Les chrétiens peuvent-ils porter une croix sur leur lieu de travail?

Dominic Burbridge décrit le cas de ces deux femmes de confession chrétienne qui ont décidé de soumettre leur combat à l’arbitrage de la Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme pour pouvoir porter un crucifix sur leur lieu de travail.

Exposition des faits

Deux femmes de confession chrétienne, Nadia Eweida et Shirley Chaplin, ont fait appel à la Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme après avoir été interdites par leurs employeurs de porter une croix sur leur lieu de travail. Puisque leurs deux procès furent perdus dans devant les tribunaux britanniques en 2010, les deux femmes tentent d’obtenir gain de cause grâce à l’article 9 de la Convention Européenne des Droits de l’Homme. L’article mentionne le droit à la liberté de pensée, de conscience et de religion, ce qui inclut le droit «seul ou dans une communauté, dans le public comme dans le privé, de manifester sa religion ou sa croyance, dans la confession, l’enseignement, la pratique du culte.»

Eweida fut placée en congé payé par British Airways pour avoir refusé de couvrir un collier orné d’une croix chrétienne. British Airways justifia que le port du crucifix tombe sous le coup de leurs règles d’uniformes interdisant le port de bijoux. Dans un autre cas, Shirley Chaplin, qui travail comme infirmière au Royaume-Uni, a été mutée à une position administrative après avoir refusé de retirer son crucifix. La politique vestimentaire de la NHS (Securité Sociale britannique), sous l’autorité de laquelle Chaplin travaille, interdit le port de collier pour le personnel pour éviter qu’ils ne soient attrapés par les patients. Le gouvernement britannique s’est déclaré contre les procédures en appel auprès de la cour de Strasbourg sur base du fait que le port de la croix n’est pas une «obligation de la foi religieuse» et qu’elle n’est donc pas couverte par la législation européenne sur les Droits de l’Homme.

L'avis de l'auteur

En comparaison à d’autres traitements de la liberté religieuse, ces deux cas de femmes chrétiennes qui tentent par tous les moyens de porter leurs croix sur leur lieu de travail me paraît déplacée. Même si les deux cas ont été déboutés au Royaume-Uni, des statuts spéciaux ont été octroyé pour le turban sikh, le bracelet kara et le foulard musulman. Si des raisons valables peuvent justifier que la croix est un bijoux dangereux sur le lieu de travail, ces cas ont été politisés de façon excessive et non-nécessaire par le gouvernement. Est-ce au gouvernement de décider quelles formes d’expression sont nécessaires à la pratique du culte? La religion chrétienne est un corps divers, dont certains membres se prononce contre tous symboles tandis que d’autres, par exemple les chrétiens coptes (tels que Eweida) placent davantage d’importance sur les droits aux symboles et à l’expression publique. La définition de ce qui constitue une obligation religieuse invites les accusations de décision arbitraire, d’ignorance théologique et de tentative de satisfaire seulement les groupes qui pourraient les soutenir dans le maintien de l’ordre public.

- Dominic Burbridge

Lire davantage:


Commentaires (21)

Les traductions automatiques sont fournies par Google Translate. Elles vous donneront une idée générale au sujet du contenu mais ne peuvent pas rendre compte de façon précise et nuancée des propos de l'auteur. Veuillez vous en souvenir lorsque vous les utilisez.

  1. Dear Friends,

    As for me, all religions are prompt for the sake of Humanity. But unfortunately, most of practitioners bust the concept behind Religion. Materials should never express your statment of faith. It’s all about tolerance and living with each others peacefully by taking tremendous steps to achieve your inner peace. Let’s look at the Christians’ cross, muslims’ veil, the jewishs’ yarmulke and so as a way to promote intercultural and religious dialogue. Let’s emphasize the interdisciplinary exchange instead of focusing on the appearance. Let’s bring it off for a better Living, for a better World!

  2. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turkish-pianist-fazil-say-charged-over-islam-insult-7811445.html

    here is a link to a story which happened few days ago in Turkey.. a famous composer charged for admitting to be atheist :O

  3. Mislim, da bi nošenje križa moralo biti dovoljeno. Živimo v svodobni družbi, kjer ima vsak pravico do svojega mišljenja in tako tudi do svobodne izbire veroizpovedi. V podjetjih zato ne bi smeli razlikovati med zaposlenimi na podlagi njihovih oblačil in nakita. Seveda je popolnoma drugače, če gre za predpisano uniformo, kjer nošenje nakita ni dovoljeno oziroma če nakit ni dovoljen zaradi varnosti na delovnem mestu.

