Slashdot Mirror


Jobcentre Apologizes For Anti-Jedi Discrimination

An anonymous reader writes "Chris Jarvis, 31, is described as a Star Wars fan and member of the International Church of Jediism. Said church's intergalactic hoodie uniform is at odds with the strict doctrine of the Department for Work and Pensions, which may require Jobcentre 'customers' to remove crash helmets or hoods for 'security reasons.' Following his ejection, Jarvis filled out a complaint form and within three days got a written apology from branch boss Wendy Flewers. She said: 'We are committed to provide a customer service which embraces diversity and respects customers' religion.'"

19 of 615 comments (clear)

  1. Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand by caffeinemessiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "These are not the dorks you are looking for."

    Not only that, only nerds would get excited about a STOCK response from HR about discrimination, and then post it on slashdot. Not trying to troll here, but HR folks aren't lawyers, and are trained to be extremely careful when it comes to possible litigation. In short, even the bad publicity makes it worthwhile for HR to apologize to this "Jedi" instead of saying something like "we only recognize jedis on active duty, with working light sabers".

    --
    An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
  2. This belongs in IDLE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's the point of having an Idle section if you never use it?

    1. Re:This belongs in IDLE. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because sampenzus knows that 99.9% of people block idle so he posts his stories in the other sections to get page views.

    2. Re:This belongs in IDLE. by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That explains the Xbox coffin story immediately prior to this one. But Taco posted this story, not samzenpus.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
  3. Fuck exceptions for religion by Ma8thew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For some reason in the UK we have exceptions for certain laws if you are a member of a religion. For instance, if you are a Sikh you are allowed to use a motorbike without a helmet since you have a turban in the way (although to be honest, in that case your violation doesn't harm anyone else). In a more outrageous exception, churches are allowed, when choosing a candidate for a job, to discriminate against gays and in the Catholic church's case women. It's one rule for us, and another for them. As the gentleman in the article has demonstrated this is extremely silly. Who defines what a religion is?

    1. Re:Fuck exceptions for religion by Kenja · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What defines a religion.

      If you do crazy stuff by yourself, its because your insane. If you get another person to do it as well, its because its a religion and is now worthy of respect and special treatment.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:Fuck exceptions for religion by ircmaxell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who defines what a religion is?

      That's the key point here. Just because something is believed by many doesn't make it absolutely correct (well, in terms of everyone else anyway)... I mean which sounds more absurd, that there's an omnipresent being in the sky that knows all and watches over everyone (not to mention that the being "punishes" wrong doers), or that all life is connected by a inherent quality that connects every living being? You say "Who defines what a religion is"... I say "Who defines what a religion isn't"...

      Religion started as a way to explain the unexplainable (Nature, Life, Death, etc), and in doing so implemented a moral backbone. Every major organized religion (I'm assuming major, I've yet to find any one that doesn't) attempts to qualify both aspects. They explain the hereto unexplainable, and they do provide a basis for moral life (typically through consequences in the afterlife, if one exits in said religion)... So what defines a religion then? Does it need to be organized (and a 503c organization) to be considered a religion? Or does it just need to be a set of beliefs that a person follows? I personally don't believe in any organized religion. But I do have my own beliefs about it. Does that mean I shouldn't be exempted from a law that violates my belief (For example, I believe that helmet laws are immoral. If someone wants to take the risk, let them) because it's not organized? Once we as a world can get our heads around that concept (that a religion is a set of ideas, and not something you are a "member" of), the world will be a lot better of a place...

      IMHO at least...

      --
      If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
    3. Re:Fuck exceptions for religion by Ralish · · Score: 4, Insightful

      An excellent point, and one I'd hope others pick up on, especially the media. This isn't stupid because he's a Jedi, because frankly, his religious beliefs have no lesser basis than any other religion (ie. none). This is stupid because it demonstrates the absurd double standard the law grants religion. The issue is people getting hang-ups over the fact he's a "Jedi" rather than analyzing the broader legal implications of the scenario that was played out.

