Veils
While we're on the air tonight we expect a decision in the employment tribunal case brought by the muslim teaching assistant who refused to take off her veil in class. Care to post your reaction here?
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
The PM Privacy Commission
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
- Full Audio and Transcripts
- Hugh Tomlinson QC
- Zac Goldsmith MP
- Max Mosley
- Stephen Abell
- Hugh Grant
- Sir Charles Gray
- Alan Rusbridger
- Helen Wood
- Max Clifford
- Marcus Partington
- John Kampfner
- Christopher Graham
- Louise Mensch
- Andy Trotter
- John Mullin
- Avril Sanders Royle
- Jimmy Wales
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
Well, I guess she's probably entitled to something for her feelings ....
It's all a bit sad, really. There are two sides to the story, after all. Does that sound like somebody sitting on the fence (rather than the ledge)?
If she can't wear her veil, how about an
xx edAnother serious blog already?
On wearing the veil itself: I do some teaching myself in a University setting and there can be enough trouble in communicating with students/pupils without cutting off a fairly large part of visual communication i.e. facial expression. I know *I* couldn't teach that way.
On the victimisation issue: I'm sure we haven't heard all the relevent details. On what I have heard, I'm sceptical whether that payment was justified, but I'm inclined to trust that the tribunal's decision was taken with more info than we know.
I hope we can hear from some veiled Froggers on this one.
If she can't wear her veil, how about an
invisibility cloak?
I had one if those, but I lost it.
(SB15th person to make that joke...)
Once again the verdict is being appealled, who is paying for this apeal I sincerely hope it is not the tax payer. This is the usual PC gone mad teachine with a piece of cloth that obscures your face should never be allowed
It's just a question of being civilised to other people you come into contact with. Wearing a veil in a situation where most people don't expect it is just being rude and insensitive to the majority of the society around you. What would you say if I wore a balaclava to a class I teach?
Fellow froggers,
Sorry if the previous post was in any way offensive. I'm actually very much with the MP and the idea of common sense, and I also wish the lady concerned well in her attempt to get further redress.
It is a tricky business, but you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
xx
ed
I'm glad the tribunal have found in her favour. I hate shaven heads, tatoos and face furniture but it's not illegal to look like that. Why are we making such a fuss about a small piece of translucent cloth?
My son is Half Asian, if he were in a School with a teacher with a veil, I would be most unhappy?.
A picture tells a thousand words, facial reactions are often worth more than words. AG
I have been abducted by aliens on many occasions and consider myself to be something of an expert on their ways and customs.
I can confirm that I have never seen, nor heard report of, a female alien wearing a veil.
Of course male aliens are a different kettle of fish.
I am surprised that no mention has been made of deaf children in the classroom who are now fully included in mainstream education. Advisory teachers always advise, 'hearing impaired children must have an uninterrupted view of the speaker's face'.
Do women teachers in Saudi wear the veil? Do they find it possible to teach children? If so, and I think the answer is yes to both questions, why is it impossible for children in the UK to be taught by such a teacher?
I wonder how Ms Azmi would feel if any of her colleagues conronted her wearing say, a Ku Kulx Kan style hood? What's sauce for the goose etc. That said, the implications of her saying that she only keeps her veil on in the presence of males, I find deeply offensive.
I heard an interview with this woman where she said she loved people looking at her in the street when she wore her veil. she sounded like a small child seeking attention and I suspect that may be the crux of the matter.Children need to interact with their teacher and this involves facial expression - not possible in her case.She should put their needs first not hers.
I just wonder what backing she's getting. If it is OK to wear the veil, then presumably it would be OK to wear a full face helmet, or a mask etc etc. The school has a dress code, she did not wear the veil at her interview, so she didnt present herself honestly at that time. She was aware of the dress code, now she is making a stand. If she is not getting some "political" backing of some sort, I would assume she is one of those people who go through life looking to be insulted/oversensitive. Maybe just seeking attention - which is ironic when you think of it. Of course she can always walk down the street without her veil and no-one will know who she is... which cant be said of most people who lose tribunals.
PS it seems that the hurt feelings bit was because the school made some error in following the bureaucratic rules that always attend these sort of things.
I suppose Jack Straw has exactly achieved what he set out to do. Create hatred and despite all lies keeping the "fight against Muslim terrorism" alive. Very dangerous these politicians! Lies, lies and more lies!
I was just wondering if 'The Lady of the Veil' wore the veil at her interview, if so, was it discussed?
It seems to me that anyone who comes to Britain to live and work should respect our culture and not complain if we find their medieval practices unacceptable. If they don't like the way we do things here they should go back to whichever fly-blown, corrupt society they came from.
I am very interested in other cultures and welcome all the differences in dress, even religious dress. I don't have a problem with a woman wearing the veil and she can call it modesty, religion, whatever she wishes, but in this case the teaching assistant is disingenuous., and I have a problem with that. She went for the job interview appearing before a strange man unveiled, I imagine because she thought she had a better chance at getting the job. That she should be compensated for hurt feelings is a piece of nonsense.
It's not a bad idea wearing the whole outfit, and would be super for we older women, hiding our wrinkles, our undyed hair roots, the stain on our blouse. We other women should start a fashion movement.
AH
I saw a woman in Blackburn wearing the full black robe with barely her eyes showing. My first thought was that it was such a shame that the men in her culture's attitude had made her wear that in England. It has made me feel afraid that those same men want all women to dress like that- don't they trust themselves with westernised women in normal clothes? If we keep making concessions to the Muslim community will all women be required to wear that form of robe outside the home to avoid upsetting them?
