Comments on: Muslim chef claims religious discrimination

By: Pig

Pig — Thu, 21 May 2009 15:42:00 +0000

To the person who suggested that using Halal meat makes everyone a winner – I think the animals left with dislocated legs, conscious, bleeding slowly to death from a stab wound in their necks would disagree… mind you, done properly it’s a kinder method than the standard Westerm technique.

I find people can get a little obsessed with small ‘people issues’ sometimes and miss very large injustices in the process.

By: Bill Taylor

Bill Taylor — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:12:04 +0000

I cannot see what’s the problem, his religion only states that they should not eat pork, there is nothing to say they can not cook it.

By: Peter Ashcroft

Peter Ashcroft — Wed, 20 May 2009 12:40:10 +0000

A Police canteen without sausage and bacon?

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 15 May 2009 16:50:34 +0000

A landslide victory for common sense.. well done all you voters.

By: Chas Fox

Chas Fox — Fri, 15 May 2009 09:36:15 +0000

I do believe that anyone taking a job as chef in our fair country should be expected to provide all varieties of food enjoyed by the great unwashed. However, if the Met have issued a contract varying such reasonable requirements so be it. The issue is nothing to do with religion it is a matter of contract.

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 14 May 2009 09:58:07 +0000

Simple… A load of time and space taken up with what REALLY is a matter of £££ In my humble opinion this muslim chappie is out for all he can get. I do notice that there has been no mention of how long he worked there before it dawned on him he had to cook bits of pig, maybe just long enough to entitle him to register a claim. Final point… ALL interviews end with the sentence… “Have you any questions” mmmmmm I should have thought such a ‘devoted’ muslim would have asked that one, unless of course he was pre-occupied with pound note signs.

By: Tanya

Tanya — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:12:56 +0000

Sorry Pet I should have also said that whoever advised you that you cannot require an applicant for a driving job to hold a full driving license is incorrect. It is a legal requirement in this country that anyone driving a vehicle whether for work or otherwise holds a current valid driving license an you are therefore perfectly entitled to require evidence as part of your recruitment process. If you have a disabled applicant who holds a valid license but can only drive an adapted vehicle it would be for a tribunal to decide whether it is reasonable to expect your organisation to adapt or otain an adapted vehicle for that employee.

By: Tanya

Tanya — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:03:36 +0000

Not sure what Pet’s point is…..

By: Pet

Pet — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:59:04 +0000

Good Friday is a bank holiday– once a year–BIG DIFFERENCE.

By: Tanya

Tanya — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:53:56 +0000

An interesting and emotional exchange of views. Incidentally Halal sausages do exist and are widely available to caterers and the public. Having worked in HR for many years and recruited in areas where applicants may have religious reasons for objecting to certain aspects of jobs eg selling alcohol and pork products I have become aware of the need to make the job requirements clear from the outset and to make adjustments where possible in order to avoid this sort of situation. How many people organise training sessions across Friday prayer time (Islam) and into commencement of the Sabbath (Judaism) but would not think of having a training session on Good Friday (Christianity) to give just a few examples?
There is no excuse for ignorance of each others needs and beliefs in this day and age. We should be positively welcoming the benefits diversity brings and not focusing on difference and intolerance.

By: Pet

Pet — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:52:24 +0000

A missing detail makes a big difference.
What is missing from the report is that the person in question has been transfered (at his request) by HR to a different role; yet he still feels the need to sue for racial discrimination.
Many meetings were held to assist in finding avenues for solving the problem.

I was told the other week that I could no longer legally ask an applicant for a delivery drivers job whether they had a driving licence as they could be able to make alternative arrangements.

Taxi’s maybe? your guess is as good as mine.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:28:54 +0000

I think in this situation the Met is on a loser, if they failed to employ him because of his religious rights they would be taken to court. Now they have taken him on they are being taken to court for (presumably) the same reason they would have refused to employ him.
I have no problem with people who come to Gods Fair Country to live and work. But please do not exploit our openness and fairness to all when looking for that work.
Although off topic, it was announced honours and medals awarded by the queen were to be “altered” as they were too openly Christian and could offend those of other faiths. That is totally unacceptable as I have lived in countries in the Far East where they would never think of altering their way of life, clothing, medals etc just because of my beliefs.
Perhaps there is much much more to this story than we know of at present.

By: darren sherborne

darren sherborne — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:20:07 +0000

This is quite remarkable and will sadly lead to worse victimisation of minorities because majorities will not view discrimination complaints seriously.
The law has already considered this in a case involving a christian registrar who refused to carry out civil partnership ceremonies as it was in conflict with her beliefs. The court ruled that her subsequent dismissal was not discriminatory. If we as a society are to respect each other, it must also be reflected in the behaviour of the minorities as well as the majorities. If minorities have the right to differ, so do majorities. If my understanding of the law is correct, it doesnot give rise to a legal claim.

By: Jomil

Jomil — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:14:35 +0000

The gentleman in question has a point which requires further review, i.e., whether he has a “guarantee”. If the latter is proved to be true then the employer is at fault.

The knee-jerk reaction to this article from our colleagues is unwarranted and puerile. Would there be a similiar reaction if the gentleman was a vegetarian not prepared to cook any type of meat?

Incidently, all followers of the old testament (Jews, Christians and Jews) are prohibited from eating of pork. Of course, Christians have chosen to move away from this position.

By: Alfie

Alfie — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:11:22 +0000

there seems to a point over looked on both sides.
The could have asked the chef if he had a problem with cooking pork.
If the chef was as devoted to his religion as he makes out he should have made it clear before he accepted the job.

By: Susan

Susan — Wed, 13 May 2009 13:34:57 +0000

I apologise Jack i have put in the wrong name here. Please accept my apology.

By: Barry

Barry — Wed, 13 May 2009 13:34:38 +0000

Article, as such, provide a limited amount of information which are normally designed to provoke a reaction as evidenced in some of the above which in my view are a little unprofessional. As rightly commented the process has to run it’s course and the outcome will be very interesting. How was this actually handled at the job design, interview and appointment stages and, how the guarantee given (whether considered necessary or not) would be applied to the working arrangements and was it? Whatever your opinion is, this gentleman was appointed and given a written guarantee and obviously feels that this was not honoured by his employer! This now lies with the lawyers and tribunal to decide.

By: Susan

Susan — Wed, 13 May 2009 13:33:04 +0000

Jack i think you should consider your profession when you are on an HR Forum and using the level of profanities you have. You are very unprofessional and good luck in your search for a site with no morals and fibre.

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 13 May 2009 13:12:01 +0000

No and my profession does not come into this. I will leave you all to your jibes now and try to find a site with constructive viewpoints.

By: Confused

Confused — Wed, 13 May 2009 13:10:26 +0000

I am struggling to get my head round this – perhaps it is just a lack of knowledge on my part, but I was under the impression the Muslim religion prohibited the CONSUMPTION of Pork products (except in certain circumstances)i.e.

“He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then is he guiltless (if s/he consumes any of the above type). For Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful”

So what is the issue here – could we please have some clarification from someone with an appropriate level of expertise and understanding, rather than those just wanting to vent their spleen (or vegetarian, organic, free-range equivalent)

Finished it this time without hitting the submit button too early!!!