Badlittlepup Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Having read the article, it is clear that there is a lot more to this story than we are being told. It is not legal for an employer to summarily dismiss an employee because he/she has made a complaint about another member of staff, and I doubt that the Heathrow authorities would circumvent the rules in such a glaringly obvious way. That's true, but if you read the story she wasn't actually sacked as she wasn't employed by BAA. But BAA withdrew her security pass which meant she couldn't work airside which is the only place duty free is so her actual employers could no longer offer her any work as all their work took place airside in duty free. So BAA effectively forced her sacking without any due process being needed. BAA can issue passes and withdraw passes without any obligation to follow employment law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 I've said it before and I'll say it again... If the shoe was on the other foot... ....then there would be a chorus of "Islamophobia!". But you won't hear anybody cry "Chritianophobia!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 the clues int he title islamic EXTREMISTS Based on that then, given the highly similar religious intolerances in majority Muslim lands, the vast majority of Muslims who are concentrated in those countries must be extremists too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Having read the article, it is clear that there is a lot more to this story than we are being told. It is not legal for an employer to summarily dismiss an employee because he/she has made a complaint about another member of staff, and I doubt that the Heathrow authorities would circumvent the rules in such a glaringly obvious way. And secondly, as has already been pointed out, if these 'muslims' were ridiculing Jesus then they are clearly extremely ignorant of the traditions of the religious faith which they claim to be upholding, therefore they are just idiots who do not represent Muslims on the whole. But I'm sure that won't stop the usual right-wing zealots from complaining about the proclaimed "Islamification" of Britain that this story actually does nothing to prove. Excellent and intelligent post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 What I find odd is it makes reference to the security pass, World Duty Free don't issue the security passes, if BAA revokes it, then there if zilch World Duty Free can do even if they want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie1957 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Actually, Muslims and Jews prey to the same "god", Christians worship "Christ", a dead person. The story goes that he rose from the dead, and then he rose bodily into heaven. His apostles witnessed this, so it must be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Actually, Muslims and Jews prey to the same "god", Christians worship "Christ", a dead person. Totally wrong. Christians worship and "pray" to a god and they believe that Christ is a part of that God as is the holy spirit as part of the holy trinity. It's very complicated and if you can't even spell pray properly or know that Christians pray to a god I wouldn't bother trying to understand to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shims Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Since when has it been part of the Islamic Faith to abuse others ? Followers of the faith have been abusing others in the name of Islam since it's inception. http://www.africaspeaks.com/articles/070699.html There was slavery in Afrika prior to the Arab and European incursions. In Afrika, one could become a slave in virtually one of three ways: prisoner of war; to pay off a debt; as a criminal. But a slave in Afrika rarely ever lost his/her humanity and could rise very high in particular societies. When Arabs invaded Northeastern Afrika in the 7th century A.D., in the name of Islam, this brought about a whole new relationship to the institution of slavery. Afrikans were captured, treated brutally and inhumanely, then shipped off to other Arab countries in Asia, or other parts of Afrika that they controlled. This happened approximately 600 years before the European Christians got involved. The saddest and most painful reality of this situation is, that same slave trading is occurring today, still in the name of Islam. It is primarily happening in the countries of Mauritania, located in northwest Afrika, and Sudan, in northeast Afrika. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shims Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 I think you will find the facts of the matter in this case were that a) it was more to do with a Sikh's turban being almost mandatory dress, within the Sikh religion, whereas the wearing of a cross is not actually mandatory part of the Christian religion. and b) that the airline staff member in question was insisting she could wear her cross, in contravention of an "absolutely no jewellery" dress-rule (apart from wedding rings, I think) Oh dear:- I think I've destroyed a lovely rant by bringing facts into the equation... In the interests of equality it would be more reasonable to allow Christians and Muslims to wear a small symbol of their faith since it is permitted for Sikhs. I wonder how Sikhs manage at the airports without their ceremonial daggers? They seemed to want their children to be able to carry them to school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 That's true, but if you read the story she wasn't actually sacked as she wasn't