Christians take 'beliefs' fight to European Court of Human Rights

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

This may belong in 'Discrimination'? I'll let mods make that call.

The thing that irritates me about these stories is they give ammunition to the Right who love to bang the 'PC Gone Mad' drum and claim that Christianity as a whole is under attack (and that that is a really bad thing for the country, for some reason).

Anyways, your thoughts fellow lefties? I dislike the idea of anyone being persecuted in some way for their beliefs...but then again, I don't like their beliefs...not sure how to feel about it.

Four British Christians who claim they lost their jobs as a result of discrimination against their beliefs are taking their cases to the European Court of Human Rights later.
They include an airline worker stopped from wearing a cross and a counsellor who refused to deal with gay couples.
All four lost separate employment tribunals relating to their beliefs.
The BBC's Robert Pigott says the result will mark a "watershed moment" in social change.
The cases involve British Airways check-in clerk Nadia Eweida, nurse Shirley Chaplin, relationship counsellor Gary McFarlane and registrar Lilian Ladele:

Ms Eweida, a Pentecostal Christian from Twickenham, south-west London, was sent home by her employer British Airways in 2006 after refusing to remove a necklace with a cross
Devon-based nurse Mrs Chaplin was moved to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for similar reasons
Mr McFarlane, a Bristol counsellor, was sacked by Relate after saying he had a conscientious objection to giving relationship advice to gay people
Ms Ladele was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies in north London
(More at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19472438)

[Rugged Collectivist]

I usually don't take such cases of "discrimination" seriously. What's particularly annoying is when pharmacists try to defend their "right" to not distribute birth control.

I think people should be able to wear cross necklaces, but if your religion prevents you from doing an integral part of your job you should look for a different job.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well I think the first case of the worker wearing the cross is actually different than the second case and I think that's the first argument to make about this. It's dangerous IMO to conflate the two because one is someone essentially wearing a symbol of their own personal belief that isn't explicitly a symbol of intimidation or specifically of reactionary ideas that may be connected with the larger belief system. In the second case the issue is not of personal belief, but of condoning and potentially institutionalizing discriminatory practices. So in effect, these cases actually have conflicting applications despite both involving christian beliefs: the issue is the state allowing people to be refused services or employment due to their personal beliefs (the cross-wearers) or private behaviors (homosexual couples), not christian beliefs.

We should fully oppose legitimizing the right to refuse services or jobs on this basis - particularly bosses. What are the implications, if a cross is inappropriate, what about a union pin? If a worker representing a larger institution or the directors of that business or service is allowed to refuse equal treatment to homosexuals, the implications should be obvious. In practice, however, I think it would be much more important however to defend sexual equality because of the conditions in society: homosexuals are generally oppressed whereas Christians are not an oppressed group.

[MaximMK]

There is no need to brag about their religious views they should keep it to themselves they were right not to allow them to wear crosses. If you wear a cross its not out of personal belief it is to show them that you are christian. Nobody should wear religious markings on work.

[citizen of industry]

In all 4 cases, the company can legitamately claim they were breaking legal work rules, and it had nothing to do with religion. If it was another kind of necklace, not a cross, they would probably have been told to remove it. I can't wear any visible jewelry at my job except for a wedding ring, and I certainly can't refuse service to people based on their sexual orientation. Not that I want to defend the company, but it seems clear they weren't discriminated against for their religion.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Mr McFarlane, a Bristol counsellor, was sacked by Relate after saying he had a conscientious objection to giving relationship advice to gay people
Ms Ladele was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies in north London



Bigots don't get to complain about restriction of their beliefs.

[Zealot]

We should appeal to the human rights courts on account of the proletariat being exploited and discriminated against on a daily basis. This system is against our beliefs!

[Sam_b]

There is no need to brag about their religious views they should keep it to themselves they were right not to allow them to wear crosses

So therefore you would stop people wearing football shirts because there is 'no need to brag about their team'? I see in another thread you're wanting to print your own leftist t-shirt. Surely there is no need to brag about your own political views either, right?


If you wear a cross its not out of personal belief it is to show them that you are christian

With respect, how the fuck do you know these people's motivations for wearing a crucifix?

