Poppy-wearing is not a trivial right

Let's hope that wearing a poppy will not become as charged a political statement as the US flag lapel pin did during Obama's election campaign . Poppy-wearing – or non-poppy wearing – should be seen as a harmless individual choice and not a matter for controversy. The symbol is meaningful, of course: we exercise our autonomy and our protected right to individualism through such choices, and they form a meaningful part of our lives. The poppy is not a fashion statement. It is part of a cultural, historical, and political discussion, it is our chance to participate in a national event, and it is a community identity. It is different for each of us, but communicates certain commonly held values. Almost a year ago I wrote about Abercrombie & Fitch , a clothes company whose "look policy" was getting them into difficulties with employees whose personal appearances and physical disabilities did not square with their image, resulting in lawsuits on both sides of the Atlantic. Abercrombie & Fitch has a sister company called Hollister which describes itself as "the original Southern California lifestyle brand, laidback and effortlessly cool" and emblazons the date 1922 prominently on its website and labels, yet Hollister was founded in 2000. Last year I wrote about the extent to which Abercrombie & Fitch's search for aesthetic perfection was imperilling the rights of individuals it employed. Now Hollister has been in the headlines because Harriet Phipps, a 19-year-old shop assistant at the Southampton branch, was told to remove her poppy as it was not part of the uniform. At first she refused to take it off, but claims she was made to feel so "uncomfortable" that she eventually did. Hollister initially said that it was investigating the incident, but later said it had reviewed its policy and staff may now wear a poppy just on Remembrance Day. A spokesperson said that "the appearance of our models in the stores is a critical part of the A&F store experience, and therefore it is true that Abercrombie & Fitch has a strict dress code for its store associates," before adding that as a token of appreciation for the service of the military they would permit the wearing of the poppy on Remembrance Day itself. I believe it would be "effortlessly cool" of Hollister to relax, and leave their employees more room to be themselves. An easy view to take would be the irony that the choice to express oneself, or not to, was a hard-fought and cherished victory won by those we remember and lost on Hollister, which frets over the appearance of their in-store "models" and "store associates", but that would be a trite conclusion. Hollister is pursuing commercial ends, lawfully, and knows what it is doing. Unless we wish to live in a country ruled by the lowest common denominator of conceivable offence taken to public expression, Phipps should be free to wear her poppy whenever she chooses. The aesthetic rule of the Hollister company over their employees is neither simply a fashion story, nor merely an incident designed to send the marmalade-covered toast to the floor at the breakfast table, but an incident at the bleeding edge in the battle of personal autonomy and individual rights in our society. While Nadia Eweida's case against BA's uniform policy regarding the right to wear a crucifix waits to go to the European court of human rights, the Hollister/Phipps incident is a clear-cut example of an entirely secular symbol being displayed at no harm to anyone as part of an individual's right to say something about themselves, and to be perceived as more than just their uniform. When jobs are becoming scarce and we spend a large part of our life at work, these disputes test the relationship between us and the institutions who pay for our time, and for how we represent them. At the moment, there is no law or judgment preventing Hollister from banning the poppy, the World Aids Day ribbon, or any other secular symbol. The wearing of a poppy is not a trivial right: Phipps' story contains an argument about how much of ourselves we can bring to our employment, and how free we can remain while employed. How much can a company select employees on aesthetic grounds, and control how they appear? Part of Hollister's argument is to call people like Phipps "models" and "store associates" rather than shop workers, because in defining them otherwise they seek licence to be far more critical of personal appearance, far more choosy about who does and doesn't get to work for them, and what they must look like. This limits the rights of individuals to obtain employment irrespective of their appearance. Pink ribbons, coloured wrist bands, moustaches grown in November , badges, stickers, and paper flowers all now form part of our conversations about political and social issues. You may dismiss these trends as superficial, but for many they are valuable and meaningful, providing support to those suffering illness, and confidence to a generation which worries that their achievements will be forgotten. It is high time for a landmark judgment which protects our right to display these small symbols, not as markers of religious persuasion, but as symbols of our individualism, and in celebration of the freedoms we enjoy.