Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Jobcentre Apologizes For Anti-Jedi Discrimination

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the these-are-not-the-benefits-you-are-looking-for dept.

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.'"

45 of 615 comments (clear)

  1. He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand by spun · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    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. 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.

    3. 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
    4. Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 4, Funny

      "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".

      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.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm just surprised that a cool guy like that that would be unemployed.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    8. 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.

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

      Ok, let's accept for a moment the premise that Jediism is a valid religion. Let's further accept for the moment that a tenant of this religion requires you to dress like it's Halloween. Why does he have to leave his hood up? Jedi appear in every episode of the Star Wars movies, most if not all of the books, and numerous comics, games and other media. The *most* that has ever been said of them is that they *usually* wear robes. It's not a requirement of the order for them to do so, they often wear practical clothes or uniforms when appropriate, but they *usually* wear robes. Of all the various incarnations of Star Wars I've consumed, I'd estimate that the Jedi are wearing hooded robes with the hoods up less than 5% of the time.

      This sounds suspiciously like the post I read on a Wiccan forum once. It was from a non-pagan squad leader in the Army, curious about athames. It seems that a member of his squad was insisting that carrying around a non-regulation knife was a part of his Wiccan religion; and to not permit him to do so would be a violation of his religious freedom. The squad leader was sympathetic to the soldier's religion, but thought this sounded far fetched. We calmly explained that while knives are certainly a part of Wiccan Ceremony, they do not need to be carried at all times, their absence can be worked around, and they certainly do not *need* to be 12 inch long Gothic daggers.

      I'm all for Alternative Religions. I'm a member of an Alternative Religion. Alternative Religion does not mean you just get to claim that everything you want to do is part of your religion.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    11. Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Informative

      Most religions don't adhere that closely to their sacred texts. They 'interpret' them to mean something quite different, which changes over time. [...] Compare, for example, "On the seventh day, God rested." -> "Everyone has to take a day off once every seven days."

      Umm... try Exodus 20:8-11 --

      Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work--you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.

      or Exodus 23:12 --

      For six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest, so that your ox and your donkey may have relief, and your home-born slave and the resident alien may be refreshed.

      or Exodus 31:14-15 --

      You shall keep the sabbath, because it is holy for you; everyone who profanes it shall be put to death; whoever does any work on it shall be cut off from among the people. For six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death.

      or Deuteronomy 5:13-14 --

      For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work--you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you.

      etc.

      I don't think these passages require much "interpretation" to get to the idea that everyone needs to take a day off every seventh day... do you? Sounds pretty darn explicit to me.

  2. We Todd Dead by Ambiguous+Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Unbelievably stupid indeed. I see Jedis take off their hoods all the time in the movies. Why can't he? The only force-user who's adamant about keeping his hood on is the Emperor, in which case you'd best throw this guy down a shaft now and save us all a lot of trouble.

    --
    Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
    1. Re:We Todd Dead by mister_playboy · · Score: 5, Funny

      It could be worse... they could have been Scientologists rather than Jedi.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    2. Re:We Todd Dead by delinear · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not to mention the Emperor already has a job, so he'd be unlikely to be in the job centre in the first place.

    3. Re:We Todd Dead by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, I bet he really embarrasses his girlfriend at the theater.

      Oh, wait.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  3. Wave your hand and say: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am not the unbelievably stupid asshole you are looking for.

  4. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      To allow the Idle section to remain idle?

    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. Re:This belongs in IDLE. by idontgno · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's just an idle rumor.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  5. 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, Informative

      No non-profit organizations in the United States have to pay taxes.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    7. Re:Fuck exceptions for religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      yeah, but churches are for-prophet organizations...

    8. 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.
    9. Re:Fuck exceptions for religion by JustOK · · Score: 4, Funny

      > So true.

      WTF do you think this is, Twitter?

      If you can't add to the conversation, just STFU, OK? Don't be polluting the page with "I agree"s and "So tragic"s and shit like that.

      You! Over there, with the seven digit ID. Yes you! This means you too.

      True, 'dat.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    10. Re:Fuck exceptions for religion by Toze · · Score: 5, Informative

      1) I think even Jefferson would object to being called an "atheist with a philosophical bent." Deism != atheism. He professed a belief in a God of some type, though he disagreed with most of the core theologies of Christianity. Washington, whether he was a deist or a Christian, was certainly not an atheist.

      2) Why do you keep using that word? I do not think it means what you think it means. The early Americans were eager to avoid a state church, such as Anglicanism, not to avoid churches. The issue was not, for them, that "religious people" might unduly affect the political process, but that the government not require adherence to a particular church. The word "establishment" in "establishment of religion" is a verb, not a noun; they were concerned about not creating (establishing) a state religion, not fighting "the establishment." Also, "respecting" is like "regarding" or "concerning," not "being nice to." They didn't want to ensure that respect was never paid to any religion, but that the government not dictate what people could and could not believe. Point is, it's about not forcing people to adhere to one faith, not about treating any/all faiths or lack thereof execrably.

      Apologies if you knew all that, but your post made it seem like you were saying "the government shouldn't make decisions based on a positive attitude toward the established (Christian) religion," which I think is an incorrect reading on all counts.

      --
      No OS on the planet can protect itself from a user with the admin password. - Yvan256
  6. Chuch of Highlander by Mekkah · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does this mean I can carry a sword too!?

    --
    ~Mekkah
    1. Re:Chuch of Highlander by Whalou · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Church of Highlander can only have one member.

      --
      English is not this .sig mother tongue...
  7. 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
    1. Re:What BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think if his boss checked the Jedi Church's web site, it would have been clear that this guy was full of BS. Quote, "The Jedi church has no official doctrine or scripture." In other words, the Jedi Church does not require its members to wear hoods. This guy is taking a satirical jab at organized religion a bit too far. Here's a link to the Jedi Church's page about doctrine.

      http://www.jedichurch.org/jedi-doctrine.html

    2. Re:What BS! by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 4, Funny

      And thus began the great jedi schism of 2010, when hoodie fundemenatalists were cast out of the light of the one true force and were forced to found a new order referred to derisively as "the dark side".

      In my books, if you can have people this upset over doctrine, you are indeed qualified to call yourself a religion.

  8. He would also have a legitmate complaint in the US by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Under the ADA, discrimination against retards is unlawful here too!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  9. A little extreme? by filesiteguy · · Score: 4, Funny

    I generally hire staff that have an affinity for Star Wars - and at least one replica lightsaber. I also have systems named JEDI (Joint Enterprise Document Ifrastructre) and YODA (Your Online Document Archive) but do not insist on Jedi robes.

    As it is, the guy was wearing a hoodie, not a Jedi robe.

    Seems a bit extreme.

    --
    The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
  10. Might not be PC, but... by Trip6 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...Jediism carries the same credibility as other religions directly based on science fiction stories. Just ask Tom Cruise.

    --
    I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
  11. Re:Not really sure that Jedis wear hoods by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yoda has a hood on his robe in most of the Prequel Star Wars movies.

    Luke uses one when he first Enters Jaba's palace in Return of the Jedi.

    Just about each of them so far, Sith and Jedi Alike have worn hooded robes at one point or another.

    Oh - that gives me an Idea. Can I create a Sith Religion and start a legal Crusade against the Jedi?

  12. Which Jedi religion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe he's Western Reformed Jedi instead of Eastern Orthodox Jedi.

    1. Re:Which Jedi religion? by natehoy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Funny, he doesn't look Jediish.

      (with apologies to Mel Brooks)

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  13. 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.