In 2003 the British Government enacted a piece of legislation handed down by the European Union (pursuant to their social charter) known as the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. For those so inclined the full text is available via a quick Google search.
When I was in my final year of university in 2003 I wrote a lengthy essay on the subject lauding its aims and the protection the legislation offered and, indeed, I mused as to the definition of the word 'belief' -- would it include, say vegitarianism?. Like many young people -- particularly students -- my left wing leanings have been somewhat replaced when faced with the world of work. To be frank I haven't really thought about Discrimination Legislation since those days.
However, recently I decided to have a breif read through. It is notable that the guidance (ACAS, Trades Unions) notes that the Legislation provides protection from Discrimination on the grounds of all major religions and including minor religions such as rastafarianism and, horrifyingly, scientology. It also protects good ole atheists too! More recently those with a religious bent seem to have been flexing their muscles with regard to this legislation. You may have read about the British Airways hostess suing for BA refusing to allow her to have a visible cross, or the Birmingham Police chef who refused to cook bacon and sausages. Quite bizarrely -- considering the previous two cases were based somewhat on religion -- there was the schoolgirl who sued the education authority for refusing to allow her to wear a chastity ring.
It occurs to me that what separates this legislation apart from other equality legislation (and it is an equality basis in the UK -- positive discrimination is discrimination per se) is that the protection is based upon a person's choice rather than their inherent characteristics (sex, skin colour, disability, age). I wonder how far a person's choice should be protected in this regard and why religion (or lack of) seems to hold such a vaunted place compared to other beliefs. Why should a person's choice in religion (or lack of) be protected?
There are arguments, of course, that religion in many instances is attached to skin colour, or national origin and that protection on the grounds of religion also protects against discrimination on these grounds. However, that is not necessarily the case. Just because my skin is brown doesn't mean I'm a hindu or a muslim. Just because I'm Irish doesn't mean I'm catholic.
There are also social factors: if there was no protection on the grounds of religion, would this then create [even more] segragation in British society? I've come across many law firms that, while giving the appearance of being secular for business purposes, evidently are not. A small christian denomination church will only employ Christian solicitors so, to attract the clients, the firm is widely held to be a 'Christian' firm. Firms that deal with Islamic Banking (what a joke -- paying interest without paying interest) require Muslims, or justify being exclusively Muslim because of the need for Gudjrati or Urdu speakers. Now, i'm not suggesting that people go out and start discriminating against people with a religious leaning -- indeed, work is work: best person for the job. But when people are given extra rights based on nothing but a choice, should people stand idly by?
So, here's the question: Should people be protected from discrimination on the basis of their choice of, or lack of, religion?
When I was in my final year of university in 2003 I wrote a lengthy essay on the subject lauding its aims and the protection the legislation offered and, indeed, I mused as to the definition of the word 'belief' -- would it include, say vegitarianism?. Like many young people -- particularly students -- my left wing leanings have been somewhat replaced when faced with the world of work. To be frank I haven't really thought about Discrimination Legislation since those days.
However, recently I decided to have a breif read through. It is notable that the guidance (ACAS, Trades Unions) notes that the Legislation provides protection from Discrimination on the grounds of all major religions and including minor religions such as rastafarianism and, horrifyingly, scientology. It also protects good ole atheists too! More recently those with a religious bent seem to have been flexing their muscles with regard to this legislation. You may have read about the British Airways hostess suing for BA refusing to allow her to have a visible cross, or the Birmingham Police chef who refused to cook bacon and sausages. Quite bizarrely -- considering the previous two cases were based somewhat on religion -- there was the schoolgirl who sued the education authority for refusing to allow her to wear a chastity ring.
It occurs to me that what separates this legislation apart from other equality legislation (and it is an equality basis in the UK -- positive discrimination is discrimination per se) is that the protection is based upon a person's choice rather than their inherent characteristics (sex, skin colour, disability, age). I wonder how far a person's choice should be protected in this regard and why religion (or lack of) seems to hold such a vaunted place compared to other beliefs. Why should a person's choice in religion (or lack of) be protected?
There are arguments, of course, that religion in many instances is attached to skin colour, or national origin and that protection on the grounds of religion also protects against discrimination on these grounds. However, that is not necessarily the case. Just because my skin is brown doesn't mean I'm a hindu or a muslim. Just because I'm Irish doesn't mean I'm catholic.
There are also social factors: if there was no protection on the grounds of religion, would this then create [even more] segragation in British society? I've come across many law firms that, while giving the appearance of being secular for business purposes, evidently are not. A small christian denomination church will only employ Christian solicitors so, to attract the clients, the firm is widely held to be a 'Christian' firm. Firms that deal with Islamic Banking (what a joke -- paying interest without paying interest) require Muslims, or justify being exclusively Muslim because of the need for Gudjrati or Urdu speakers. Now, i'm not suggesting that people go out and start discriminating against people with a religious leaning -- indeed, work is work: best person for the job. But when people are given extra rights based on nothing but a choice, should people stand idly by?
So, here's the question: Should people be protected from discrimination on the basis of their choice of, or lack of, religion?
God Calls Me God
