Religious discrimination.

I was reading this article and got to wondering if it really is a case of religious discrimination.

Quote:

---

Hasanali Khoja was told he would be expected to handle pork products at his new job at the Empress State Building in Earls Court, west London.

His lawyer said Mr Khoja was excused from pork meat in his previous job at Hendon Police College in north London.

---

First things first. I think it's fair to assume that he applied for the new post. I would have thought the matter of handling pork products would have arisen at interview. If it wasn't, that says to me that he was comfortable with the job discription.

Secondly, is it honest of him to accept the contract with the probability that he may have to come into contact with haram products?

Thirdly, is it strictly haram just to touch the stuff? We (the UK) recently had a checkout operator refusing to process alcohol at the till after they'd declared handling booze haram. AFAIK it's only haram to consume the stuff, not touch it. (I would be happy for our moslem members to correct me here, if I'm mistaken)

Lastly, should the principle of 'When in Rome...' apply here. Should be subjegate his beliefs to 'fit in' or stick to his guns?

Views?

Clear case of surface to sole homing toes, can't miss them no matter how hard you try.

Annoying. Very.

It should have been made clear to him during the interviews that he may be required to handle pork, in which case it is his fault for taking the job. At the very least he should have mentioned that his faith prohibitted handling pork (Which the article says it does not - though an argument could be made that handling pork means that pork has been on the same fingers he eats with). I found this interesting though:

"His lawyer Khalid Sofi said: "The claim is about his religious beliefs. They failed to accommodate him as they had a duty to do under the law. "

If it is indeed the law that they must accommodate him, then they should do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

If it is indeed the law that they must accommodate him, then they should do so.

---

Muslim faith allows handling pork, muslims are even allowed to eat it under special circumstances. This is just the casus-nostra kicking up dirt. It should be pretty easy, he refuses to do what he was hired for, and he should be fired.

If his religious beliefs actually prohibit such contact, he should avoid jobs that might cause him difficulty. A strict Muslim might also have a problem with working in a bank that charges interest, for example.

If I hold the Christian sabbath to be holy, and a day of rest, I would tend to avoid a career in retail, for example, where there is a high likelihood of being asked to work on a Sunday. If I recall correctly, when the UK introduced Sunday trading, the government made a provision protecting those who didn't wish to work that day - but business simply got rid of them over time.

Catering was therefore a poor choice for this fellow. If he wanted an exception, he should have made sure he had it in writing before accepting the job, but such an arrangement would have been rather foolish of the Met regardless. Plenty of caterers out there without such demands.

I recall when a business of mine ran a UK government contract for delivering ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) to the unemployed. The purpose of the contract was to teach a qualification in English and get the student into a job. Many of the students were Muslims. Some had the quaint idea that they could have Fridays off and long lunches for prayer. One of my tutors' first tasks was to disabuse them of these notions. The best way to do this was to have one of the local imams come in and tell them that the Qu'ran has no such requirement for breaks: it requires that a believer does their necessary day's work and fits prayer around what is possible.

Most Muslim countries don't stop work for Fridays and prayers. Similarly, plenty of Muslim countries have people cooking away with pork products for the tourists and business visitors.

This chap should be shown the door, along with any eejit that may have given him the impression he could be treated differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I found this interesting though:

"His lawyer Khalid Sofi said: "The claim is about his religious beliefs. They failed to accommodate him as they had a duty to do under the law."

If it is indeed the law that they must accommodate him, then they should do so.

---

Judging by UK law, it's complex.

It doesn't fall under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, because the action wasn't threatening or deliberate.

However, they may be able to prove interference to his "right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" under Article 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998. However, it makes for a very flimsy case, especially since handling meat is a lawful action. There have been numerous cases of this type, two of the more notable and relevant ones would be:

1. Stedman v UK, where a Christian woman did not want to work on Sundays, but the case was "manifestly ill founded" because she was dismissed for failing to work certain hours as her contract set out, rather than on religious grounds.

2. Ahmad v UK, where a Muslim schoolteacher had to resign because the school he worked at refused to provide time to travel and pray at a Mosque. Again the case was dismissed as the school(s) had made efforts to provide him prayer time and they were not bound contractually to allow him time to pray at a Mosque.

The court must assess the nature of the interference, and the extend to which they provided accommodation for religious freedom. But ultimately the right to exercise freedom of religion may be limited by contractual obligations.

There may be grounds for a case in the Equality Act 2006, but I highly doubt it. I'd expect the case to be dismissed by a European Commission.

Edit: Also this seems to be de minimis, so any court will be unlikely to consider it as a form of offensiveness toward religious beliefs.

Nice post Rythmic :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

This chap should be shown the door, along with any eejit that may have given him the impression he could be treated differently.

---

:2thumbsup:

Because the eejits are the problem :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

:2thumbsup:

Because the eejits are the problem :yes:

---

I largely agree. This would be an unlikely scenario in the private sector (waits for Tribesman to show me to be utterly wrong...:beam:) but because it's the "institutionally racist" Met, I suspect many people had assorted kittens when this came up.

Bah, this is why I dislike the preferential treatment of mass religion over all other held beliefs.

Me, I can't accept a teaching job and then sue because I can't wear my Darth Vader costume to work. I can't demand my employer gives me paid leave on every day with a '5' in its date because I consider five a holy number. I can't work at the post office and refuse to handle orange coloured mail as unclean.

Why can't I? Because freedom of religion does not protect freedom of religion at all. Instead, it grants priviliges to large, well-organised belief over individually held conviction. Freedom of religion is a gross infringement on freedom of thought. It is institutionalised discrimination.


This employee understands Britain very well - if only enough people squeak and whine then they'll be granted group priviliges over the rights of individuals. He is simply disciplining Britain into accomodating his obscure wishes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo

long lunches

One of my tutors' first tasks was to disabuse them of these notions.

---

Now that's intolerable discrimination. :no:

What of immigrants from nations who hold the right to two hour lunches sacred?

How is it in the UK when it comes to job interviews?
Here the interviewer can't ask about religious views during an interview.

As to the topic; He had a similar job at another police dep. and was excused from handling pork. But in his new job (also with the police) he was told that he would be expected to handle pork? Why the sue? I mean, if he clearly has strong convictions, why not just quit? I mean, no-one is forcing him to stay or holds a gun to his head, telling him to make sure that bacon is crisp.

He needs to join a union or something :smartass2:

He needs to join a union or something!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane

Why the sue? I mean, if he clearly has strong convictions, why not just quit? I mean, no-one is forcing him to stay or holds a gun to his head, telling him to make sure that bacon is crisp.

---

That attitude would be an absolute revolution, perhaps even more so then the renaissance.

feed me

I usually don't sympathise with the religiously challenged party in such cases. But according to the lawyer they had an agreement for situations like these, and if so it should be honoured.

Also there was a ruling in the UK a couple of months ago where a (christian) marriage registrar convinced the court that because her employer demanded that she'd conduct same sex civil unions as well, she was discriminated against on religious grounds. I think that this guy has a pretty good shot, not that I'm happy about it :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

What of immigrants from nations who hold the right to two hour lunches sacred?

---

Politics, Management, Sales, Food Critic... all have available jobs that can have long lunches. :laugh4:

This itches me the wrong way.

Unless UK law prohibits it, the issue of pork should have been brought up during interviews, especially given the occupation. This guy should have made clear that there would be an issue with handling it himself. And the lawsuit is ridiculous. Go get a new job. This screams to me a guy who doesn't particularly feel like working real hard and was gold-digging from the start.

I can't actually find a relevant section of Islamic Law that prevents him from handling pork.