I find the face covering robe very devisive in this country. Yes I can understand a woman covering her hair as a mark of respect to God and believe that this is really what the Koran meant. However the full robe with veiled eyes is a visible way the men in that society are able to treat the women as less than human. I feel sorry for any woman wearing that symbol of male domination. The male accompanying such a woman should feel very ashamed.
Children who are having some difficulties need to see the mouth of the person working with them, in order to hear and replicate the words and sounds being used. Without this visual clue children often confuse 'm' and 'n', 'b' and 'v', 'f' and 's', and 'th' and 'f'.
The teaching assistant would proabably not be able to do her job adequately with her mouth hidden.
The readiness of the young women who are set on wearing the veil to have thier views, and their faces in some cases, aired in the media makes a farce of their stated reasons for wearing it. The Koran requires Muslim women to be modest - can they not see that their ready acceptance of massive publicity vastly outweighs any modesty gained by wearing a veil?
Sikhs are allowed to war turbans in the British Armed Forces. However, when they are in 'Combat Kit' they remove the Turban and cover their heads with a protective helmet. This is both pragmatic and fair. A comparable solution should be adopted by wearers of the veil.
When I visit a Mosque I take my shoes off. When I lived in the Moslem part of Bosnia I took my shoes off when entering a house.If invited to a Synagog I would wear a hat.
Such actions and compromises are necessary to ensure social harmony. They cost little and produce social dividends.
A young Marine died in Afghanistan today and your news led with a story about a woman offended because she can't cover her face to do her job.Says it all doesn't it? When will Muslim women realise they are not a special case.My bank (HSBC) displays a notice depicting a young white male wearing a 'hoody' instructing it's customers that such items must be removed before they are served. My passport application gives similar instructions on what is acceptable in passport photos.What is the position when it's a Muslim woman wanting to be served by male bank clerks or applying for a passport?Why are they different?
I agree with Shaid Malik, what makes this country great is the diversity of cultures. He is right to point out that we have a code to adhere to at work and especially where children are concerned. My "normal" work attire is not what I wear when I am with friends or socialising with family.
I am getting more and more disturbed at the direction MY country is going. I lived with two Muslims in London is the mid-eighties and two better friends I have never had. I am not religious, being an absolute athiest [if that's how one spells it] but respect other people's right to practice whatever religion they want, even Christianity, despite the number of deaths it has caused. If this girl feels she wants to wear tye veil that is her absolute right. I, and nobody else, has the right to disagree with that right. If I ever have the misfortune to meet a New Labour MP, especially a minister, I would borrow a veil to meet him/her. If that 'servant of the people' made a comment then I would use a lot of the choice language 10 years serving my country in HM forces taught me. This is my country, as it is also the young lady suspended for exercising her right.
What she doesn’t appear to have understood, when telling politicians that veil-wearing Muslim women are not aliens, is that politicians are aliens.
One thing I forgot to add was that I believe that the young lady was perfectly willing to teach without the veil so long as no male person was present. That sounds a very reasonable stance to have. Her feelings, as well as Jack Staw's' should be taken into consideration.
I am really annyed by the court's decision. How on earth can they want to give this woman £1000 for doing something so educationally unsound as this? Apart from the fact that it severely limits communication, and is likely to scare younger children, the fact that she will only leave it on in front of male colleagues holds massive sexual discrimination issues. By extension, if she working with a group of older boys would she expect to keep it on, whereas be willing to give her best to female students? This completely blows equal opportunities out of the water. How can she expect to be taken seriously with this approach?
Children need consistency: she would be straight out of my classroom. This kind of aggressive action is likely to polarise opinion and encourage more Islamaphobia. I find myself uncomfortably in sympathy with the idea of inviting people like this to repatriate with their or their parent's country of origin rather than the laborious process of engagin and attempting to integrate them into our culture. I hope some decent Muslims will come on and condemn her unpleasant actions.
The male teacher should be compensated for his hurt feelings - he must have felt embarrassed that the woman felt she had to cover her face in front of him. The custom of being veiled in front of men outside the family is anachronistic, nothing to do with religion, everything to do a medieval society where women were captured in war. There is absolutely no good reason for a modern muslim woman to veil herself at work. It belittles men. It implies that all men are not in control of their feelings. I think veiled women are sinister. I think masked men are sinister. No one knows who is under the veil. She was working in a church of England School. The children may well have come from muslim families. In school they should be able to learn that in England there is no neccessity to go about swathed in a Burka, and muslim men should be able to respect women and realise that their having face and hair visble does not mean that they are immodest and prostitutes. I hope public disapproval of women being dressed like shuttle cocks will relegate the custom to fancy dress parties.
What about the feelings of the male teacher who Aishah Azmi felt it necessary to veil her face in front of. Does she think that men are such unrestrained brutes that they are incapable of civil behaviour in the presence a female face?
"It is a tricky business, but you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."
...especially on the web
Of course a piece of cloth matters (David Nicholson). It obviously mattered to this particular classroom assistant. But as another veil wearer speaking on 'The Moral Maze' suggested, such choices bring consequences and sacrifices may have to be made in the type of jobs you can do. A school has its work cut out accommodating the different abilities and difficulties of the children. It could not possibly organise its timetable etc around one classroom assistant.
On the PM programme (19 Oct) I had no difficulty understanding what Aishah Azmi, the Muslin teaching assistant, said wearing her veil, yet I had great difficulty understanding Ian McCartney, Minister of State (Trade), who I assume was not wearing a veil!
Had Ms Azmi informed the interview panel that she felt obliged to wear a veil when in the company of men she would not have been employed as this is clearly dicriminisation against men. [in the koran a "man" is any male over the age of 7!]
I think Ms Azmi must have known she wouldn't have gotten the job had she said this and her employment of the veil smacks of hypocracy and attetion seeking rather than religious fervor.
Kirk-Lees, you've been had!