  4. Seveda kristjani lahko nosijo svoje simbole na delovnih mestih, tako kot tudi pripadniki drugih ver. Delodajalci so v tem primeru grdo kršili eno temeljnih človekovih pravic- pravico do svobodnega izražanja veroizpovedi. Mislim, da v 21. stoletju res niso več potrebni takšni radikalni ukrepi, in da bi družba morala biti bolj odprta, takšne kršitve pa absolutno kaznovati. V tem konkretnem primeru pa ni dopusto nošenje simbola križa le, če imajo zaposleni pri letalski družbi izrecno prepoved nošenja nakita, ki izhaja iz internih pravil letalske družbe, s katerimi je uslužbenec seveda predhodno seznanjen.

  5. This case, technically, had nothing to do with the cross itself nor the religious connotation attached to it. These ladies were treated in such a manner as a result of violating dress code/ refusing to follow it. BA and NHS have every right to enforce such codes. The foundation of such dress codes did not arise from intended religious discrimination. NHS and BA may have such a dress code for Health and Safety reasons. For example, jewellery sometimes falls off, and sometimes unknowingly in the most inconvenient places, and if it does it can cause all sorts of liabilities for these corporations. That is way more likely to be the foundation of these dress codes. BA and NHS are not in the wrong for enforcing their dress codes and there was nothing discriminatory in doing so.

  6. Zakaj pa ne? Vsak ima možnost izražanja svojega mnenja in izražanja svoje vere. Če se nekdo, ki nosi križ tako bolje počuti, ne vidim razloga zakaj ga ne bi smel imeti. O družbi zadnje čase pravimo, da je postala bolj odprta, bolj strpna (da imamo manj rasizma, da se sprejema homoseksualce…) V tem primeru pa vidimo le nestrpnost. Dokler izražanje svojega mišljenja in verske izpovednosti ne škodi ljudem okoli nas, ne vidim problema zakaj ljudje ne bi smeli nositi križa okoli vratu.

  7. Under most circumstances, I’d have to argue for the women’s rights to wear a symbol of their religion, but in this case, they were not banned from wearing a symbol of thier religion but from wearing jewelry–something that seems to have been outlined in both job descriptions. If wearing a crucifix is such an important symbol of faith to both women, they should explore other attire or job options. I think Joe College summed it up well when he said « It’s not a question of free speech; it’s a question of practicality, workplace hazards, and indignant advocates for bling political correctness. »

  8. This is a simple case of profiling. Is it wrong for a Muslim woman to wear her veil? Is it wrong for a Jew to where his Yamaka? How about even going as far as a person wearing a pentagram? Is there a cut off with religion? I mean we can sit here and state that a person wearing a pentagram is even more unacceptable and the majority of the worlds populace would agree. I think that same as if we saw someone wearing a nazi swastika. But why are some seen as okay to wear and others not? Do we have to have 100% of the worlds agreement to make it right? I think not. I think disagreement will continue but that fact is there are people who think all of these things are right and wrong. So are real question is who do we follow? Should nothing be worn at all or should people do as they please? I personally agree that people should do as they please and what may happen to them is a risk they are placing on being that religion. That risk that you are willing to place I also think shows your strength of faith and should be protected if you follow whatever faith it is you want.

    • But it is completely the opposite of what you describe. The fact that it is a Christian symbol is irrelevant to why it was forbidden. In the airline, jewelry was against the dresscode. In the hospital, it posed a recognized hazard. It would not matter whether it was a crucifix necklace, a swastika pendant, or simple gaudy bangles.

      If I founded a religion whose main principle would be wearing long flowing clothing with lots of dangly metal hoops all over my body, I’d be willing to wager I’d be « profiled » by any job that involves a lot of moving parts and machinery.

      While you may find « strength of faith » nice and cozy, it’s likely that that won’t satisfy your employer’s worries. If he or she doesn’t want to risk the legal and personal damages intrinsic to your beliefs, then it’s time to either seek a job where your garb won’t actively interfere with your workplace or compromise and find some other means of worship. It’s not a question of free speech; it’s a question of practicality, workplace hazards, and indignant advocates for blind political correctness.

