Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Its Seems Ok For Muslims....
...to be able to preach hatred outside Mosques in the UK and try to disrupt our soldiers marching through Towns but, when one person makes a comment on FB she could face prosecution.
I know it was a stupid thing to do but surely it works both ways!
http://
I know it was a stupid thing to do but surely it works both ways!
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by trt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
rather a conflicting story, one won her case only after taking the case to court, but read the rest.
http://
http://
Actually, Emmie does have a point of principle there. The woman wasn’t allowed to wear her cross because “it breaches their uniform policy and poses a risk to patients.”
http://
However, contrary to standard hygiene regulations that apply to all other staff, a concession was made to allow Muslims to cover their arms.
http://
http://
However, contrary to standard hygiene regulations that apply to all other staff, a concession was made to allow Muslims to cover their arms.
http://
/a house/flat/room to rent to Muslims only/
I think that spans a couple of different things emmie
House/flat can't be advertised by a landlord in a discriminatory way
A room in your own private dwelling I think can be.
The couple in the court case were running a guest house which as such is (legally) not a private dwelling even if they live there
I think that spans a couple of different things emmie
House/flat can't be advertised by a landlord in a discriminatory way
A room in your own private dwelling I think can be.
The couple in the court case were running a guest house which as such is (legally) not a private dwelling even if they live there
don;t know, i will google to see if the same applies to other religions, interesting though, i remember seeing adverts for Muslim only tenants, properties in the capital.
http://
http://
yes, interesting because i wouldn't have thought that was legal, but guess if it's your home the you can rent to who you like, but how does that sit with the law on non discrimination
http://
http://
@Emmie
You are conflating all sorts of issues here, jumping around over all sorts of subjects. Now you have moved the issue on to one of perceived victimisation of christians.
1."Muslim couple running a hotel/boarding house who stressed that their religion will not allow same sex couples in their business, do you think they will fined or lose their business, i wonder."
Yes, I would fully expect that they would be fined or lose their business. If you can find a case where that did not happen, I would be very interested to read about it.
"a Christian woman told she couldn't wear a cross because of health and safety, even though she had done so for years, with no murmur. Yet Muslim women can wear a burkha with long sleeves whilst working in hospitals, where doctors and nurses have to roll up their sleeves."
I assume the christian woman in question was a nurse?
The assumption being made in your post is that the christian was victimised and the muslim(s) are being favoured. But again there is a problem with making this judgement - the trusts in question were different, for a start.Nor do we know all the facts and background surrounding the case of the necklace. In those circumstances it is unwise to make such an assumption.
More generally, when talking about Infection Control though, I personally believe that the health and safety of the patient should be the primary consideration, and that all dress codes and accessories associated with religious or cultural observance should take a very distant second place, irrespective of which religion it is - Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh or Jedi.
For me, any medical staff in direct patient contact should not be wearing any jewellry or accessories like bangles, watches or even rings, and all such staff should be bare below the elbow. And these should be mandated nationally, rather than just a recommendation that Trusts can either follow or ignore, as they wish.
That having been said, the rules are relaxed somewhat for modesty providing disposable oversleeves are used, which,provided used properly should be just as good.
The Burqah/Veil issue is slightly different. Again my personal opinion is that medical staff in direct contact with patients should not be wearing a veil. Personally, I have never seen that happen - Do you have evidence that it does?
"there is film, footage of demonstrators clearly shown carrying placards with death to soldiers, infidel, and any other way to describe their feelings of our supposed involvement in countries many have never visited, visible for all to see, how does that not stop the police from making arrests, is it because its a demo, or a demo involving hard line fanatics in our midst, let us not upset the minorities idiocy."
Well I can only speak about the one demonstration I can clearly remember where there were placards calling for death and beheading - that was in London following the Danish cartoons. There were no arrests during the actual demonstration itself, but there were arrests following the protest. You will have to ask the police why they did not arrest them at the time. They explanation they gave was that they were concerned about public order and safety. So again, no evidence of double standards that I can see.
You are conflating all sorts of issues here, jumping around over all sorts of subjects. Now you have moved the issue on to one of perceived victimisation of christians.
1."Muslim couple running a hotel/boarding house who stressed that their religion will not allow same sex couples in their business, do you think they will fined or lose their business, i wonder."
Yes, I would fully expect that they would be fined or lose their business. If you can find a case where that did not happen, I would be very interested to read about it.
"a Christian woman told she couldn't wear a cross because of health and safety, even though she had done so for years, with no murmur. Yet Muslim women can wear a burkha with long sleeves whilst working in hospitals, where doctors and nurses have to roll up their sleeves."
I assume the christian woman in question was a nurse?
The assumption being made in your post is that the christian was victimised and the muslim(s) are being favoured. But again there is a problem with making this judgement - the trusts in question were different, for a start.Nor do we know all the facts and background surrounding the case of the necklace. In those circumstances it is unwise to make such an assumption.
More generally, when talking about Infection Control though, I personally believe that the health and safety of the patient should be the primary consideration, and that all dress codes and accessories associated with religious or cultural observance should take a very distant second place, irrespective of which religion it is - Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh or Jedi.
For me, any medical staff in direct patient contact should not be wearing any jewellry or accessories like bangles, watches or even rings, and all such staff should be bare below the elbow. And these should be mandated nationally, rather than just a recommendation that Trusts can either follow or ignore, as they wish.
That having been said, the rules are relaxed somewhat for modesty providing disposable oversleeves are used, which,provided used properly should be just as good.
The Burqah/Veil issue is slightly different. Again my personal opinion is that medical staff in direct contact with patients should not be wearing a veil. Personally, I have never seen that happen - Do you have evidence that it does?
"there is film, footage of demonstrators clearly shown carrying placards with death to soldiers, infidel, and any other way to describe their feelings of our supposed involvement in countries many have never visited, visible for all to see, how does that not stop the police from making arrests, is it because its a demo, or a demo involving hard line fanatics in our midst, let us not upset the minorities idiocy."
Well I can only speak about the one demonstration I can clearly remember where there were placards calling for death and beheading - that was in London following the Danish cartoons. There were no arrests during the actual demonstration itself, but there were arrests following the protest. You will have to ask the police why they did not arrest them at the time. They explanation they gave was that they were concerned about public order and safety. So again, no evidence of double standards that I can see.
the fact is as Naomi pointed out that Muslim women who work in surgeries, who come into contact with patients, and in hospitals can and do wear a full burkha, with a headscarf, and have been allowed to on the basis of their cultural beliefs. If you have a rule for one then make it for all, don't shilly shally.
I agree with you with respect to the Burqah - If by that term you mean something that covers the face. We should not be pandering to religious or cultural sensitivities when in direct patient contact, and for me you can extend that to any civil servant or professional role that requires direct contact with a patient or customer.
I do not have a problem with headscarf however.
I do not have a problem with headscarf however.
Latest Posts
Other Sports1 min ago
Road rules3 mins ago
Labour Scraps Doctors' Apprenticeships
News10 mins ago