My first reaction is how could this lady abuse her Employers goodwill in giving her a job in the first place. It is unimaginable that a muslim school would emoloy any female in the classroom who did not either belong to the faith or wear a covering over her head.
I then remembered the problem my school had with muslim dinner staff exerting pressure on children as young as 6 not following the fast. This included telling their parents when they didn't. It didn't matter that they had to learn, it was all about following a belief.
Perhaps the veilled threat is really the same as in most muslin countries and once in catholic ones, if you don't do as i beleive then you will suffer. The difference is that in the latter you are excomunicated in the former you loose your life.
All this undemocratic (for me), culturally-specific rubbish about having a dress-code, uniforms, etc. Grrr!
Is the solution not to outlaw all/any requirement for any dress code (via an EU Directive or, better, an EU Regulation?), with the logical conclusion that it would be OK to go nude or wear any form of clothing?
Thus Eddie Mair could dress as a nun should he want; it wouldn't make much difference to us since we don't see his face (in real time) when he is `talking to us'.
The facist `liberating' version would be to make us all wear the same suit/uniform, as during the .
Of course you Brits and others in the Irish Isles aren't going to take to going nudist, except possibly for your 12 days of summer ;-).
It does amuse us though that brides won't be able to wear veils if they are on the job, or rather won't have a leg to stand on if anyone complains. And, take off those shades, vicar.
I am not a small child any more, but when I was six I would have found an adult whom I never saw smile to be disapproving, because she or he never showed approval.
When I walk down the street, I smile at people I pass. It's a way of being friendly, isn't it? If somebody doesn't smile back, I feel snubbed. But I don't smile as readily at someone in a veil, because even if she smiles back I won't see it, so I am bound to feel snubbed... So I am put into a position where I am liable to appear less friendly to people in veils, and I don't like it.
This lady teacher said a couple of days ago that she didn't refuse to show her face in the classroom when only children (or presumably female colleagues) were present, but wouldn't take off her veil if there was a male colleague present. So if she was an assistant, and the class teacher was male, she would presumably have worn her veil. It must have been unsettling for the pupils if they saw that she was so mistrustful of their male teacher that she had to hide from him in this way, and might even have made them feel that the male teacher was someone to be mistrusted and to be afraid of. That seems very unfair on her male colleagues, to me.
Those of us who are blind or partially sighted are able to communicate effectiveky enough with little or no facial contact, why should it be a problem for others unless they have a hearing impairment.
I can understand someone who lip reads requesting a woman to remove the veil, but I find it far less intimidating than drunken louts with large tattoos and other embellishments of the yob culture.
Oh Eddie! I think you have gone all shy on us. This uncharacteristically sensible blog was posted just before you went on air, and then just before 6 you drew everyone's attention to the debate going on on the blog. You didn't want them to see the sort of thing that usually goes on here on the frog, did you? Ashamed, no doubt! How sad.
But perhaps I am misjudging you. You see, I am soooo suspicious of people when I can't see their faces.
?? translucent cloth? why should its translucency or otherwise be an issue? Do tell
I think it is unbelievable that we are allowing so much publicity to this woman and her veil,giving her the time to stir up trouble.Let her wear her veil in her home or at her communtity activities ,but when out in the general community it is totally unacceptable,especially in the role she had teaching young children,if she wants to be a teaching assistant then she must follow the dress code ,which the majority of us have to do every day. Listening to her on the radio interview this afternoon with a threatening attitude ,unfortunately when she appeals or goes to the Human court of Justice they will be too scared to say the right thing incase it offends .We are governed from afar, my point of view is at times we have to stand up for what is right ,we are too liberal.
Just because a belief, in this case that wearing a veil is both modest and pious, is sincerely held does not absolve the believer from the consequences of her action. She does not intend to prevent a child from communicating effectively with her. I assume she does not intend to insult all men she meets by the implied suggestion that they are all sexual predators. She does not intend that people should view her as some kind of alien.
However the unintended consequences of her actions are that, according to her employers, some children are unable to communicate well with her; that some men are deeply offended by her perception of them; that she may unintentionally be teaching the children to be fearful of men; and that many ordinary people regard her actions as alien and even hostile – not least because when she defends her position they cannot see her face. Sixty percent of the information we use when interacting with each other comes from non-verbal communication. We do regard a blind person as suffering a disadvantage because so much of this non-verbal communication is denied to them. I believe that because these are among the consequences of concealing your face it is wrong to do so.
But the need to be aware of the unintended consequence applies to all of us, particularly to politicians and the media ( and by extension froggers). It is especially important that a debate such as this is conducted with respect for each others views. No-one should equate disagreement with disrespect.
I have a friend who once quite literally poked a stick into a hornets nest – she didn’t intend to get stung, but she was. I don’t suppose it did the hornets much good either.
Rohit @ 12,
Women teachers in Saudi? Unlikely.
I'd like to support women's right to wear the veil, but the comment about brides above reminded me how offensive I find the idea of the virginal bride removing her veil for her new husband that I think I find this kind of veil even more offensive. I do want to encourage integration and peace between all peoples but I think a country like this should be forward thinking and should not support the wearing of the veil - or the revealing of the body that so many young women feel they have to do these days (I speak as a red-blooded male) as that is just as oppresssive as having to cover up and be ashamed of your body. At the end this is not a muslim country and tolerating Islamic faith is one thing but it doesn't mean we should put it above our belief in equality.
Nothing to do with today's issue - just a minor irritation, newly observed. The time, when given as am or pm does not require 4 digits. So 04:48pm shown at the start of the blog should read 4.48pm or 16:48.
Quite sad, really......