I think your post is a good example about how anti-Theism is a dumb, dumb ideology.

[helot]

With regards to the wearing of the cross... I'd expect that the court would claim it's not discrimination as it's not a requirement in christianity to wear a cross. If, however, a Sikh was refused from wearing a turban it would be a completely different matter because of the religious requirements.

[Thirsty Crow]

With respect, how the fuck do you know these people's motivations for wearing a crucifix?

Personal rationalization is irrelevant.
The fact is when a person wears it on the outside of her shirt or smtg, she becomes a walking ad for Jesus.

But that's not the point. The point is what kind of an attitude should communists take in relation to 1) such intra-workplace rules 2) the lawsuit including the notion of human rights violation.

I don't have to say anything on 1). If the rules were clearly stated before one got a job, then yeah, what is obvious is obvious. I think there are more pressing concerns with regard to workplace issues.

But 2) is a clear propaganda for the reactionary "anti-multiculturalist" right-wing. Seriously, a boss has denied you your right to worship the fuck you want by coming up with such rules? Or is it a problem that you got fired? Somehow, I don't think people would gladly go through all this hassle so I'll just assume than the former had more to do with it - and that it plays into the hands of the right wing.

And finally, as others have pointed out, it is outright laughable and insulting (at the same time, who would've known) that workplace practices such as banning open display of religious symbols (was the cross the only symbol banned??) get called discrimination.

[Sam_b]

The fact is when a person wears it on the outside of her shirt or smtg, she becomes a walking ad for Jesus

Not that I understand why anyone would have a problem with this.

[The Jay]

People should be able to wear their damn crosses if they wish. The other two complaints should have been dealt with harsher. If you can't do your job due to bigotry then you have the right to fuck off.

[Thirsty Crow]

Not that I understand why anyone would have a problem with this.
Yeah, ok. It's irrelevant to me actually so I can't say.

But the point is the discrimination charge. If the person knew the rules then she could very well expect them to be enforced. Moreover, I didn't see any proof that it was specifically the cross that triggered the layoff - it was probably the generalized rules prohibiting open display of religious symbols.

[Sam_b]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you do at all - it's more that I have a problem with the line taken by MaximMK above.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Isn't Christianity a "lifestyle choice"?

[Камо́ Зэд]

This recalls that habit of some rightists to declare, with a straight face, that Christians are the most oppressed group in the world. I don't know that the assertion is outrageously far from the truth, given how many people who identify as Christian there are in the world, but then again it's people who identify as Christian doing most of the oppressing in question, isn't it?

As for the question of wearing crosses, I have a friend who wears t-shirts featuring those cheerful little cartoon ponies and I don't have a problem with it. It's pretty much the same thing.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This recalls that habit of some rightists to declare, with a straight face, that Christians are the most oppressed group in the world. I don't know that the assertion is outrageously far from the truth, given how many people who identify as Christian there are in the world, but then again it's people who identify as Christian doing most of the oppressing in question, isn't it?

Doubtless there are people in the world being oppressed for being Christian, but none of them live in the US or Europe. It's a transparent attempt by a privileged majority to retain that privilege by adopting the cloak of victimhood.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Doubtless there are people in the world being oppressed for being Christian, but none of them live in the US or Europe. It's a transparent attempt by a privileged majority to retain that privilege by adopting the cloak of victimhood.

White nationalists and the like typically do the same. Just recently I heard someone declare that the white man is the most disadvantaged human being in the modern world. Then I remembered it was Opposite Day and started moon-walking to the R.N.C.

[Igor]

This recalls that habit of some rightists to declare, with a straight face, that Christians are the most oppressed group in the world. I don't know that the assertion is outrageously far from the truth, given how many people who identify as Christian there are in the world, but then again it's people who identify as Christian doing most of the oppressing in question, isn't it?

As for the question of wearing crosses, I have a friend who wears t-shirts featuring those cheerful little cartoon ponies and I don't have a problem with it. It's pretty much the same thing.