    4. Re:Fuck exceptions for religion by jimbobborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Make no law respecting an establishment of religion, my ass.

      So, where's this Church of the United States you're bitching about?

    5. Re:Fuck exceptions for religion by DriedClexler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How is that a "more outrageous exception"? Groups formed to promote value system X will prefer people who also like X. An aerospace company will prefer people who are "really into" aviation over people who see it as "just another job". Where's the pity party for people turned down in these cases?

      Even accepting that this group should be legally barred from discrimination, what makes it a "more outrageous" case? Oh no -- they're allowed to not hire you where ... um, everyone will hate you anyway. Next, Mosques will be allowed to prohibit Christians from leading services!

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    6. Re:Fuck exceptions for religion by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You Americans hate social programs like universal health care so non-profit organizations like churches help the poor, sick and homeless when taxpayers like you are unwilling to pay the state to do it.

      You sound bitter...

      That is exactly how it was intended to be, and we like it that way. Thanks.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  4. Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand by centuren · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm by no means even close to being so dedicated a fan, but I'm pretty sure a Jedi would remove his hood when asked to after entering a building, specifically one run by the local government. All the Jedi characters I remember were pretty polite. Also, I don't recall many complaint forms being filled out.

    Still, kudos to Ms. Flewers for coming through, even if it's only on a customer service front. If being accommodating is possible, why not formally apologise if someone was upset enough to complain.

  5. What BS! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since when do Jedi have to wear hoodies with the hood up? There are numerous points in the movies where Jedi do not wear their hoods up, and numerous occasions where they even wearing a garment that has a hood at all. Clearly, mandatory hoodies is not one of the precepts of Jediism as it existed in the Galactic Republic/Empire.

    This reminds me of all the rituals and requirements Catholics make up that was never mentioned in the Bible. But at least they can point at a section in the Bible that can be read to say that the church leaders are allowed to make this stuff up.. As far as I know, not only is there no such statement in Star Wars, Lucas is quite serious about restricting who is allowed to expand upon Star Wars. Is there some Expanded Universe novel in which the Hoodie Requirement is created?

    So dude, I mean Mr. Jedi, put your hood down. You don't need it up to be a Jedi. Insisting on putting it up isn't holding fast to your religion, it's playing dress-up.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  6. He needs to go back to Jedi school. by dwiget001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Had he been a real Jedi, he would have just waved his hand and said "You don't have to remove your hood", to which security would have said "You don't have to remove your hood" and waved him on through.

  7. Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Still, kudos to Ms. Flewers for coming through, even if it's only on a customer service front. If being accommodating is possible, why not formally apologise if someone was upset enough to complain.

    Because it admits fault where there is none, sets a precedent, and generally encourages this sort of behavior.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  8. Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand by dan828 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not everything is a slippery slope. You never know, the HR person might just have thought it was funny.

  9. Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand by Oyjord · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Still, kudos to Ms. Flewers for coming through, even if it's only on a customer service front. If being accommodating is possible, why not formally apologise if someone was upset enough to complain.

    Because it admits fault where there is none, sets a precedent, and generally encourages this sort of behavior.

    I don't have any mod points, someone give this post some credit. We Americans need to stop letting the loonies think they are on even footing with the rest of society. We're only doing ourselves a disservice. First we let the Scientologists think they are legits, then creationists, then the Tea Baggers, now Jedis? Ugh.

  10. Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful
    That's precisely why it's funny. Of course no one there takes his religion seriously, but our culture forces them to act as though they do.

    Hey, if we have to take one religion created by a science fiction writer as serious, we have to take them all as serious. Of course, if Jediism had as visible a spokesman as Tom Cruise, there'd be no question.

  11. Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand by guyminuslife · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, GP is discriminating against the fantasy authors who wrote Genesis, the Quran, the Vedas...

    --
    I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.