18 1 min 10 yrs

The 14th year of New Labour tyranny marks a desperate new low for a once-free Britons. The Lib-Dem led government has announced it will stand before foreign judges in a foreign court and plead that we have no right to wear a cross around our own necks at work. Clearly the State has had its boot on them for so long it now thinks what we put around them is the State’s business.

I do wonder for how much longer a people can be so deliberately and egregiously insulted. The sooner we turn our minds to sociopaths, traitors and hemp necklaces, the better.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]


  1. Employers have a right to enforce a dress code on their employees, and it’s strange to see Rightworld opposing this. For example, visible tatoos and nose rings are forbidden by many employers, and employees sign up to this as part of their contract of employment. These two individuals decided to breech their contracts of employment, and were rightly sacked after the normal disciplinary precedures were followed.

  2. Peter –

    Yes, in a free society businesses have the right to prescribe preferred dress. Whether or not employers and employees agree on these things and what can be done in the event of default is a matter of private agreement and contract law.

    So what business is it then of the State to say what people may and may not wear at work?

    What business is it of foreigners to decide on our behalf?!

  3. I am a non believer yet I cannot go along with this. Our Western civilisation has been built on Jewish/Christian Foundations and I would be happy to describe myself as a Cultural Christan. We make allowances for other religions to display their religious affiations and in doing so, on occasion, exempt them from complying with certain Laws of the Land, Surely we can allow our idigenous citizens to display small tokens of their religious (Christian) Faith. To be required to wear such tokens beneath clothing where it cannot be seen is a cop out and a petty response. Should this measure pass through Parliament it would be nice to see the Queen refuse to to grant her assent. I am becoming rather worried with our Conservative/Lib Dem Coalition Government

  4. These individuals have a right to be heard in Europe and the British state is supporting the right of their employers to sack them, on the grounds that the issue is not one of religious freedom, but a matter of employment law. It will be very surprising if the court finds in favour of the employees.

  5. And it should be obvious that no “war on christianity” is involved. Except to the religious nut jobs with sizeable chips on their shoulders and their supporters in the right-wing press.

  6. We make allowances for other religions to display their religious affiations and in doing so, on occasion, exempt them from complying with certain Laws of the Land

    Sikhs are obliged by their (absurd) religion to wear turbans. There is no equivalent religious law for christians to wear a cross around their necks, it is purely a matter of choice.

  7. This is obviously nothing less than an attack on Christianity, and I am no right wing nutjob. ( I am a centrist nutjob). There is no serious business purpose in this measure and it is driven by those whose agenda is reducing society to their secular standards. it is as small minded a proposal as any redneck bible thumper could make.

  8. Sighs. Employers have a right to a dress code. If employees don’t like it, they can go elsewhere. But if they sign up to it they should abide by it or stfu instead of becoming self-selected victims, cheered on by the usual suspects.

  9. Pete

    It’s a matter of law. That tends to involve the state.

    I’m waiting for you to accept that you’re wrong on this post, but I’m not holding my breath. Maybe you could answer my 11.03? Or maybe not.

  10. Peter –

    You can be an atheist without taking absurd legal and moral positions.

    Your 11.03pm is fine, but you’re talking about contract law, which is a creature of the common law. Therefore it is none of the State’s business, no?

    We can arrange these affairs at home without asking Albanian communists to rule on them, no?

  11. Pete

    My atheism has nothing to do with it, as you well know.

    It’s a matter of employer’s rights and the defiance of those rights, and you seem to be on the side of the defiers, i.e. you appear to be on the side of the cross-wearers in defiance of their contracts of employment, no?

  12. The state taking up the cudgel on behalf of the professional offense seekers.

    Nobody is really offended and it’s utterly dishonest to pretend otherwise.

    Walk down Upton Park on a Saturday and I’m VERY offended at the shithole that these politicians have allowed nay encouraged my country to become. Can I expect compensation? No I have to man up and accept it.

    Well you Christianophobes and Government lickspittles can do the same.

  13. Peter –

    Your atheism has alot to do with it since you’re someone who is clearly hostile to religions and the faithful. Your comments demonstrate this.

    My sympathy is with the two women, and I wouldn’t concede that they broke any code until I could see what the codes said. BA has since altered its code, I see and the NHS Trust, well I suspect they just made it up at the time.

Comments are closed.