Not only Christians. To some extent it has to do with the Christian mythology of constantly being persecuted (because they really were for centuries during the time when lots of 101 christian lit was written) but also because it's kind of troublematic to think yourself as being privileged. It's exactly the same kind of logic that makes white people claim they're "second class citizens" due to "reverse racism" or men claim feminism have gone overboard and the system now favours women. For people who think like this, their idea of the world is fair and just for everybody, not just them, and when minorities rise against a system that's actively oppressing them, these fuckheads think things are being now skewed against them, because everything now doesn't pander to their privilege anymore. That's why Christians who see non-Christians actually doing things and gaining prominence, some people start screaming "gahh discrimination"

Of course, Christians are actually still kind of persecuted in some parts of the world and in some Muslim countries you can get real shit for it, and American Christians sometimes like to pretend it makes them, too, more persecuted and that's hilariously stupid.

[Igor]

Also re: the actual topic, the first two guys I'm kinda with, getting upset about stuff like wearing crosses is petty and no reason to fire people over, commies should understand that it's not exactly a good thing when people can be fired over small shit like that.

Fuck the last two guys though. why do people infringe with my right to be a hateful piece of human shit hurrrrrrbsdfbd

[Rafiq]

Apparently, unless the religious are shoving shit down everyone's throat, they're being persecuted. So be it.

In this regard, this is on par with the same scum who claim that the "White race" is under extreme persecution in Europe and the U.S. ...

Again, the fact that racism is shunned in Liberal democracies, somehow, signifies that the "white race" is under attack. Unless "interracial" relationships are shunned down on the basis of societal norms, unless you're taken seriously for claiming the "Jewwz" are planning to take over their white motherland, you're being persecuted.

[Clarion]

Mr McFarlane, a Bristol counsellor, was sacked by Relate after saying he had a conscientious objection to giving relationship advice to gay people
Ms Ladele was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies in north London



These two are clearly cases of them refusing to do their full job for reasons of personal prejudice and so there's not really any argument.


Devon-based nurse Mrs Chaplin was moved to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for similar reasons

Health and safety. Nurses aren't allowed to wear jewellery, and certainly not the dangling kind, for very good reasons.


Ms Eweida, a Pentecostal Christian from Twickenham, south-west London, was sent home by her employer British Airways in 2006 after refusing to remove a necklace with a cross

This is the only one who has anything close to an argument. Ultimately, though, it's asking for special treatment for the religious (and not even really special treatment for religious practice/observance but for sectarian display).

Dress codes should either permit jewellery or not, without special treatment for the religious.

[Rottenfruit]

This may belong in 'Discrimination'? I'll let mods make that call.

The thing that irritates me about these stories is they give ammunition to the Right who love to bang the 'PC Gone Mad' drum and claim that Christianity as a whole is under attack (and that that is a really bad thing for the country, for some reason).

Anyways, your thoughts fellow lefties? I dislike the idea of anyone being persecuted in some way for their beliefs...but then again, I don't like their beliefs...not sure how to feel about it.

Four British Christians who claim they lost their jobs as a result of discrimination against their beliefs are taking their cases to the European Court of Human Rights later.
They include an airline worker stopped from wearing a cross and a counsellor who refused to deal with gay couples.
All four lost separate employment tribunals relating to their beliefs.
The BBC's Robert Pigott says the result will mark a "watershed moment" in social change.
The cases involve British Airways check-in clerk Nadia Eweida, nurse Shirley Chaplin, relationship counsellor Gary McFarlane and registrar Lilian Ladele:

Ms Eweida, a Pentecostal Christian from Twickenham, south-west London, was sent home by her employer British Airways in 2006 after refusing to remove a necklace with a cross
Devon-based nurse Mrs Chaplin was moved to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for similar reasons
Mr McFarlane, a Bristol counsellor, was sacked by Relate after saying he had a conscientious objection to giving relationship advice to gay people
Ms Ladele was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies in north London

(More at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19472438)

If a person gets fired for wearing a a cross or for that matter any sort of relegious necklace i do think that is discrimination against that group and should not be tolerated and im a atheist by the way.

[Rottenfruit]

Bigots don't get to complain about restriction of their beliefs.
Not in this case because this applys to all christians and for that matter all groups who wear relegious symbols around there neck, if you ban crosses you can start banning people who wear jewish symbols and so on get my point?

