The British popular press is seething. The headlines shout out indignation and anger. Some have mounted campaigns; others are gathering signatures for petitions. MPs too have joined the fray; so have clergymen and a number of religious associations. Let Christians wear their cross, they clamor.
The target is British Airways and the root of this turbulence is its decision not to allow a check-in attendant called Nadia Eweida to openly wear a crucifix.
At first sight, I found this rather shocking. Surely there could be nothing objectionable to wearing a small cross on a chain around your neck? I, like most of the popular press now boiling over with fury, saw this as a case of religious intolerance, or rather as part of a trend toward banishing religion from the public eye. Part of an argument like the one we heard in France during the debate on the banning of the hijab, a debate which claims that in order to ensure equality and to banish discrimination in a secular society, religious affiliation should not be displayed and consequently religious symbols should not be visible in public institutions. A lofty argument that has some merit. In that particular instance I disagreed because I felt it was a smoke screen. The French law was clearly aimed at Muslims — rather ironically given the current discussion, the wearing of small crucifixes was not banned — which made it discriminatory in my eyes. But more importantly the thinking behind it was based on the same error that we now see in the expressions of outrage in the British press: Namely to view the hijab as a religious symbol rather than a religious practice.
However in the case of British Airways the ban is not about hiding religious affiliation. It is not, as I read somewhere, based on a fear that non-Christians might feel offended at the sight of a crucifix but a pure case of applying a dress code.
British Airways, like most airlines, enforces a strict uniform code. This code allows staff to wear jewelry beneath their uniform but not on top. This applies whether the jewelry is a religious symbol — be it a crucifix, a Star of David or a Muslim symbol — or a banal fashion design. This is the case in many uniformed professions and the reasons for it are essentially practical. Jewelry that dangles will easily snag or get caught and should not be worn by people such as air stewards or check-in staff whose work requires them to be physically disencumbered. And if you have a rule about jewelry and a staff of 34 000, it follows that it has to be applied consistently. You cannot make exceptions.
Hence why Nadia Eweida found herself foul of the dress code. She wore a small visible crucifix over her uniform and refused her bosses’ request to conceal it underneath her uniform. So much so that she is now on unpaid leave from her job. Yet her Muslim colleagues are allowed to wear their hijab just as her Sikh colleagues are permitted to wear their turbans.
The shouts of religious discrimination were quick to fall at BA’s door. Why should Muslims and Sikhs be allowed to wear their religious symbols and not Christians, they said. Add to that a context where many in Britain feel that minority groups — and Muslims in particular — are getting special treatment and you can see why such a furor has been unleashed. So much so that there is now serious talk of boycotting British Airways and other protests action against the airline.
Ms. Eweida lost her appeal this week. BA has offered her alternative positions where she would not be in uniform and consequently would be able to wear a visible crucifix, but she refuses to yield. This is far too good a political case after all, a case that can rally all those who feel threatened by secularism as well as all those who feel threatened by the increasing visibility of ethnic minorities.
But this is not a case of religious discrimination, because the issue is one of religious symbols rather than of religious practice. Both the Muslim hijab and the Sikh turbans form part of religious practice, whereas the wearing of a crucifix is religious expression. The crucifix is a religious symbol. BA to some extent scores an own goal when it justifies allowing Muslims and Sikhs to wear head-coverings because it is “not practical for some religious symbols — such as turbans and hijabs — to be worn underneath the uniform”. They miss the point. Ms. Eweida is entirely free to practice her faith within the confines of her employer’s dress code. This would not be the case for a devout Muslim woman if she were asked to remove her hair covering. However if the Muslim woman wore the hijab purely as a symbol to express to others that she is a Muslim, then the argument would no longer apply. If anything, BA has shown itself to be highly tolerant and respectful of religious beliefs by their willingness to adapt their uniform to enable devout men and women of differing religions to continue to practice their faith.
There is however a valid debate to be had about whether we should all have the right to affirm our religious identity. The argument raging about the right to wear the cross is essentially part of a larger argument about displaying religious, cultural or ethnic affiliation, an argument that brings us back to the French secular model.
A year ago I would have defended religious expression as a basic right but no longer. What matters is the freedom to practice our religion. The moment we step toward turning religion into a political identity, we start to draw lines, fault lines for religious tension. The result is the world we see around us today, one where there are increasing examples of animosity and division based on religious categorization. To put it at its simplest, I think it is healthy for us to disengage from a way of life where we categorize people based on their religious affiliation. All those symbols, all those examples of religious expression are essentially ways of assigning visible labels to people. But once people are neatly and narrowly labeled, we are just one step away from discrimination.
