On Wednesday I wrote about the Nadia Eweida case at Comment is Free.

My line’s a compromise one, I think: my starting point is a secularist one, but I’m not insisting on the workspace being absolutely non-religious. I doubt that’s achievable under the 2003 regulations. Some (misguidedly I think) are tempted to see a secularist approach as itself a sort of fundamentalism, and I think those who believe real freedom depends on maintaining a predominantly secular public space would be wise not to fall into that trap. So I’m prepared to give a little to meet genuine religious concerns, and I think a reasonably principled compromise may be possible, along the lines of the Aberdare school case, in situations where

  • someone doesn’t just believe they have to wear an item for religious reasons, but can show there actually is such a requirement;
  • the item either cannot be covered up or if it can, is covered up so far as possible, and
  • displaying the item is not in any conflict with dignity, equality and human rights.

This, I can accept. It’d mean you could wear a kara or a turban, for instance, and maybe the hijab (is it really required? I’m not sure, though as I understand it, that’s a more mainstream Muslim view than the belief that a jilbab or full veil is needed). The claim that you should be able to wear a full veil would not pass my test – it’d fall down probably on limb 1 of the test, and certainly on limb 3.

What I obviously don’t want is significant encroachment of religious rights over the rest of us, which is what I think Liberty’s approach entails. I think their support for Nadia Eweida puts religious privilege over equality – and indeed freedom from her religion for the rest of us.

2010-01-22T13:36:57+00:00Tags: , , , |