[Камо́ Зэд]

Wrong because this applys to all christians and for that all groups who wear relegious symbols around there neck, if you ban crosses you can start banning people who wear jewish symbols, get my point?

I think maybe what our comrade was referring to the situation in which someone was fired for adopting a discriminatory attitude against same sex couples.

[Rottenfruit]

I think maybe what our comrade was referring to the situation in which someone was fired for adopting a discriminatory attitude against same sex couples.
I know but that is totaly irrevelant to the case itself,if he was fired for to other part thats fine and understandbul, but firing a person because he was wearing a cross is discrimination and sets a premise to expand such discrimtornaly polices if its judged okay to fire people for only wearing a cross

[Камо́ Зэд]

I know but that is totaly irrevelant to the case itself,if he was fired for to other part thats fine and understandbul, but firing a person because he was wearing a cross is discrimination and sets a premise to expand such discrimtornaly polices if its judged okay to fire people for only wearing a cross

A different case entirely was being discussed.





Mr McFarlane, a Bristol counsellor, was sacked by Relate after saying he had a conscientious objection to giving relationship advice to gay people
Ms Ladele was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies in north London

[Positivist]

Mr McFarlane, a Bristol counsellor, was sacked by Relate after saying he had a conscientious objection to giving relationship advice to gay people
Ms Ladele was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies in north London

Well fuck these two.

[Rottenfruit]

I was talking about the nun case which i found absurd

[Камо́ Зэд]

I was talking about the nun case which i found absurd

But your original comment was quoting Comrade Bananas:


Bigots don't get to complain about restriction of their beliefs.

[Rottenfruit]

But your original comment was quoting Comrade Bananas:
Yes as i misunderstood the topic due to my crappy english i thought that the person was fired for wearing a cross in the work but he had also made anti gay comments in the past against gay custumous.

If the reason he was fired i thought was for making anti gay comments yes of course

But if the reason he was fired was for wearing of course is wrong and discriminatory

[Камо́ Зэд]

Yes as i misunderstood the topic due to my crappy english i thought that the person was fired for wearing a cross in the work but he had also made anti gay comments in the past against gay custumous.

If the reason he was fired i thought was for making anti gay comments yes of course

But if the reason he was fired was for wearing of course is wrong and discriminatory

I understand now. Sorry for the mix-up.

[Keath]

[QUOTE=Камо́ Зэд;2505309]...but then again it's people who identify as Christian doing most of the oppressing in question, isn't it?
[QUOTE]

Religion is reactionary and oppressive by its very nature. Defining what specifically is religion can be tricky though because some religions are part of cultures. For example the words hindu and jew can be used to refer to a religion or it can be used to refer to a cultural designation. Muslim and christian though are purely religious designations.

Hindu and jewish culture have its positive aspects for instance however the religions of hinduism and judaism are reactionary and stifling just as the religions of christianity and islam.

To answer your question though I would say that it is not christians who do most of the oppressing I would say it is religion that is doing most of the oppressing. All you have to do is look at the forced genital cutting(circumcision) of men and women practiced by jews and muslims, look at the way in which the voice of women is silenced by religions, and examine the way in which religion persecutes rationality.

Non-religious cultural aspects of jewishness and hinduness is positive though. These positive cultral traits involve the kind treatment of animals by hindus and in the case of secular jewish culture there is the work that jews have done towards fighting for human rights in the west. Jews historically have been the conscience of the western world similarly to how blacks have historically been the conscience of America.

A person can be hindu and jewish without being religious.

The reactionary and backward nature of religion is particulary evident when one observes the phenomena known as christian zionism. Christian zionists apply religious thinking in understanding middle east issues, just as the jewish zionists and islamists do. This sort of thinking is very backward and has led to a great deal of destabilization. The christian zionists believe it is the apocalypse and that they have to do certain things to bring Jesus to earth again. These sorts of beliefs may have motivated George Bush and Mitt Romney may be influenced by this belief system as well but I am not sure.