This ridiculous woman seems intent on creating disharmony and should be counselled to find a position of employment where this divisive garment is acceptable – or go the whole distance and stay at home out of sight. Clearly at each and every mention of this affair in the media the odious BNP gains hundreds of votes. I recommend we follow the French route regarding headwear.
After carefully reading all the posts submitted I think Anne P (#43) has in my view eloquantly summed things up -- however it was a short comment from Jean Warburton (#24) that I really empathise with.
This was Jeans post :
A young Marine died in Afghanistan today and your news led with a story about a woman offended because she can't cover her face to do her job.Says it all doesn't it? When will Muslim women realise they are not a special case.My bank (HSBC) displays a notice depicting a young white male wearing a 'hoody' instructing it's customers that such items must be removed before they are served. My passport application gives similar instructions on what is acceptable in passport photos.What is the position when it's a Muslim woman wanting to be served by male bank clerks or applying for a passport?Why are they different?
-------------------------------------------
I think the media is becoming desensitized to the continuing atrocities and Editors should still properly prioritise what's really important.
I can't see why Aishah Azmi ever thought she had a case. She was interviewed with a man present and did not request to put on her veil, so why does she insist on wearing it now in front of (presumably the same) men?
Most of us conform to some kind of uniform rules at work, most of which are for pretty good reasons of health and safety, recognisability etc and we accept these.
On a personal level I would perfer to see people's faces when I talk to them, and I would hate to wear a veil, but I respect other people's rights to dress as they choose out of work.
Sarah (#40)
You are probably right! I love the silly stuff as that's what makes life fun and worthwhile but it's quite fun to have an intellectual one on the side isn't it?
Been very interesting reading the posts tonight though - better than a phone-in for me. Watching question time now and you can guess what most of the programme is about.
I feel a little guilty about my earlier comments re:editors. I was from a media background and the golden rule was 'if it's being talked about in the pub then that's what you should lead with" (if you aren't breaking a story of course). After re-thinking my earlier submission I guess 'the veil' was the breaking story~~
Thank goodness for Doc H (@27) - otherwise this would be a very dour frog indeed - and utterly unrepresentative of what usually goes on here. I've already expressed my upset at this case but did not, whilst doing so, present a particular point of view - I'm not sure I had one. Reading these comments makes me more convinced than ever that the vast majority of people would have benefited from having had a fully veiled teaching assistant. Just imagine it: "oo, Miss is wearing a funny mask" leading to "yeah, right, god, don't you know that some muslim women wear a veil" leading to "what does it matter? We're all brits!"
There is a world of difference between plausible arguments (those that stand on tenets that might be right) and valid ones. Does nobody consider the value of having veiled teachers/teaching assistants as a matter or course?
OK, I accept that there are procedural issues relating to this case - an accepted dress code, etc. But this is peripheral to much of the argument going on here. Howvever, it is worth mentioning that such "playing the game" exists everywhere - I suspect that every man on this frog has worn a "best" suit for an interview at one time or another. I know I've done so - only to be reminded later that when I "popped in" to check some details, a secretary was shocked by my scruffy leather jacket and ear-ring. Of course, this was not my "work attire", but the ear-ring eventually appeared and I wasn't sacked.
Finally, I would just like to ask Brian Meliot (@13), do you really find the woman in question wearing her veil in the presence of men "deeply offensive"? Or, in truth, do you find it slightly irritating? A bit annoying? An affront to your view of "Britishness"? My suspicion is that you simply would prefer it not to be. (Incidentally, if you want to address this from a pedantic angle, grab your dictionary because it will come to your aid - but we all have an instinctive feeling for what "deeply offensive" means.)
Despite this diatribe, I cannot say that this woman should have been allowed to continue in her position - I simply do not know the details of the case, nor the attitude of the woman involved. But I do think that some of the views expressed here are worth challenging - it is too simpistic to say that a child needs to see a person's face to understand what is being communicated. It seems to me that the truth of the matter - assuming that the majority of the people contributing here are adult - is that adults cannot imagine being able to do so. Is this not more the root of the distrust of veils? Children go, "oh", make a mean comment or two and get on with it. Big people construct ideological divides.
Having just constructed a huge comment on this, I realise that I did not even touch on the "newsworthiness" of a death over an employment tribunal. This is part of what was going through my head when I posted my comment about "Thinking Allowed" earlier. We do need to realise though that deaths happen all the time - and in no way do I mean to deminish the individual suffering that goes hand in hand with each and every death that occurs the world over. A country involved in a significant military exercise will incur fatalities. People die in incredible numbers on the roads every day of the year. If we truly valued all lives, then I think the way we live on a daily basis would be very different.
This does not take away the need to discuss the ideological and philosophical aspects of how we live. This is how we judge the status of a life lost - Wasted? Or spent valiantly in pursuit of some higher goal? That this is subject to political spin makes it ever more important that it is discussed and perhaps explains why it receives such attention. As never before, I think, we are beginning to believe that these issues are related to our place in the wider world.
Oh heck, how am I going to sleep tonight - I'm going to believe that I'm all serious. Perhaps I shall lock one of the dogs out - for a laugh.
Re: (#50) John H
Just off to bed but thought I'd have a quick nudge of the blog :-) It's Sooooo addictive ..
When you used the word 'diatribe' at the beginning of your last paragraph which meaning did you intend ?
I guess it was probably 1 or 3 but ...
well.. just can't make my mind up!
Now off with a cuppa to bed, and looking forward to a walnut Whip in the post.
1 archaic : a prolonged discourse
2 : a bitter and abusive speech or writing
3 : ironic or satirical criticism
The real problem seems to be that religious people, of almost any religion, seem to think that their own beliefs should have some sort of protection not afforded to others.
