Nurse goes to war as hospital demands Christian cross be ‘out of sight’
‘The real reason for their demands was not safety and hygiene, but the visibility’
A longtime nurse in the United Kingdom is taking legal action against as a London National Health Service Trust after officials there insisted that her small cross necklace, worn in honor of her Christian faith, was a health menace.
That appeared to be a false claim, since the managers repeatedly offered her a compromise that she could wear the necklace if it was not visible, ignoring any potential health aspects of the dispute.
Officials at Christian Concern say the Christian Legal Center now is representing Mary Onuoha in her dispute with Croydon University Hospital in south London.
Her lawyers are pointing out in their case that others in the hospital were allowed to wear “jewelry, hijabs, saris, turbans and religious bracelets” without a problem under the dress code which states: “The Trust welcomes the variety of appearances brought by individual styles, choices and religious requirements regarding dress; this will be treated sensitively and will be agreed on an individual basis with the Manager and Trust and must conform to health, safety and security regulations, infection prevention and control and moving and handling guidelines. The wearing of saris, turbans, kirpan, skullcaps, hijabs, kippahs and clerical collars arising from particular cultural / religious norms are seen as part of welcoming diversity.”
But it was the Christian cross belonging to Onuoha that arbitrarily was determined to be a health threat, a threat that was acceptable should she wear the cross so that it is not visible, the hospital determined.
“NHS management exposed that the real reason for their demands was not safety and hygiene, but the visibility of the cross. In a letter to Mrs Onuoha on 9 August 2018, her line manager and Clinical Lead Practitioner, wrote: ‘I offered you a compromise of using a longer chain so your necklace was out of sight but you refused,'” the Christian Concern report explained.
That supervisor continued, “I am prepared to offer you a compromise in that you can wear a high-necked t-shirt so that the necklace is out of sight (below the v of your scrubs) and out of reach of potential angry or agitated patients. I am also writing to offer you another compromise in that you can wear a high-necked t-shirt/vest top under your scrub top to cover the necklace.”
The letter stated, “I do hope you will see that I have tried to support your religious beliefs by allowing you to wear your necklace, but it cannot be visible when you are on clinical duties.”
In fact, hospital officials at one point ordered her out of an operating room, where she was caring for a patient under anesthesia, to change into clothing that would conceal her cross. She refused, Christian Concern said.
“At the same time, during the same operation, the blue pendant and earrings being worn by the anesthetist were completely ignored,” Christian Concern noted.
Eventually, the hospital demoted her to work as a receptionist, the legal team explained.
The allegations against the Croydon facility now include harassment, victimization, direct and indirect discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal.
The hospital’s actions also were a violation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the lawyers said.
“This has always been an attack on my faith. My cross has been with me for 40 years. It is part of me, and my faith, and it has never caused anyone any harm. Patients often say to me: ‘I really like your cross’, they always respond to it in a positive way and that gives me joy and makes me feel happy. I am proud to wear it as I know God loves me so much and went through this pain for me,” she explained in a statement released through her lawyers.
“At this hospital there are members of staff who go to a mosque four times a day and no one says anything to them. Hindus wear red bracelets on their wrists and female Muslims wear hijabs in theater. Yet my small cross around my neck was deemed so dangerous that I was no longer allowed to do my job.”
Andrea Williams, chief the Christian Legal Center, said, “From the beginning this case has been about one or two members of staff being offended by the cross – the worldwide, recognized and cherished symbol of the Christian faith.”
Globalists Come to Agreement on Global Minimum Corporate Tax Rate
No less than 136 countries have reached a deal that would set a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15 percent. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) announced the agreement on Friday.
The United States is one of those 136 countries.
Among other things, the deal is meant to stop the practice of corporations setting up operations in countries with low corporate taxes in order to avoid punitive taxation in some countries.
According to the terms of the agreement, corporations in the 136 signatory countries will be subject to a 15 percent tax beginning in 2023.
“The landmark deal, agreed by 136 countries and jurisdictions representing more than 90% of global GDP, will also reallocate more than USD 125 billion of profits from around 100 of the world’s largest and most profitable MNEs (Multinational Enterprises) to countries worldwide, ensuring that these firms pay a fair share of tax wherever they operate and generate profits,” said a statement on the OECD’s website.
Negotiations for the global corporate tax rate have been ongoing for several years. Reportedly, talks heated up this year with strong support from the Biden administration in America, with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen leading the charge.
International leaders agreed to a demand by the Republic of Ireland that the 15 percent minimum tax rate could not be raised in the future. In addition, the new minimum tax rate only applies to corporations that turn over at least 750 million euros, or approximately $866 million U.S.
Once Ireland agreed, other European holdouts Hungary and Estonia quickly agreed to the global corporate tax. Of 140 nations with membership in the OECD, only Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan and Sri Lanka have not yet signed on to the agreement.
