying it or by another student who took it off him. It's a bona fide security concern in school, although there have never been any incidents (so far) of these things ever being used as weapons in schools. Nonetheless... I see it as another example of the multiculti insanity afflicting my country. Students in public schools are basically allowed to wear any religious regalia they want to, even if that regalia is a potential deadly weapon, but they aren't allowed ( a rule I agree with, BTW) to wear T-shirts that have threatening, racist, or violent slogans, which hurt nothing but feelings. No wonder so many parents are throwing up their hands and sending their kids to private schools, where uniforms and common sense still prevail.

Posted by: angloirishslav at October 17, 2006 9:29 PM