Over the last couple of years, we've seen hoodies banned in many places. I was recently told I must remove my baseball cap in order to enter a shop. Although these decisions may be stupid, nobody has yet suggested that they are discriminatory. Similarly, it is not discriminatory to insist that teachers don't mask their faces.
But this is not just an issue for Muslims. A Christian worker last week felt that she was entitled to ignore her employer’s dress code (and wear a cross). She seemed to think that her choice of jewellery should be protected because she is religious.
People should be free to practice their religion behind the closed doors of their homes, and their mosques/churches/synagogues/temples. But they do not have a right to confront me with their religion.
Religious speech and religious expression should not be tolerated in public, it certainly MUST NOT be afforded any special protection.
A lot of the comments were posted before the post-tribunal press conference was broadcast, or, at any rate, before I heard it.
There was what I feel to have been a telling point which may have been lost on many viewers / listeners. Ms Azmi is / was a teaching assistant but in her statement she said that she was "perfectly capable of teaching the children". That was not or should not have been her role. The teachers teach, the assistants assist, and all the teaching assistants I have known over the past 28 years have taken pains to preserve this distinction. None would have claimed to teach the children. This "slip of the tongue" could be indicative of other matters not germane to her claim but significant in the overall performance of her duties.
She also said:
"Muslim women who wear the veil are not aliens".
Well, in many cases they are. If they are not British citizens, they are aliens. Consult the dictionary of your choice and see how far down the list is the "outer space" reference which I think she intended.
As to the enquirer about the costs of the case, Ms Azmi thanked her legal team from Kirlees Law Centre. My understanding is that such as these are publicly funded, in part from local taxation. If Kirklees has a large number of muslim council tax payers and they are content, then the enquirer need have no great concern.
Having heard her speak [and seen her veil which appeared not to be translucent (although I suppose all textiles are)] I fear that she and I would not get along well with each other.
Colin,
I fear that you have conflated two disparate scenarios.
The airline and the cross is altogether different. There is no allegation that it prevents proper performance of duty.
The airline missed a trick by allowing some items with religious connotation e.g turban, but objecting to the wearing of a visible necklace with cross. If they had banned "necklaces" on health and safety grounds rather than focusing on this one as a religious artifact, it would have been a different matter. As it is, they were not being even handed.
Rhys,
I may have conflated two disparate scenarios, but I don't think so.
I have no idea whether a veil prevents a teaching assistant from assisting, or whether a cross or a turban prevent check-in assistants from checking in.
My point is that in all of these cases the people involved felt that their religious beliefs should have made them immune to their employer's dress codes. They appear to think that their religious expression should have sort of protection. Wrong. It doesn't and shouldn't.
If only people would keep their religion to themselves, these cases wouldn't have arisen.
Life would be a lot more pleasant for just about everyone if folk didn't thrust their religious beliefs on others. If I want to know your religion (which I don't), I'll ask.
Of the two principles, "respect for religious views" and "equality between the sexes", the latter IMHO is by far the more important.
i do think, having heard the young woman, that she is glorying in her role, and enjoys being a 'martyr' for her beliefs. Self inflicted martyrdom is a pain.
re 19: be proud of your wrinkles!! I think both men and women show their character and strength the older they get (and character and strength grows with age).
In the absence of another early post from Eddie, I'll add an unrelated comment here. Do you think that anybody else will be "annasee-ed" this week? By which I mean have the dubious pleasure of having a comment read out in a slightly silly voice. If so, then I suspect that with the injection of seriousness, the PM frog may well be being subverted. I'm not usually given to conspiracy theories, but...
I just got the 16.35 newsletter from yesterday at 8.53 this morning - is this a record (round, black, hole in the middle...)?
Sop
Morning, John H. You know, you may be on to something there... I think it's our solemn (!) duty to maintain the silliness quotient of the frog.
I'm just surprised no-one has said anything about "veiled critisisms"...
Newsletter arrived here at 09:05.
Heard a discussion on 'You and Yours' on Tuesday about teaching history backwards - perhaps Edie is preparing new materials for the National Curriculum?
The newsletter arrived at 0908 20/10/06....
The veil is not translucent cloth, David Nicholson, it is a deliberate concealment of the face with a substantial opaque piece of fabric. Making lip reading impossible for deaf people.....
I can't help wondering who is backing her in taking this all the way to Europe as is threatened, and what the consequences for all sides might be if that happens.....
Sad times.
When I went to school I had to wear an olive green knitted balaclava.
As one who works in a school, albeit secondary, I can assure you we have police checks before we start and have the usual employee protection laws in place. Therefore a school - both in classrooms and corridors - should be a place where any woman is perfectly safe from sexual or other advances. I think this young woman is being rather insulting to her colleagues. If she feels she has a problem with one she should say so.
Yesterdays Newsletter finally turned up at 9:15am today - I'll look forward to receiving todays when I log in on Monday...
Yes John H, I do find the implications of her refusal to unveil in the presence of males deeply offensive - that is my privilege. I would also be offended if someone wearing say, a motor-cycle helmet refused to take it off when we were trying to have any sort of discussion. I also wonder what she would do if she took a driving test - how would she prove her identity to a male test examiner? What does she do at Passport Control?
Ahh, back to the silly world of Eddie (not intended to disparaging, BTW)
'Morning, regulars (John H, FF, etc.), and welcome to newer or more intermittent visitors.
My newsletter arrived at 09.22 a.m. today.
Should there be a competition to find out whose arrived latest?
Eddie's having a lie in.
He thought yesterday was Friday. There may be a problem today.
As a side-issue to the current discussion on veiling, there is an increase in vitamin D deficiency (rickets in children, osteomalacia in adults) among people living in northern latitudes and wearing all-covering clothes designed originally for hot countries.
