Thursday, June 2, 2016

Religious wear can be prohibited says European Court of Justice

It is not new law, of course, but only courts can ask for help in the interpretation of the European law from the European Court of Justice.

Monday, June 24, 2013

Lack of insight and female circumcision

Once again, following yet another death of a girl as the result of complications of genital circumcision questions have been raised about its legality. Watch this interview on BBC with Sheikh Yussef Al Badri (click on photo), enthusiastic supporter of female circumcision.
He claimss female circumcision is desirable means of control over female sexuality. When asked about men wanting to have sex too he stated marriage is there for that.

 Of course, as in his opinion woman would have no sexual desire following circumcision she would either be raped or have to submit to something she does not experience pleasure in.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Ms Nadia Eweida wins her case in European Court of Human Rights

Nadia Eweida
 Updated 20-2-2013
Ms Nadia Eweida was wearing a Christian cross which British Airways not surprisingly objected to. She had difficulties at work because of her employers objections and lost her case at the Employment Tribunal when she appealed to them.

Political pressure meant that British Airways changed their dress code and Ms Nadia Eweida won her case in the European Court of Human Rights.

This is a fair judgement from the European Court of Human Rights and there is much to be learned from it. One is the value of commitment.

Repeatedly, in UK it has been hard to get justice and the right balance between religious rights and that of the need of the company. When there is uniform to be worn additional symbols be it religious or non-religious do not look good generally, fashion wise.

However, there are jobs where a member of staff does not have to wear a uniform, maybe an office job away from public gaze.

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

General Medical Council and Dr Richard Alexander Scott

It has been a long drawn process in which Dr Richard Scott has refused to accept a warning from medical regulator in UK, the General Medical Council following a complaint from a patient's mother that he used his religious convictions inappropriately during consultation and upset her son by doing so . There were some problems with patient attending the GMC hearing. Now, this announcement has been made on GMC website after it was agreed that evidence by patient can be given via video link:

Dr Richard Alexander SCOTT
GMC Reference Number: 2890748

Area of Practice: Kent
Type of Case: Misconduct

Date: 9:30am on 11 June 2012 (Four days)
Hearing Room: To be confirmed
Address: 3 Hardman Street, Manchester, M3 3AW
This case will be considered by the Investigation Committee applying the General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Rules 2004
The Investigation Committee (Oral hearing) will meet at 9:30am on 11 June 2012 in a hearing room to be confirmed, at 3rd Floor, 3 Hardman Street, Manchester, M3 3AW. The Committee will consider whether it is appropriate to issue Dr Scott with a warning in light of his alleged inappropriate expression of religious beliefs during a consultation, which distressed his patient. It is further alleged that Dr Scott subsequently confirmed, via National media, that he had sought to suggest his own faith had more to offer than that of the patient.

Dr Scott has indicated that he is not prepared to accept a warning as proposed by GMC Case Examiners, and has elected to have his case heard by the Investigation Committee at an Oral hearing. The Investigation Committee will consider the matters and will determine whether it would be appropriate to issue him with a warning.

Dr Scott is right in that warning from regulator can cause damage to professional reputation as Dr Bright found when she raised the issue of wearing of religious uniforms by mental health workers in psychiatry. Dr Scott was not there to protest against the regulator, GMC acting inappropriately in her case and neither did any of his supporters in any Christian organization, nor did British Medical Association (also religiously biased), Medical Protection Society nor Medical Defense Union.  The facts of the matter remain the same: the regulator has to act in public interest but is on the whole biased and favors religious whom they employ regardless of the damage they cause to public interest in their Fitness to Practise Hearings.

GMC promised to give information to Dr Helen Bright but have not yet answered who sits on their Standards and Ethics Committee. Many ethics committees are attractive to religious professionals where they can exert unreasonable control over others in terms of policy making. While it is obvious for some people what their religion is this is not a compulsory requirement at GMC to declare it. Serious damage, loss of lives and fortunes has occurred because GMC has set up religiously biased Fitness to Practice proceedings repeatedly.GMC is aware of that. So, the case of Dr Richard Alexander Scott is a bit too little too late and whatever the decision is a bit of window dressing to impress the public who has moved on socially. Underneath the public relations exercise GMC is unrepentant as ever for damages they have caused through their willful ignorance in other cases.

Dr Richard Scott was a missionary and is fond of using his position as a doctor to recommend the path that would lead one to so called alpha courses run by the religious. Most patients refuse it according to him but he stated on TV that he has used his religious convictions thousands of times in his practice as a GP.

HERE he states that Christianity can offer more than other religions.

Here a writer says Catholicism is not for respectable people, for example, in view of the abuse by clergy. Catholicism is Christian faith.