The implication though that christianity is somehow a uniquely evil religion is not a idea I would agree with. Religion is reactionary. That being said christianity should be abolished.

[brigadista]

she was not told to take off the cross
she was told to wear it underneath her clothing
she refused because she was evangelising

[Igor]

she refused because she was evangelising

i'm sure this is based on you knowing the person in question well enough to know her reasons for wearing a cross necklace

i'm sure

[Clarion]

The burden is on her to come up with a good reason to be treated as a special exception.

[Igor]

The burden is on her to come up with a good reason to be treated as a special exception.

Yeah who'd thought employers sometimes have unreasonable policies. The point wasn't about 'her being treated as a special exception', the policy shouldn't have existed in the first place.

[MaximMK]

Surely there is no need to brag about your own political views either, right?
anti-Theism is a dumb, dumb ideology

My views do not include the earth being 6000 years old and a devil who puts dinosaur bones to tempt us :lol: What you are defending is ignorance and people who hate others who do not belong to their religion. Fuck them

[Clarion]

Yeah who'd thought employers sometimes have unreasonable policies. The point wasn't about 'her being treated as a special exception', the policy shouldn't have existed in the first place.

She's going to the European Court of Human Rights to seek a ruling that dress codes in general are a violation of human rights? No, she's going there to seek a ruling that a minority of christians should have a special exemption from dress codes.

[Igor]

She's going to the European Court of Human Rights to seek a ruling that dress codes in general are a violation of human rights? No, she's going there to seek a ruling that a minority of christians should have a special exemption from dress codes.

Dress codes? Nope. Not allowing using religious symbols at work yeah, nothing here is exclusive to Christians nor are they in any way treated as a special exemption.

[Igor]

My views do not include the earth being 6000 years old and a devil who puts dinosaur bones to tempt us :lol:

hey look you agree with vast majority of christians nice

[brigadista]

i'm sure this is based on you knowing the person in question well enough to know her reasons for wearing a cross necklace

i'm sure

not me Igor - see this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/17/acrosstobear


A cross to bear
The results of a Christian worker's employment tribunal have been published: BA may not have been quite as prejudiced as they seemed
Share 50


Email

Terry Sanderson
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 January 2008 11.30 GMT
Jump to comments (105)
She was portrayed in the press as a victim of cruel religious discrimination - a poor persecuted Christian who had been "banned" by British Airways from wearing a simple cross at work. And all this while her Muslim and Sikh colleagues were parading about in hijabs and turbans.

The Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Tony Blair came out in her defence. The Daily Mail took up the cudgels on her behalf. One hundred MPs spoke out in her favour. Bishops demanded a boycott of BA. Evangelical Christians went into paroxysms of righteous fury. At last - here was proof that they were innocent victims of Christianophobia - as practised by our very own national airline.

An open and shut case, you might think. Nadia Eweida was a Christian martyr, pure and simple.

But hang on a moment. The employment tribunal, to which she complained, has just published its judgment, and it tells a rather different story. Not only did it kick out all her claims of religious discrimination and harassment, it also criticised her for her intransigence, saying that she:

"... generally lacked empathy for the perspective of others ... her own overwhelming commitment to her faith led her at times to be both naive and uncompromising in her dealings with those who did not share her faith."

One example of this was her insistence that she must never be required to work on Christmas Day, even though she had signed a contract that made it clear that she, like her colleagues, would be working in an operation that functions 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and therefore required shift working and bank holiday working, too.

In order to be fair to everybody, BA used a union-approved ballot system to ensure that those who worked on Christmas Day were fairly and objectively chosen. If their name came up, they were at liberty to negotiate with their colleagues to change shifts and days on a like-for-like basis. But not Nadia. She insisted that, because she was a Christian, she must not be required to work on Christmas Day - or Sunday, come to that.

The tribunal commented:

"[Eweida's] insistence on privilege for Christmas Day is perhaps the most striking example in the case of her insensitivity towards colleagues, her lack of empathy for those without religious focus in their lives, and her incomprehension of the conflicting demands which professional management seeks to address and resolve on a near-daily basis."