We need sunshine on our skin to convert vitamin A to D as we get little vitamin D from our diets. Even fair skinned, unveiled, northerners may suffer vitamin D deficiency in winter.
In the summer here (and in many other places) I can happily and freely walk around wearing shorts, sleeveless tops etc. But whenever I have travelled in Muslim countries I am obliged to cover up arms and legs, wear a long skirt or trousers etc regardless of the heat because that is the culture of the country and we were (and did) respect that! The point I am trying to make is that no-one is and should ever try and take away the person's right to practise whatever religion they choose. However they should respect the culture of the country they are in. I would not dream of wandering around a Tunisian market in a bikini because that would be considered offensive and I am happy to comply. The culture of this country dictates that face to face contact is polite, the veil does prevent this - and as it has been said time and time again, the veil is not a mandatory element of practising Islam - it is a matter of personal choice, Therefore to comply with our culture and beliefs I feel it should be removed.
John (58),
I commented in the previous thread that Manveen would be browsing this lot, with my thoughts that if anything were read out today, it would probably be from the more serious comments in this thread.
As an aside, at the local bank one of the staff used to wear the head-scalf (I'm not going to attempt to spell the word), and seemed pretty strict about it. But then she stopped wearing it, and now even has "hair-dos".
Are they really thinking of taking this case to Europe? Who needs a silly frog when real-life always holds the trumps.
I've often thought that rather than saying "in trumps", it should be "in no trumps", that being the highest scoring suit, as it were.
I am also a Muslim Teaching Assistant and the attitude of the lady in question has infuriated me.
She went to the interview for the job in front of a 'strange' man without her veil on, and only began wearing it in class. This implies that she applied for the job on false pretences. As other people have pointed out children MUST see peoples faces when they are working with them, not only children who have hearing impairments but children with learning difficulties and children whose first language is not English.
Wearing Niqab (a veil over her face) therefore affects her ability to do her job.
Also she is working in a primary school. The vast majority of primary schools have very few men going in and out of classrooms, let alone working there. Surely she could have come to some arrangement where a man entering a room would give warning so that she could drop her face covering back down while he is present, and put it back up for the rest of the time when she is working with the children.
Britain is a wonderfully multicultural country and I am very glad to be able to send my own children to a school where they feel normal speaking two languages and having parents from two different cultures and continents is something to celebrate, not hate.
Lastly I as British convert to Islam find Niqab very strange - in the Quran it says to cover everything apart from your face and hands, so why would women cover their faces only to have to take it off to go on Hajj... It is illogical and dangerous for lots of reasons Vitamin D deficiency, not able to see well, even crossing the road is dangerous, and it IS a security risk- look at the Algerian war of Independence.....
I can't help but feel that this debate about the veil is in dire need of a little calm common sense. As a western feminist I fundamentally disagree with the whole idea that a woman should cover herself to protect against the attentions of men. I believe that men should see women as equals and not just as sexual beings. However, the idea that society should in someway dictate to people how they dress in normal public settings is abhorrent. That the teaching of young children & the covering of the face are incompatible is evident, but for our politicians to be weighing in on matters of (in this case women's) dress is just inflammatory.
I've found Halah's comments very interesting, along with many others. Without a doubt, this is a deeply complex issue. I've been trying really hard to think of a comparable issue, and failed. The furore some years ago around the issue of turban wearing is the nearest I can get but, as was pointed out on Question Time last night, the bottom line there was that a person's identity is not obscured by a turban and the issues debated at the time, as I remember, related more to complying with uniform requirements (e.g. for the police force) and safety requirements (e.g. motorcycle helmets).
What is more at issue here seems to be the effect that wearing of the veil has upon the person who is trying to interact with the veil user in this country . I think we do have to accept that, in this country at least, the veil is worn by women of their own volition, and therefore it is muddying the water to bring in issues relating to strict Muslim societies.
But in this country our communication does involve facial expression and we are unaccustomed to communicating with the veil. Moreover, Muslims do need to appreciate that our culture has long associated the concealment of facial features with highwaymen, robbers, and other figures of fear and distrust. I do not intend that comment to offend a single Muslim, it is simply a statement of fact, as can be attested by the problems over the years with balaclavas, hoods, and masks. With a will, we might be able to accommodate the veil - or not. I simply do not know. It may be that, in this case, Muslims may be advised to try to accommodate the culture prevalent in this country, a culture which, like Islam, have evolved over centuries and for different reasons.
Thoughtful travellers have always tried to accommodate local differences and moderate their behaviour and appearance to met such differences. In the days of Franco, it was a prisonable offence to reveal too much flesh away from the beach, and similarly Beatle cuts were prohibited. British travellers, for a while at least, had to observe those requirements or risk fines or imprisonment. And, during the period in question, it is quite probably true that the majority of Spaniards would have been deeply offended by the exposure of flesh on their streets, though I'm not so sure about the haircut issue! Whatever Britons thought about this at the time, they largely complied. Visitors to Muslim countries similarly comply to the requirements expected of them or risk causing deep offence or, in some cases, punishment.
In this respect, I think it is good that a debate has now opened in Britain to try to work out the boundaries for our own tolerance. As somebody observed recently, we don't condone murder or incest, and while these are extreme examples, they do illustrate the fact that our society does not tolerate everything. But these extreme examples do serve to illustrate the main point of what I'm trying to say, namely, there must be an acceptable rationale for whatever society decrees to be okay/not okay, and such decisions should not be based upon the distaste of a few.
Thanks, John (50).
This Muslim dress code is designed to prevent men from being tempted to sin by the sight of a woman. If this religion required men to go around blindfolded, except in the private presence of their wives, it would achieve the same moral effect. I wonder why that idea never caught on?
jonnie, 52, interesing question. Armed with the new knowledge you present, it's clear that I was reviving the archaic use. However, it might also be that I was using it in a self-mocking way, allowing others to dismiss my rant for what it was.
