If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
The distinction between medical care and other social welfare is definitely there, I quite agree. It makes good medical sense to provide translators wherever possible, because it gets people out of the hospital quicker.
It doesn't mean that it's a right though.
me too.
especially as there seem to be different rules for different nationalities.
This was indirect religious (not racial) discrimination. It wasn't unlawful as religious discrimination isn't unlawful in the provision of goods and services ... yet (there is a Bill scheduled to be introduced in this session of Parliament to do that). But the Employment Equality Regulations define indirect religious discrimination like this: So practices such as male staff in the room (especially when they didn't need to be), provision of general food etc put her at a disadvantage compared with people who were not Muslim. It is very likely that the new Bill, if it is introduced, will create a duty of all providers of goods and services to take all reasonable steps to avoid this kind of discrimination. It can't be justified, for instance to have male staff walking in to talk to another member of staff - all the hospital would have to do is put a 'please knock and wait' sign on the door and someone could leave the room to talk, and everyone would be far happier.
I know the article said she said 'racism' - I don't agree that it is racism, but it was discrimination and the idea of religious discrimination hasn't really got into the public psyche... it's not a surprise she used the word racism instead, even if it wasn't 100% accurate. By the sounds of the article all she wanted was for the hospital to stop and think and not assume that she didn't have good reasons for not wanting men who weren't her husband to see her without her headscarf, and not assume that she would happily eat the food they provided. I don't think that's 'special treatment' ... it's asking to be treated as an individual with individual needs. Oh, and Kaffrin, this is a discussion for another time, but equality emphatically does *not* mean treating everyone the same.
it does if all the non-muslims are treated with the same disregard for their religion.
No it doesn't ... British society is arranged in such a way that impacts on different people in different ways. If you treat muslims with disregard for their religion, you are actually treating the nominal Christians and atheists and agnostics better than you treat the muslims. You are providing a service which is better suited to some than others. And that's not equal treatment. It's not deliberate or malicious - but if equality is to have a positive meaning it *has* to mean treating different people differently. Hence the requirement to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people and the requirement on employers to ensure their rules and practices have, to as great an extent as possible, the same impact on all their staff.
I think that's very interesting. If there were a general requirement to treat everyone with the dignity and respect they deserve as an individual and not treat them poorly because of any individual characteristic maybe we wouldn't need all these piecemeal equality rules