Eweida was originally suspended from work as a BA check-in clerk when she refused to wear a cross on a necklace underneath her uniform rather than on top of it. This breached stated uniform policy, which stated that no one was allowed to wear visible adornments around their neck.

But Eweida and her Christian activist backers managed to foment such a backlash that BA was forced into changing the policy. Now she can wear her cross visibly, and the airline offered her £8,500 compensation and a return to her job, with her point successfully made.

But no - she decided to continue pursuing the airline at the industrial tribunal. She was funded in her action by a rightwing religious law firm in Arizona called the Alliance Defence Fund, whose affiliated lawyer was Paul Diamond, a familiar figure in court cases demanding religious privilege.

The tribunal - unlike the Daily Mail - was required to look at all the evidence, and not consider only Eweida's account of events. And having done so, it kicked the case out on all counts, saying that Eweida did not suffer any discrimination.

The tribunal concluded:

"The complaint of direct discrimination fails because we find that the claimant did not, on grounds of religion or belief, suffer less favourable treatment than a comparator in identical circumstances."

The tribunal also heard how Eweida's attitude and behaviour towards colleagues had prompted a number of complaints objecting to her: "Either giving them religious materials unsolicited, or speaking to colleagues in a judgmental or censorious manner which reflected her beliefs; one striking example," said the judgment, "was a report from a gay man that the claimant had told him that it was not too late to be redeemed."

Indeed, the proselytising motivation of her desire to wear the cross over her uniform instead of underneath it was underlined when she said: "It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them."

The details of this case make it clear that this is a woman who is wearing religious blinkers. In several instances she brought grievances and complaints against BA that had no basis in fact. She was convinced that BA was anti-Christian, and nothing would dissuade her from that opinion, despite the company jumping through hoops trying to accommodate the many and varied religious demands being placed on it. Indeed, there is a BA Christian Fellowship group that did not support Eweida's fight, and confirmed that BA was already "making available facilities, time, work spaces, intranet use and supporting Christian charitable activities throughout the world" - but strangely we haven't heard about them in the newspaper reports.

The tribunal notes that on the original claim form, Eweida states "I have not been permitted to wear my Christian cross; whilst other faiths (Sikhs, Hindu, Muslims) are permitted to manifest their faith in very obvious fashion. Secular individuals can show private affiliations." The tribunal found the first and last assertions to be untrue. But Eweida would not be persuaded.

Her numerous demands for special treatment because of her religion showed a complete indifference to the effect it would have on the lives of others. Indeed, in one instance she made an accusation against the Christian Fellowship group that turned out to be completely fallacious, and the tribunal felt compelled to say: "We find it demonstrates to a degree the extent to which the claimant [Eweida] misinterpreted events, as well as her readiness to make a serious accusation without thought of the implications."

Now we read that there is another case in the pipeline for British Airways. An orthodox Jewish man is bringing a case of religious discrimination because he is required to work on Saturday, the Jewish Shabat.

And a demonstration by Sikhs has just taken place outside the Welsh assembly, demanding that a schoolgirl be permitted to breach the school's uniform policy by wearing a ceremonial bangle, the kara.

As Jonathan Bartley, of the religious thinktank Ekklesia said of the Eweida case:

"Like many of the other claims of discrimination being made by Christians, this has turned out to be false. People should be aware that behind many such cases there are groups whose interests are served by stirring up feelings of discrimination of marginalisation amongst Christians. What can appear to be a case of discrimination at first glance is often nothing of the sort. It is often more about Christians attempting to gain special privileges and exemptions."

The National Secular Society has demanded that employers should be permitted to declare their workplaces secular spaces if they want to, without penalty. Attempts by employers to accommodate everyone have turned many workplaces into religious battlegrounds. It should now be OK to say: "Leave your religio"n at the door, please. And if you won't and your religion doesn't permit you to work in the way that this jobs demands you do, then please find another job that will.

[Clarion]

Dress codes? Nope. Not allowing using religious symbols at work yeah, nothing here is exclusive to Christians nor are they in any way treated as a special exemption.

They don't allow visible neck jewellery. Demanding that christians should be exempt from this rule, while those choosing to wear secular jewellery remain prohibited from doing so, is a demand to be treated specially.