The new "Jedi" religion, based on the Star Wars movies, has grown rapidly to the point where it may be the fourth largest religion in Britain. However, no religion has really arrived until its adherents can claim to be victims of religious discrimination. And it seems that the Dark Side of the Force has finally gotten around to discriminating against the Jedi:
Tesco [a British supermarket chain] has been accused of religious discrimination after the company ordered the founder of a Jedi religion to remove his hood or leave a branch of the supermarket in north Wales.
Daniel Jones, founder of the religion inspired by the Star Wars films, says he was humiliated and victimised for his beliefs following the incident at a Tesco store in Bangor.
The 23-year-old, who founded the International Church of Jediism, which has 500,000 followers worldwide, was told the hood flouted store rules...
Jones, from Holyhead, who is known by the Jedi name Morda Hehol, said his religion dictated that he should wear the hood in public places and is considering legal action against the chain.
"It states in our Jedi doctrination that I can wear headwear. It just covers the back of my head," he said.
"You have a choice of wearing headwear in your home or at work but you have to wear a cover for your head when you are in public."
He said he'd gone to the store to buy something to eat during his lunch break when staff approached him and ordered him to the checkout where they explained he would have to remove the offending hood or leave the store.
"They said: 'Take it off', and I said: 'No, its part of my religion. It's part of my religious right.' I gave them a Jedi church business card....
Tesco said: "He hasn't been banned. Jedis are very welcome to shop in our stores although we would ask them to remove their hoods."
"Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda and Luke Skywalker all appeared hoodless without ever going over to the Dark Side and we are only aware of the Emperor as one who never removed his hood."
I don't know if Jones has a serious case under British antidiscrimination law. It's unlikely that a suit like this could succeed in the US. Title II of the Civil Rights of 1964 forbids discrimination on the grounds of religion in "places of public accommodation" (including stores). However, a general store rule like the ban on hoods that happens to constrain a particular religion without deliberately targeting them is usually considered legal under Title II. Otherwise, stores would be unable to to adopt any customer dress restrictions at all. Any such code would violate the rules of at least some religions. Things might be different if the Jedi could prove that the ban on hoods was a deliberate effort to target their religious group. But that seems unlikely, though it may be that I just don't understand the true extent of the Dark Side's power.
So the question is - under subsection d - whether this rule can be "reasonably justified".
Are fanfics "canon?"
I thought they were idiots at the time. But they insisted they thought I might be about to rob them. Actually, I still think they were idiots. But there are more idiots than reasonable people, and some of them are armed. So, ever since then I've always totally removed full head gear before walking into stores.
"If he'd known they had a gat, he would have tipped his hat" would make a lousy epitaph.
Does this make the "Chad Vader" series discriminatory?
More seriously given that the wearing of turbans is accepted in Britain ubiquitously, as long as the hood is being worn fully on the back with the face clearly visible I would think it would be like those old Nun's habit hat/hoods.
Hats have been banned in many Canadian school situations for the simple reason they were being used to conceal (usually bladed) weapons. These bans don't apply to regularly accepted religious gear as I recall.
Why didn't Mr. Jones just use his Jedi mind powers on the store clerk?
Because Jedi´s tricks only work with weak minds
"What can you say?.....
Sith happens"
"I wonder if he was in Tesco's to buy a wookie burger. They aren't bad, just a bit chewie."
"May the farce be with him."
"Good. He deserves to be vicimized and humiliated.
People like him bring the rest of us sci-fi fans into disrepute."
"Apparently he was actually there to buy an Energy Saving Lightsabre."
".. or is it that Daniel Jones is the best religious commentator, ever."
"You don't need to see his identification.
- We don't need to see his identification.
These aren't the droids you're looking for
- these aren't the droids we're looking for
He can go about his business.
- You can go about your business.
Move along.
- move along.
There, easy! Perhaps he wasn't a real jedi though."
You just can't make stuff like this up. A religion *expressly* based on fiction, as opposed to religions obviously, but not admittedly, based on fiction. Simply awesome.
Why are you talking about scientology all of a sudden?
"Irked Aislewalker."
"Tesco's. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."
"They'll be laughing on the other side of their faces when their Tesco Metros are boycotted on the Ice Planet of Hoth"
and the last....
"This guy might not be all that stupid
The 23-year-old...founded the International Church of Jediism, which has 500,000 followers worldwide
Anyone who invents a religion with 500k members by the age of 23 is hardly a thicko.
Besides, I'd say it helps him get Leia-d. Wokka wokka."
No, no, how many times do I have to tell you, you idiot, that's Hedley Lamarr, not Hedy?
:-)
No, but there's a push to require new light sabers be safer.
This is probably more related to the general distaste for "hoodies" in the UK. They are apparently seen as gang regalia, and it is apparently legally acceptable to prohibit or limit their wear. For example, here ( http://www.metro.co.uk /news/article.html?Judge_right_to_issue_hoo die_ban&in_article_id =394671&in_page_id=34 ) is a news item about an ASBO ("Anti-Social Behaviour Order) that prohibited the subject from wearing one.
PS. I don't know why I can never get the links function to work on this site, so you'll have to cut and paste to read the article. You'll have to remove spaces (but not underscores) from the link in order to use it, since it is otherwise too long to post.
Downfall wins the thread!
Which is why he'll wait until he is in court and facing a judge and lawyers.
If so, then how does The Stig go anywhere in England?
Which makes me sympathetic to them.
Though obviously a Jedi hood and a KKK hood are a little different.
However, if they are believers, then "Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda and Luke Skywalker all appeared hoodless without ever going over to the Dark Side and we are only aware of the Emperor as one who never removed his hood." would more than justify an anti-hood rule.
Reminded me of:
"I think Watley has converted to Judaism just for the jokes!"
"And this offends you as a Jewish person?"
"No, it offends me as a comedian!"
But that does not mean that the religious beliefs of others qualify as evidence for yours. The reason why you can't plead your religious beliefs to get out of a robbery charge is that a) you'd have a hard time convincing the court that that belief is sincerely held, and b) outlawing robbery is a common sense/reasonable limitation on your religious freedom.
+1
That's the beauty of being one of the truthgivers in a religion. You can interpret the sacred text (be it a Bible, a Koran, a Torah scroll, an Oscar-worthy film, a screenplay) as you see fit.
For the average adherent, there is still plenty of wiggle room. Bible believers pick and choose seemingly at whim, and I assume other religious texts have the same fate.
By the way, 500,000 followers at age 23 is impressive. Plus, he's in on the ground floor.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.