There has been a deluge of comment about the Eweida and Chaplin cases.
First, David Barrett at the Telegraph wrote that Christians have no right to wear cross at work, says Government. Well, not really first, as this whole story had been reported in the Mail on Sunday last December by Jonathan Petre in Ministers won’t back cross-ban Christians: Ex-archbishop condemns ‘illiberal’ assault on faith.
Then, John Bingham in the Telegraph wrote: Archbishop of Canterbury: wearing a cross just decoration, says Dr Rowan Williams.
And Boris Johnson wrote, also in the Telegraph that It’s a huge mistake to forbid a tiny act of Christian worship.
Confused? Well, several people will explain it for you:
Nelson Jones at the New Statesman explains Why the government is opposing the right of two workers to wear crosses at work in Cross Purposes?
Andrew Brown at Cif belief has Cross purposes? Nadia Eweida and the meaning of religious symbols.
And Nick Baines has Cross words (again).
Here is the Statement of Facts about these two cases, as submitted to the Strasbourg court.
According to this BBC report from April 2010,
The NHS trust’s uniform and dress code prohibits front-line staff from wearing any type of necklace in case patients try to grab them.
It offered Mrs Chaplin the compromise of wearing her cross pinned inside a uniform lapel or pocket, but she said being asked to hide her faith was “disrespectful”.
She said the hospital had rejected any of the compromises she had suggested, such as wearing a shorter chain.