Bill Carmichael: Petty-minded test of faith

BARELY a week goes by without a new case of vicious persecution of Christians in this country, but the latest incidence of small-minded bigotry and stinking hypocrisy involving taxpayer-funded Wakefield and District Housing (WDH) just about takes the chocolate-covered hobnob.

For more than 15 years, electrician Colin Atkinson has kept a small cross of palm leaves in his works van as testament to his Christian faith. Throughout that time there has not been a single complaint – until last year, when someone sent an anonymous letter claiming tenants may be offended by the sight of this tiny Christian symbol.

This was clearly ludicrous, but WDH’s clanking bureaucracy, including myriad “equality and diversity officers”, “executive directors of people” and even the chief executive, who you may think should know better, swung into action against Mr Atkinson. The problem for them, as Mr Atkinson’s union reps pointed out, was that there was nothing in the company regulations prohibiting the cross, and Hindu and Sikh colleagues testified that they did not find it offensive. But nothing stops the diversity Gestapo in full cry, and last Christmas WDH simply changed the rules to ban all personal effects in company vehicles, apparently for the sole purpose of giving Mr Atkinson another kicking.

The 64-year-old former soldier refused to remove the cross. Surely someone in the highly-paid ranks of WDH could see that they were in the wrong?

Their argument is that the organisation must remain “neutral” – yet Mr Atkinson’s boss, “Environmental Manager” Denis Doody, sports a large poster of the blood-soaked Stalinist mass murderer Ernesto “Che” Guevara on his office wall.

Hardly sounds “neutral” does it?

If personal effects in workspaces are banned, shouldn’t that apply to all employees equally? And what of the Muslim clerical worker who has verses from the Koran on show in her car, or the other employees who are encouraged to turn up for work in turbans, and even burqas?

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the rules were changed with the deliberate intention of ensnaring Mr Atkinson, and that they are not being applied fairly or consistently, but instead are targeted at an inoffensive man simply because he is a Christian.

They should hang their heads in shame.

And isn’t it invariably true that those most keen to pat themselves on the back for their tolerance and diversity are among the most unfair, prejudiced and illiberal people on the planet?

Aid follies

THE best definition I’ve heard of international aid is that it’s a method by which money is taken from poor people in the First World and given to rich people in the Third World.

Strong evidence for this comes from the EU’s £10bn aid budget – £1.4bn of which is provided by British taxpayers.

The EU Court of Auditors reported this week that the EU Commission had given vast amounts of money to corrupt regimes, without assessing what was actually needed or checking if it had been spent properly.

So the leaders of Uganda and Malawi celebrated receiving fat cheques from the EU for “development” by rushing out to buy themselves executive jets.

Best of all is the immigration advisory centre in Mali, which tells people how to find jobs in Europe. So far it has found work for precisely six people at a cost of £8.8m.

At a time of rising taxes and spending cuts at home, shouldn’t we be ensuring that any aid money is spent wisely in a way that will actually help the poor?

And we know through bitter experience that if we allow the EU to control the distribution of the cash, that simply isn’t going to happen.