Thanks, Brian (66). I'm not really the sort of person who believes he can dictate to others what they feel, even if, in my naivety, I seek to influence them.
My question for the day, which is already interfering much to much with the work that needs doing, is rather ill formed. However, it's something like "what do the things that offend us tell us about ourselves as people and as a society?" Earlier in the year, there was a huge controversy over the publishing or otherwise of some Mohammed cartoons. There was much discussion about the rights and wrongs of free speech and, in the UK, some degree of incredulity that (some) followers of one of the world's major religions could react so violently to what was considered a fairly trivial matter. It seems to me that this made an implicit comment on what we expect others to find offensive or not. I clearly need to think about this some more.
A lot of people frogging here point out that there are norms and behviours in Britain that should be respected above all other things. This is clearly very valid and is something else I shall have to ponder. However, this is the same Britain that has progressively introduced legislation in an attempt to eradicate discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, religious beliefs, (dis)ability and, most recently, age. All of these have recognised that there are norms and behaviours in Britain that actively discriminate against people on the basis of these things and that they should be changed. If this woman has flouted the terms of her employment, then maybe she should be sacked. Personally, though, I think it might be worth asking if the assumptions embedded in those terms of employment are in the best interests of our society. The argument that we should ban veils because some people find them threatening - we rely on facial expressions to communicate - might be better addressed by exposure to people wearing veils and developing an ability to "not to be threatened". Imagine where such an appreciation of cultural diversity might take us.
Anyway, there's these three women walking down a street, one of them's catholic, one of them's muslim and the other's jewish...
Would being asked to remove my shoes if entering a mosque discriminate against me?
John H:
I'm not sure if the last paragraph was directed at my posting, and I apologise in advance if I'm mistaken. But to clarify: I've certainly not intended to imply that the veil should be banned, let alone on the basis that some people find them threatening.
The point I was trying to make, possibly clumsily, is that
(a) in our culture, covering the face has, in many cases, negative connotations, including the ones I mentioned;
(b) it may help those who are advocating use of the veil to understand that this does make the wearing of the veil problematic for many others in this country. We are simply not accustomed to dealing with it.
I would add a (c) to this, namely, that we are nowadays a nation living against a backdrop of fear, and the inability to identify people does not help this. It is my belief that, were we not feeling threatened as a nation, we might well feel less uncomfortable with the veil. However rational or irrational these fears, we cannot deny that we experience them.
Your suggestion that this will decrease with increased exposure to veil-wearers may be valid, and I am sure that, in areas where there is regular interaction between Muslims and non Muslims, this may be happening in practice. But we are looking at Britain as it is. In the area where I live, I have only ever seen one veil wearer, about two years ago, and I considered her a very brave lady.
Personally, I have no deep felt dislike of the veil, as long as it is worn at the instigation of the wearer, and appreciate that it appears to serve a useful purpose for some women. But I cannot claim to feeling comfortable in its presence.
Eddie,
It's my understanding that the school concerned has a number of pupils from ethnic backgounds who need to learn English. So the fact children stuggle to understand Miss Axmi from beneath her veil was a bit of a hindrance to put it mildly.
School chiefs were perfectly within their rights to ask the lady to remove the veil during lessons, they it made it clear they were doing so for practical reasons. After all, if they were being discriminatory they wouldn't have said she could wear it in the corridors and staff room. Would they?
In my view this isn't about a Muslim woman's right to don a veil - it's about doing your job properly. I think you do have to wonder at the crediblity of a teacher who refuses to budge an inch even though it means her pupils' education will suffer. Did the lady wear the veil when she was being trained as a teaching assistant I wonder?
The Muslim Council of Great Britain says women don't even have to wear a headscarf in front of young children, let alone a veil.
There's no doubt that the debate about veils is a valid one. But that doesn't mean children should lose out because of it.
John H - you wear an earring? Hadn't got that picture - will need to revise my mental image of you. If you come to my house I will need to ask you to remove it so that I can see your earlobe properly - earlobe-twitches are a vital element of non-verbal communication.
I suppose all of the people who've taken over this thread of our meandering, friendly, sometimes serious, blog will be annoyed at my frivolous intervention - for what it's worth I'm broadly with John H. and also with Anne P. (43). I have no intention of elaborating - there's been far too much postulating already.
Fearless and John H, you are undoubtedly correct: with the injection of seriousness, the PM frog may well be being subverted. I'm not usually given to conspiracy theories, but... and I am very sad about it.
Rufus (63), alarmingly, I can believe that - we had to wear navy knickers at my (catholic) primary school. Really. But then I believe faith schools are a very bad idea anyway. Oh dear, is that another 'serious' issue for debate?
A thought - if this woman was so devout in her islamic faith, why was she working in a catholic school, where teachers are obliged to teach the catholic faith? As a catholic is would be sinful to promote belief in another faith.
I'm off to somewhere less intense.
There is an argument, put by Muslim scholars, that Muslim women who wear the veil in this country are demonstrating not modesty but spiritual pride and consumerist egotism. The point is that we know ourselves as a national community in part through the social rules we observe. Those who wear the veil and by so doing flagrantly show that their allegiance lies elsewhere can expect disapproval at the very least, as we (the non-Muslims) experience this act as intentional cultural transgression rooted (unlike the Sex Pistols, for example) in a hostile alien tradition.
Let’s face it, multiculturalism is discredited. It causes a cultural and moral erosion that leads to the value-free consumerist nihilism of the left in which all beliefs are equal. They are not. BNP, anyone?
Surely there is a direct line of complicity between women who voluntarily wear the veil in this country and religious dictatorships that sanction violence, sometimes murder, against women for contravening their male-supremacist dress codes?
