British Government Says Christians Don’t Have Right to Wear Cross or Crucifix at Work

Huffington Post, March 12, 2012

Two British women are headed to court to argue for the right to wear Christian crosses at their workplaces, but a group of Christian ministers is reportedly set to back employers’ rights to ban the regalia.

At the heart of the issue is whether or not the crosses are a “requirement” of the Christian faith.

According to a document leaked to the Telegraph that allegedly contains their arguments, the ministers are set to tell the court that crosses are not required by religious doctrine, thus supporting the government’s case that employers cannot be forced to allow such symbols.

Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin were both told by their employers to cover or remove the Christian symbol hanging around their necks. When they refused, they each faced consequences.

Eweida, a British Airways employee, was placed on unpaid leave in 2006 when she refused to remove the symbol, according to CNS News. She argued that coworkers of other affiliations were allowed to showcase symbols of their faiths. Eweida took the airline before a British employment tribunal alleging religious discrimination but lost the case.

The company eventually changed its uniform policy and rehired Eweida, but did not compensate her for the suspension period.


Now, it will be up to the European Court of Human Rights to decide if wearing a cross or crucifix is a right under Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Article 9, “Freedom of thought, conscience and religion,“ states the following:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. 2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.


Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Boereseun

    Wow, because wearing a cross around your neck is just the biggest threat known to mankind.

    • anonymous_amren

      Global warming is the biggest threat known to mankind. And people who wear crosses around their necks are the main ones who refuse to address that threat. So in a sense it is.

  • But I’m sure it’s OK to wear a hijab to work.

    • Zorro

      Let’s put it this way: No Cross or Cruxifix, then No Blanket, Towel or Bed sheet wrapped around you and your women. That applies to Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs.

      Don’t like it? Then get out!

  • But if a muslim were asked to remove her hijab while at work it would be WWIII.

  • loyalwhitebriton

    This is just the ‘thin end of the wedge’ towards the abolition of christianity in Britain.
    Neither is it a requirement, in Islam, for women to wear the full face veil; it’s an ultra-conservative interpretation of Islam propounded by the Saudi Wahabbi school of thought.
    Can anyone imagine the government supporting an employer who wanted to prevent a muslim woman employee from wearing the burqua at work, because the employer wanted to run a secular work environment, or for some other reason?
    Of course not.

    • Follow the French example. No hijab. Cross is, on the other hand, OK.

  • This is where it is at, the cowardice and traitorous behavior of the clergy.  Honestly, so many of them would accept the 30 pieces of silver.  This is why we need to be very careful to not allow these so-called ministers to bend us in our weak moments.

  • IstvanIN

    I thought that was Canada.

  • Yeah, taxi-drivers. And turbans.

  • JohnEngelman

    I am sympathetic to the women who want to wear crosses, but I think it is foolish to displease an employer. 

    • In a country whose putative sovereign has among his many titles “defender of the faith,” I fail to see how a cross necklace is that offensive.

      • JohnEngelman

        I also fail to see that a cross necklace is offensive. Nevertheless, this is not the British government saying people cannot wear crosses at work. This is a British court saying that employers can forbid wearing crosses at work. 
        In any work environment it is a good idea to cultivate friendly relationships with one’s boss, one’s co-workers, and the customers of one’s company. One should sense what others will dislike without being told. 
        Once, in a blue collar environment I alienated co-workers by listening to classical music at work. There was no policy that said I could not listen to it. Indeed, without asking I had been told I could bring a radio to work and listen to music. When I realized that co-workers disliked my tastes in music, I stopped listening to it, but the damage had been done. 
        If I was an employer I would feel favorably disposed toward subordinates who wore crosses, and kept Bibles in their cubicles or at their work stations.  

    • Boereseun

      Well, I would think a proper and intelligent employer wouldn’t care so much about what a person wears around their neck and would instead care about that person’s job performance, their cleanliness and good manners when that employee deals with clients. As long as the employee does the work they were hired to do and doesn’t go out of their way to spread their religion, an employer should be more than happy, they should be ecstatic.

  • KenelmDigby

    Believe it or not, England is an ‘officiall’y christian nation, in that the Church of England is an integral part of the English state ie it is wrapped up withe whole business of rulership and government, and it is headed by Queen Elizabeth.It is the ‘established church’.
    England was never a secular state.

  • MartelC

    Seems like not a day goes by in Europe where some official finds a new way to marginalize Christianity and anything to do with national identity. 

    Muslim nurses don’t have to wash their arms, Christian nurses can’t wear  a cross.
    The idea of a charitable hospital is a Christian one, the only thing secularlists have brought to it is a return to pagan infanticide. 

    And our elite, particularly the baby boomer elite, with the smug self-righteousness, and knee jerk  hostility to anything western and Christian, support it. Even ‘clergy’ .

    They keep pushing and pushing – they are turning our once passive near forgotten symbols into ones of powerful defiance.. 

  • Zorro

    They can wear their headgear while working as Police Officers here in the US.

