Now that the dust has settled a little after the hearing the other day, it's worth expressing disappointment with the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of Nadia Eweida, the woman sent home by British Airways for wearing a small cross whilst working for the airline at Heathrow. The Court held that she should not be protected from BA's costs in the case.
It is plainly wrong to say that this is simply an employment dispute. It is an issue of religious freedom and a point of general public importance. As such, Miss Eweida should not have to face the prospect of paying the airline's costs in this case. Making her do so is a disincentive to her continuing the case. She has done nothing wrong and she now seeks to establish that the wearing of a small cross in the way that she did is legitimate (or, to put it the other way, that the airline behaved illegitimately in treating her in the way that they did).
That is a point of interest to all citizens, believers and non-believers, in a free society - and it is one that she should be encouraged to pursue, not discouraged.
Good for Liberty for supporting her.
By Alex Deane
Recent Comments