President Joe Biden, a cheerleader for the new agreement, cited it as “proof that the rest of the world agrees that corporations can and should do more to ensure that we build back better.”
“For decades, American workers and taxpayers have paid the price for a tax system that has rewarded multinational corporations for shipping jobs and profits overseas,” the American president claimed. “This race to the bottom hasn’t just harmed American workers, it’s put many of our allies at a competitive disadvantage as well.”
Other globalists hailed the new agreement as well: “We have taken another important step towards more tax justice,” German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz told Reuters.
“We now have a clear path to a fairer tax system, where large global players pay their fair share wherever they do business,” said Rishi Sunak, the U.K.’s Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Big Tech, it seems, is also on board with the new deal, even though it will likely cause them to pay more taxes.
“We are pleased to see an emerging international consensus,” said Nick Clegg, Facebook’s vice president of global affairs. “Facebook has long called for reform of the global tax rules, and we recognize this could mean paying more tax, and in different places.”
An Amazon spokesperson praised the agreement as “progress towards a consensus-based solution for international tax harmonization, and we look forward to their continued technical work.”
But several countries are concerned about implementation of the new agreement. Tax laws will have to be changed on a per country basis and many are complaining that they may not be ready to implement by 2023.
Switzerland, for instance, has already called for more time to implement the new global corporate tax minimum, and is insisting the needs of smaller economies be taken into account.
“Switzerland demands that the interests of small, robust economies are taken into account in the implementation, and that legal certainty is established for the companies concerned,” the finance ministry said in a statement.
And in the United States, any such change in tax codes would require the agreement of Congress, which under the U.S. Constitution possesses all federal legislative powers. And since the OECD’s plan is international in nature, the new corporate minimum tax would, in effect, have the weight of an international treaty. Under the Constitution, the Senate must ratify a treaty with a two-thirds majority (67 votes). Also, a treaty cannot abrogate the clear provisions of the Constitution any more than simple legislation can. If a treaty does so, then it is an unconstitutional treaty.
It’s a high hill to climb in the U.S. Senate, which is evenly split between Republicans and President Biden’s coalition of Democrats and Independents. Republicans have not been receptive to new tax law, and would likely be reluctant to support such a treaty.
In addition, both the House and Senate would need to pass a bill raising the minimum tax on companies’ overseas profits to 15 percent from the current rate of 10.5 percent; another unlikely hill to climb in the United States.
Of course, the Biden administration could likely go the same way that former President Barack Obama did with the Paris Climate Agreement and simply sign the deal without calling it a treaty. One possible response to that would be for a future GOP-led administration to back out of the deal, the way that former President Donald Trump did with the climate agreement. But a quicker response would be for other branches of government to slap down the president’s action as an unconstitutional power grab.
Either way, it’s a brief but incomplete victory for globalists looking to create a one-world government and the one-world economy that would go with it.
Chinese Hackers Breached Afghan Telecom Company As US Withdrew
Breach could give China access to ‘hugely valuable’ user information
Chinese hackers breached a major Afghan telecommunications company as the United States withdrew from Afghanistan, an early sign of Beijing’s attempt to gain a foothold in the country.
At least two China-backed hackers breached Afghan telecommunications giant Roshan earlier this year, according to a report from the Insikt Group, a cybersecurity research firm. Hacking groups ramped up their efforts in August and September, as U.S. troops began leaving the country. The breach could give China access to “hugely valuable” information about the network itself and high-value individuals who use it, the researchers said.
Afghanistan is the latest country where China has tried to expand its influence. In the United States, China has successfully pressured Nike, Apple, and the NBA to remain silent on Chinese human-rights abuses. Lithuanian government officials last month warned citizens not to buy Chinese phones after they were found to contain censorship tools. In Asia, China has used “debt-trap diplomacy,” loaning money to smaller countries at devastating interest rates and seizing assets when those debts are not repaid.
China has spent $50 to 100 billion a year on its Belt and Road initiative, which uses infrastructure projects to expand its influence in developing countries. But Afghanistan is an unlikely target for Belt and Road projects, given its remoteness, poverty, and instability. According to Center for Strategic and International Studies senior fellow Jonathan Hillman, China may see digital attacks as a more effective route to gaining a foothold in Afghanistan.
“The Chinese government may view Afghanistan’s major telecom providers as an important avenue for collecting intelligence and monitoring political and security risks,” Hillman told the Washington Free Beacon.
Such operations could help China monitor activity near Afghanistan’s border with the Xinjiang region, where the country maintains a network of concentration camps for its Uyghur ethnic minority. The Taliban has removed Uyghur militia fighters from the border, apparently as a favor to the Chinese government. Afghan Uyghurs worry they may be deported to China as the Taliban cements its control.
The researchers noted that China’s intelligence apparatus is so large that the hacking groups likely did not coordinate with each other, suggesting there may have been multiple intelligence targets in the hack. One of the Chinese hacking groups was implicated in the March hack of Microsoft Exchange, accessing the emails of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