employed by BAA. But BAA withdrew her security pass which meant she couldn't work airside which is the only place duty free is so her actual employers could no longer offer her any work as all their work took place airside in duty free. So BAA effectively forced her sacking without any due process being needed. BAA can issue passes and withdraw passes without any obligation to follow employment law. Which is one of a number of glaring oddities of the case. The fact she was not an employee, and was not dismissed makes her employment tribunal claim a very odd one without any chance of success. Which does rather beg the question why bring the claim? and why bring it in such a public way? It did occur to me that it would be rather odd not just for islamic fundamentalists to be calling Jesus '****ty' since he is one of their prophets.. such a comment is much more likely to come from an atheist. If she can't tell the difference between the two then perhaps her views will come across as offensive to others? This article makes some other observations: Firstly, these Muslims are allegedly ‘fundamentalist’. It would take a quranically-illiterate and islamically-ignorant ‘Muslim fundamentalist’ to refer to their prophet Isa (Jesus) as ‘****ty’. Very many Muslims – fundamentalist or not – would object to such abuse of one of their major prophets. Secondly, it is a strange kind of ‘Muslim fundamentalist’ who chooses to work in an airport Duty Free, flogging cheap booze (haram) to the kuffar. Thirdly, it’s an even stranger ‘Muslim fundamentalist’ who would bring a copy of the Holy Qur’an to work and put it into the unwashed hands of a filthy kafir. Fourthly, Mrs Halawi’s account of her conversation is strange. Was she discussing her own name? If so, why would any misunderstanding cause any offence? Her name is certainly Arabic, so it is likely that either she or her forebears are converts from Islam. Is this why she has been singled out by the ‘Muslim fundamentalists’? Fifthly, it really is not clear to His Grace that any of the phrases used by these alleged fundamentalists may constitute an offence. Very many Muslims believe the Jews perpetrated the September 11th atrocities. They are quite mad, but they ought to be free to articulate such views. The belief that Christians will ‘go to Hell’ is nothing but Islamic orthodoxy. Again, they should be free to express such a view. That Jesus is ‘****ty’ is certainly offensive to Christians, but it is merely the vocalisation of the manner in which He is invariably treated by sundry media. And as for being bullied for wearing a cross... well, didn’t the Lord warn of such treatment at the hands of the non-believer? Should we not rejoice? Sixthly, the account says Mrs Halawi was ‘summarily fired’. This, of course, would be illegal in the UK except in cases of gross misconduct: the law protects employees from unfair dismissal, and her employer has a statutory obligation to ensure that their disciplinary and grievance procedures are up-to-date and in accordance with employment law. But digging a bit deeper, it transpires that Ms Halawi is not and has never been employed by Autogrill Retail UK Limited (aka ‘World Duty Free’ or ‘Caroline South Associates’) at Terminal 3. She is apparently a part-time, freelance contractor in the Terminal’s Duty Free, and she sells perfumes and other goods on a commission only basis. The fact that she is part-time is immaterial: under EU law they have every protection and benefit as full-time employees. But the fact that she was a self-employed contractor does rather alter things. Autogrill Retail UK Limited (aka ‘World Duty Free’ or ‘Caroline South Associates’) are able to terminate such contracts with impunity, and Mrs Halawi has no employment rights as such because she is not employed. It is difficult to see what Mr Diamond might achieve here, lest all contractors suddenly acquire all the benefits afforded to employees. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Mrs Halawi has had her security pass removed by Heathrow Duty Free. How, pray, did she acquire one in the first place if she was not an employee? Surely, if she were not an employee, neither are the ‘Muslim fundamentalists’ with whom she worked. Are we to believe – in this age of constant threats of terror – that Islamist extremists possess security passes at the UK’s principal airport and they have no contract of employment with the company which arranged it? What security checks are carried out on non-employees? http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/11/sacked-for-challenging-muslim.html I am interested to know why she is bringing this case in the way she is? It may be beneficial for all of us if she were to win her case because it would effectively drive a coach and horses through employment contracts getting rid of any distinction not just between agency staff, people on zero hour contracts and permanent employees. It would be a huge win for tens of thousands of people in these rubbish contracts and a huge loss for employers that use them because they want casual labour with no strings attached. Of course the Telegraph would be all over a story like that if it had any chance of success... Which this case patently doesn't. A little bit of digging and this looks bad for the Telegraph running with the story and bad even for the Christian legal Centre, which from the article would appear to be evangelical right wingers from the USA.... people in many ways more dangerous than muslim extremists because of their power and influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.