  9. When you accept a position at a workplace, it is assumed there will be rules and regulations, including a dress code, already in place that you must conform to. For both of these cases, necklaces are not allowed as a part of the uniform. Neither are attacks on any one person or group of people, and in fact, in the second instance, the necklaces are not allowed due to the hazard of them being pulled on by patients. These people chose to work for these companies and in these environments; therefore they should be following the simple dress code, so long as the dress code does not try to undermine a certain group of people. These dress codes do not seem to be attacking Christians specifically; they are more to simplify what an employee is wearing and to ensure a safer environment for both them and the people they are trying to help. While the government did overstep some boundaries in determining whether or not one would require a cross to show their faith in these instances, in the end, it is up to the individual to determine whether they truly need the cross or the crucifix to show their faith. Most practicing Christians I know do not require a constant wearing of the cross, since it is not what is on the outside that shows one’s faith, it is actions and your internal thoughts and beliefs.

    • This is a very wise comment, but let me push you on what you said about « the government did overstep some boundaries ». What would you do if you were the UK government and had been challenged in the European Court of Human Rights? You can’t say that this is a question of practicality because human rights law trumps employee regulations. So the only argument against a human right is to say that this case doesn’t fall into human rights legislation because wearing the cross is not a necessary part of the Christian faith. But then we have the government saying what it thinks Christianity involves. It’s a difficult one. What are you thoughts?

  10. My question is ‘So what?’. So what if someone wears a cross? It is just a piece of jewelry for someone who is not Christian, while it poses much greater value for a person who is. If someone feels better wearing it to work that probably means he/she would work even harder and better. If you ask me, it is just a loss for the employers, and as for the court’s decision, I have to repeat that there are double standards present.

  11. Freedom of expression is necessary in modern society. Although I am myself a humanist I believe that everyone is entitled to voice their opinion as long as it does not interfere with the progress in the work place and is not distracting

  12. In my opinion Christians should be allowed to wear a cross to work if they are allowed to wear jewellery. Though if the work does not allow to wear ANY jewellery than they should not be allowed to wear it because there is a reason why they banned jewellery from that kind of work and it has nothing to do with the fact that the person is not allowed to show which religion she or he belongs to. If it would be just wearing a cross at work that is not allowed but other jewellery is allowed than in my opinion that person should still wear the cross because the person should have the right to express their religion freely.

    • Yes I agree with this. It is common sense. The problem comes when an employer has banned jewellery for superficial reasons and then the employee wants to wear a cross for deep religious reasons. Or what if an employer wants to ban jewellery just because they don’t want any crosses?

  13. While we have the right to express our religion and belief, it should be in appropriate ways. If jewelry is banned for safety reasons then wearing a cross would be inappropriate. Of course, if a cross is banned for being a religous symbol, that is a different matter and should be resisted. I tend to think that politically correctness, especially in Britain, has gone too far and is seriously robbing decision makers their ability to think reasonably or spend on matters that promote peace, love and unity!

  14. I do not think wearing a cross is a necessary requirement of the Christian faith. As a practising Christian, I do not choose to wear a cross myself, but I defend the right of Christians to wear a cross if they want to as an expression of their faith.

  15. Yes, they could, but not in their work. Human Rights should be Human Rights and the Christians aren’t human, they do not belong to the « monkey’s family », they belong to the « divine family » and the divine family has nothing to do with Human Rights. Clear enough?

    • I’m confused here? Are you trying to say that Christians are not Humans? This I feel you must clear up because even if a person is not Christian in their early life and one day finds God… Are you then implying that this person is no longer human? Or are you stating that this person has never been human? Also if you are referring that all Christians belong to the divine family you are wrong. If you read into 1st John you will read that simply calling yourself a Christian doesn’t mean you are saved.

    • You can’t separate people into Christians and citizens, giving rights to the citizens but not to the Christians. The human right of freedom of religious expression is a reflection of the fact that citizens are often spiritual and want to express their spiritual beliefs. We can’t remove the « divine family » without ending up having to remove some of the « monkey’s family ».

Faire un commentaire dans n'importe qu'elle langue

Dossiers

Faire glisser vers la gauche pour faire apparaître tous les points forts


Le Débat Sur La Liberté d'Expression est un projet de recherche du Programme Dahrendorf pour l'étude de la liberté au Collège St Anthony, Université d'Oxford.

L'Université d'Oxford