    • They will be allowed to wear their headgear in the US Army- recent decision.

  • Magnum Force

    On the subject of supplying mandated birth control through their Medical Insurace Carriers, for employees of Catholic Hospitals, etc., I read an email that had an attachment from Cardinal Dolan of New York who said, “We Did Not Ask For This Fight, But We Will Not Run Fom It.”

    The Cardinal had written a letter to Obama stating the Church’s position, and stating emphatically that they will not abide by the mandates of ObamaCare, which expressly violates their Constitutional Rights of Freedom of Religion.

  • Zorro

    Does the current British Government realize that the Queen is the Head of the Church of England?

  • Andromeda

    I’m amazed so many people can be so blind to their own hypocrisy.  I see it time and time again.  In this case, they don’t see any problem at all with allowing burquas and sikh headdresses but have a problem with a dinky little silver cross (see photo with article.  The cross is tiny that the woman was wearing and it wasn’t a crucifix.).  Islam does not require the burqua, btw.  The outrageous hypocrisy that everbody else with half a brain can see is totally lost on them.  Perhaps my mistake is in assuming that their aim is “fairness.”

  • Father John,
    I remember the old days of the Church.  One in particular was one of my teachers in a Marinist High School, Bro. Pete.  Bro. Pete had several guns in his quarters, that was his hobby.  He, my brother and I would go shooting occasionally.  Would the Church allow that today?  I doubt it.  Many of the priests, brothers and nuns were tough numbers then.  I believe the current “social justice” trend is responsible for electing Obama.  As a matter of fact, I tried very hard to get  Bishop Ricard of Pensacola-Tallahassee to instruct all Catholics concerning obama’s position on abortion and other issues.  Instead, he and his council of priests wrote a pastoral letter that all but endorsed him for president.  No one, no how can strike a bargain with satan and come out a winner.  Father, stay strong, something tells me we will be needing you.

  • loyalwhitebriton

    Andrew Fraser may have a point in describing QEII as ‘useless’. But she is more than that, I’m afraid. I hate to say the following, being a proud loyalist, but QEII is also a TRAITOR!.
    She has dutifully signed every piece of legislation that has passed sovereign powers from Britain to Brussels. Not a peep of protest or displeasure from Buckingham Palace, not even unofficially through the back-channels.
    Nor has QEII had much to say about the colonisation of our country by all and sundry.
    Most unlike her illustrious predecessor QEI, who deported the ‘negars and blackmoores’ from England in 1590.

  • What makes you think they don’t want to change the British flag?  Canada de-Union Jacked their flag long ago, and it’s a wonder that Australia and New Zealand haven’t yet.

    Attached:  The real Canadian flag.

    • anonymous_amren

      I can see why they changed it. That flag looks much worse than the current one.

      Australia and New Zealand have flags that are so similar, many people can’t tell the difference. A fun trick you can play on non-white immigrants to Australia is to give them a New Zealand flag and watch them demonstrate how patriotic they are to Australia.

      I hope they don’t change the Australian flag, but I can understand why people want to.

  • JohnEngelman

    I attend church several times a month. Sometimes I attend more than once a week. I have read the Bible including the Apocrypha from cover to cover in seven different translations. I have worn a cross for years, but I wear it under my shirt.

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    From the Telegraph article:

    Andrea Williams, the director of the Christian Legal Centre, said: 

    “In recent months the courts have refused to recognise the wearing of a cross, belief in marriage between a man and a woman and Sundays as a day of worship as ‘core’ expressions of the Christian faith.

    “What next? Will our courts overrule the Ten Commandments?”

    The short answer: yes….

    European Court of Human Rights?   It sounds like the British have already given up the right to even make that decision in their own court 

    Christians have no right to wear cross at work, says Government.

    But Muslims get Sharia courts.


  • anonymous_amren

    Good. The government agrees, church leaders agree, and I agree. Employers have a right to set uniforms, and workers have to look uniform and promote the views of the company, not their own stupid personal views. Companies shouldn’t be forced to promote Christianity against their will, which is what you are doing by allowing workers to wear visible crosses on company time.

    Do you think companies allow me to promote atheism on their time?

    And the European Court of Human Rights needs to be abolished. Religious people don’t have a right to do whatever they want just because they believe in nonsense.

    Christians are only helping the Islamisation of the west by suggesting religion gives people special rights.

    Let’s not forget, religious fundamentalism is a non-white trait. The people most passionate about Christianity are black and hispanic. That’s because Christianity correlates with low IQ. Science and secularism are white inventions, and they correlate with high IQ. White people who are Christians are like White people with IQs of 85, they represent the overlapping bell curves between white people and black people, they don’t represent whiteness.

    Don’t forget that racial equality comes from Christianity. While science and evolution continue to prove and explain racial inequality.

    I like it that religion gives hope and comfort to the gullible, and I don’t want to abolish it (except I want to abolish Islam). But let’s have secular laws, and keep your religious views in the private domain where they belong.