I think any politician with the courage to ban the niqab and the hijab in all places where public money is used would be constructing a powerful and resonant new narrative. Bring it on!
I would have been happy whichever way the ruling went.
It seems patently obvious that there is a balance to be struck between the Ms Azmi's freedom and the need for her to do her job competently. The answer to that depends on the details of the situation, which I suspect none of us here know sufficiently (for example, the Practice Manager at Kirklees Law Practice had to correct the false impression that she is a language teaching assistant, on Today this morning).
Our courts (or, in this case, tribunals) are not perfect but I think they are prefereable to, say, a poll of blog commenters.
Eddie, please upset me quickly. I could do with an extra £1100. (Email me for delivery address)
David:
You do realise that you are also a blog commenter?
Big Sister (73 & 79)
Very refreshing to read balanced and thoughtful contributions to the debate on the wearing of the veil. I have found my opinion swinging one way and then the other.
I have no problem with anyone wearing a veil if they feel that their religion/culture demands it of them and they can still function normally in their work and don't present problems for others.
What I would have difficulty with would be if the veil became an emblem and its wearing was solely to mark a difference of culture or belief.
Living in Northern Ireland I know how divisive emblems and other devices can be - sometimes deliberately used to provoke but in many instances causing offence just by mere thoughtlessness.
OnTheLedge - Sure.
Big Sister (73) "decisions should not be based upon the distaste of a few."
I may have misheard, but I thought 95% of the 13,000 emails on Jack Straw's introduction of the topic agreed with him.
Define "mandate".
I just thought she looked really scary on TV. Don't our kids have enough nightmares to deal with? I wouldn't send a child to a school where a teacher could dress like that. Faces are so important to children when they are interacting with others.
I have no problem with women wearing a veil or anything else its their choice.
As for Middle East schools I think Muslim children learn well - they went to my University.
I think blind people get an education without seeing a face I also make phone calls.
I have worked in the Middle East where some countries are open enough not to impose rules on western women. We should show equal tolerance as a full liberal western democracy.
Would you vote to have a veiled individual represent you in parliament? If not, why not?
I wonder how the Speaker would react if he found himself face to face with half a dozen.
Hi Eddie
I was surprised with the Bishop of Bolton words. children from a secure and loving background can cope with Hallowe'en masks and costumes. My children loved them and so did their friends. The world has gone completely mad and no one is allowed to enjoy themselves any more.
I truly despair!!!!
Bina
Eddie,
I've been intrigued by the apparent political free-for-all on the subject of Islamic women who decide to wear 'the veil'. These women are adults and, by and large in the UK, freely choose to observe Hijab in this manner.
However, there are 2 major religions in this country (Islam and Judaism) which, as a matter of religious dogma, subject male babies to a painful and unnecessary surgical procedure to remove the highly-sensitive penile foreskin.
It seems strange to me that, on the one hand, our politicians apparently wish to take a stand on the issue of adult women's choice of clothing but seem peculiarly reticent to even start a debate on the barbaric practice of infant mutilation.
Rather than addressing the parochial issue of veiled women, perhaps Jack Straw would like to open a broader debate on why cruelty to children is tolerated in an apparently humane society, all in the name of religion.
Iain
So once again I come back to find the blog has got all serious. And LONG! How can I ever hope to catch up on it all. Can't, as am only home for a night, then off to a country where (I think) many of the women wear the veil. Very topical ! Will never forget my first experience in the middle East as a naive 20 something, seeing my first completely veiled women. Especially the black leather face masks around the eyes with cloth veils attached. I found it alarming. Interesting to see how many women still dress like that 20 years later. My suitcase is bulging with "modest" clothing - shame it all takes up twice as much space as the normal hot-weather kit. But the temperatures should be high 20's so that will make a change.
Aperitif - totally agree with you on the faith school view. In fact, we home educate because I didn't want ANY religious input. But we have good friends who home educate because they feel there is nowhere near ENOUGH religious input. So obviously schools can't please everyone, but home educators can (or at least please themselves...)
Getting boringly serious again.
Will look forward to reading more madness soon from the best blog available. (Still a bit suspicious of that silver fox though - I mean, he hasn't said ANYTHING rude at all, ever. Has to be a chat bot, surely.)
Iain,
I agree with your contention but, worryingly, there may be people relying on evidence that appears to support benefits of male circumcision. (You doubtless know this but I can't help airing my limited knowledge.)
The first was years ago, based on a study which claimed that the lower rate of uterine cancer in a jewish community was associated with circumcision. This proposition got a severe panning:
There's now another one claiming anti-AIDS properties:
Time will tell.
I need hardly say (but I can't resist) that there is significant difference in the consquences of circumcision and veil wearing. In the former case the result is not constantly brought to one's attention, except in certain trades or professions. In the latter case it is reversible.
Notice how I carefully avoided any reference to having it shoved in your face? Ah ...
Some 40 years ago there was an American psychiatrist (jewish) who had taken to the entertainment circuit. (I wish I could remember his name. It was something like Murray Lehmann,) In his act he claimed that jews are optimistic people: "When a boy is born, they chop a piece off before they know how big it's going to be."
VEILS = EVILS ??!!
innit?*
[and do you know how hard it is to type when you're dragging your knuckles up from the ground...? almost had to use an infinite number of my mates...]
* and no i'ain't. its just that I couldn't resist. I could have said LIVES but that woulda been confusing and even less funny
god its so embarressing that that comment is there from me - the worst of it is that it ain't funny!
I did say some serious thoughtsabout all this honest. probly.
i think most of u try to give no solution and just show what do they want and never think what does somebody want. i think professionalism could not be measurized by the wearing.