|
It is indeed the season to be jolly. Look at what makes it to the papers and laugh. Dar Malta is on the front page again. This time because it’s finally going to be occupied and used for the purpose for which it was intended. The Times’ man in Brussels – the intrepid reporter Ivan Camilleri – provides up to the minute reporting of the electrical, plumbing and IT installation works, which we are told are all in place. We can all rest easy now, secure in the knowledge that all flushings and fixtures are secured. Ivan was the harbinger of more good news – the furniture and other interior furnishings for Dar Malta are being donated by the Chinese government, following a “deal” struck between the Maltese government. We are given no further details about the deal and whether it is an outright donation or whether the Maltese Government will have to give anything in return. Perhaps Ivan will be more forthcoming in the future. His reportage about the pile of the Chinese carpets and the colour of the Dar Malta cushions will doubtlessly be given the prominence it deserves.
Going back to items which should really not be news – there are the roads and road works. I can never understand the inordinate amount of column inches they suck up. Earlier this week Minister Jesmond Mugliett was portrayed in the guise of a generous Santa Claus without the red suit and white beard announcing the fact that contracts for work on 70 residential roads were being assigned. Low quality work was out of the question, the Minister declared. Well, ho-ho-ho, we’ve heard that one before. In any case, why should road works which are routine matters and should go by unnoticed deemed to be so newsworthy? Their successful and quick completion should be the norm, and not press events which are greeted with the same flurry of publicity as a breakthrough cure for a killer disease. Maybe, I’m missing something though – maybe road works really are riveting. The newspapers seem to think so. Giovanna Debono just got a centerfold spread with gleaming expanses of smooth roads in Gozo. No mention of the fact that they were way over the original estimates. If Ivan Camilleri was based in Malta he’d have sniffed it out – no fear.
It’s not only the news section of the papers which is an inadvertent source of amusement. The adverts are a huge source of merriment. There are the ones for the ubiquitous festive menus for example. One culprit proudly announced that there would be “natural and composed salad” to feast one, leading prospective diners to wonder what the “unnatural” salad was composed of. Then there’s the promotion for a party being held in a venue which “has been transformed from a stone quarry to authentic medieval tunnels. It has escaped the composer of the piece that a tunnel can only be authentically medieval if it was built in the Middle Ages. If it was originally a stone quarry and not a tunnel carved out in medieval times, it can never be an honest true-to-life old tunnel. But these are probably the kind of people who think that reproductions are “authentic” antiques.
The controversy over whether British Airway was right to ban its employee Nadia Eweida from wearing a crucifix on a chain round her neck, has now spilt over into the pages of the local newspapers. An enraged Gerry Cowie from Surrey has dashed off a furious letter expressing his utter dismay at what he calls an “appalling decision” which he says shows crass hypocrisy on the part of the airline and is a sole exception to its policy of inclusiveness. He blames the “crazy cult of political correctness for rearing its ugly head and creating a situation which should never have arisen.” Before declaring emphatically that he will never fly with British Airlines again, he wonders whether the next step in the airline’s heinous policy of Christ-obliteration is to ban passengers from making the sign of the cross on take-off and landing. Mr. Cowie found strong support from a Maltese reader who wrote in saying that he doubted whether boycotting the airline would have any effect (actually it did – the threatened boycott by English residents got BA to reconsider their decision) and that we should go one better. This writer’s brainwave was to suggest that every Christian passenger convinced of his faith, who travels with British Airways should wear a cross and make sure it can be seen. He signed off with “In hoc signo vincis” (By this sign you shall conquer).
I imagine that both writers want to take a stand as being staunch defenders of the faith, speaking out against what they perceive to be the relentless onslaught of secularism overcoming the world. However, they’ve both grabbed hold of the wrong end of the stick and like many others are completely misguided about the whole issue. This is not a matter of faith. It has nothing much to do with freedom of expression – rather, it’s a much more mundane issue regarding uniform regulations. The airline regulations state that all jewellery and religious symbols on chains must be worn under the uniform. Many people wouldn’t fault such a rule. Corporate entities like British Airways need to portray a smart, pulled-together image and staff and representatives should dress the part. Individuality is fine when you’re off duty but having staff turn up with garish costume jewellery, fist-sized pendants or Goth make-up while on the job just makes the employer company and its employees, look unprofessional. There’s also the question of individual taste – not having uniform regulations is a recipe for disaster, leaving the door wide open for people to turn up in tracksuits, safari-suits and nylon nasties, creating an unflattering contrast with their more taste-endowed colleagues.
So there’s nothing intrinsically wrong or un-Christian about the BA uniform rules. Of course there would be, if the airline allowed employees to wear Stars of David on chains round their neck, but not the crucifix. However, this is not the case as all jewellery and religious symbols. It seems to me that the protests are not against the uniform application of the ban – which would be perfectly reasonable, but are, in fact a backlash against what is perceived to be preferential treatments for Sikhs and Muslims. British Airways allows Sikhs to wear turbans and Muslims to wear hijabs because they cannot be worn under other clothes. If the airline had looked into the matter of whether the Sikh turban or the hijab is essential for followers of those respective faiths – it would have easily seen that the items are not in fact so required, and it could have banned them in the same way as it banned Nadia Eweida’s crucifix. Its mistake was in not banning the Sikh and Muslim headgear and not for enforcing the rule in Eweida’s case. As it is, they now run the risk of having swarms of angry protestors wielding large, prominent crucifixes on all flights. That’s the cross that BA will have to bear.
cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt
|
