PDA

View Full Version : Veil row teacher sacked.


!<blocparty>!
Nov 24th, 2006, 03:40 PM
Veil row teacher sacked



Press Association
Friday November 24, 2006
EducationGuardian.co.uk (http://www.educationguardian.co.uk/)

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2006/10/20/azmi372x1192.jpg


A Muslim teaching assistant who was suspended for refusing to remove her veil in the classroom has been sacked.Aishah Azmi, 24, of Thornhill Lees, Dewsbury, west Yorkshire, was suspended on full pay earlier this year by Kirklees council and has now been sacked, sources said.
Last month, an employment tribunal dismissed three of Mrs Azmi's claims of discrimination and harassment but found that she was victimised by Headfield Church of England junior school in Dewsbury and awarded her £1,000 for "injury to feelings".
A Kirklees council spokesman said he could not comment on Mrs Azmi's employment status due to confidentiality rules.
Mrs Azmi's lawyer Nick Whittingham, of the Kirklees law centre, said the local education authority were involved in a disciplinary process against her but he was not aware that any decision had been reached.
Mrs Azmi said she was willing to remove her veil in front of children - but not when male colleagues were present.
Her case sparked a national debate on multiculturalism in Britain.
The prime minister, Tony Blair, said the veil row was part of a necessary debate about the way the Muslim community integrates into British society and said the veil was a "mark of separation" which makes people of other ethnic backgrounds feel uncomfortable.
The intervention by a series of politicians, which culminated in Mr Blair's remarks, were criticised both by the tribunal and Muslim community leaders.
The tribunal report said it was "most unfortunate" that politicians had made comments on the case which were sub judice.
The debate was sparked by the leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw, when he said that the wearing of full veils - or niqab - made community relations more difficult.
The government's race minister, Phil Woolas, demanded Mrs Azmi be sacked, accusing her of "denying the right of children to a full education" because her stand meant she could not "do her job" and insisted that barring men from working with her would amount to "sexual discrimination".
The shadow home secretary, David Davis, launched a stinging attack on Muslim leaders for risking "voluntary apartheid" in Britain, and allegedly expecting special protection from criticism.
Last month, Labour MP Shahid Malik, who represents Mrs Azmi's home town of Dewsbury, said the tribunal ruling was "quite clearly a victory for common sense" and urged her to drop her appeal against the tribunal's decision.
Mrs Azmi's claim was brought as a test case under the new religious discrimination regulations, the employment equality (religion or belief) regulations 2004.



---



Erm. Thoughts?

Apoleb
Nov 24th, 2006, 05:24 PM
The veil makes her incompetent for the job, because kids do need to communicate with facial expressions too, and this is part of education. I'm more worried about the comments of Blair and co, that the veil is a mark of separation. It only is this way if you chose to see it that way; it's like asking people to conform to society in order to be tolerent of them, which is quite contradictory to the concept of tolerence.

Kart
Nov 24th, 2006, 05:33 PM
Well I don't think the veil makes her incompetent but I don't really see how she could expect to be a school teacher without any men seeing her in the classroom.

Seems a sensible decision to me that she be advised to seek alternative employment.

I wish the politicians and media hadn't made such a big deal out of it though :rolleyes:.

Grachka
Nov 24th, 2006, 05:41 PM
The prime minister, Tony Blair, said the veil row was part of a necessary debate about the way the Muslim community integrates into British society and said the veil was a "mark of separation" which makes people of other ethnic backgrounds feel uncomfortable.
Tony is always going on about how Muslims, especially those born and raised here, are already part of British society. It therefore seems stupid to ask them to integrate into a society of which they already form a part. :confused: Besides, everyone knows that this "essential debate" was started because Jack Straw wanted to project himself as a grown-up who is unafraid of confronting controversial issues, ahead of the deputy leadership campaign, it has bugger all to do with the welfare of society.

I wonder if they will be asking the Sikhs to remove their turbans as part of their drive to bulldoze these walls of separation.

P.S. The woman's sacking was justifiable.

~Kiera~
Nov 24th, 2006, 06:31 PM
I wonder if they will be asking the Sikhs to remove their turbans as part of their drive to bulldoze these walls of separation.

The turban is different however. It is mandatory within the Sikh religion. The same cannot be said of the veil within Islam. It's a cultural thing in many instances. There are references in the Quran to covering all parts of the body except the face and hands. Thus, a scarf (hijab) covering the hair is acceptable.

Apoleb
Nov 24th, 2006, 06:33 PM
The turban is different however. It is mandatory within the Sikh religion. The same cannot be said of the veil within Islam. It's a cultural thing in many instances. There are references in the Quran to covering all parts of the body except the face and hands. Thus, a scarf (hijab) covering the hair is acceptable.

uh, for many schools of Islam, the veil as well as some other sort of coverings are mandatory. Why would you think a woman would cover herself this way if she didn't think of it as part of the practise of Islam?

!<blocparty>!
Nov 24th, 2006, 06:37 PM
I wonder if they will be asking the Sikhs to remove their turbans as part of their drive to bulldoze these walls of separation.


But, don't you think turbans are different in that they don't cover an entire face?

Grachka
Nov 24th, 2006, 06:47 PM
The turban is different however. It is mandatory within the Sikh religion. The same cannot be said of the veil within Islam. It's a cultural thing in many instances. There are references in the Quran to covering all parts of the body except the face and hands. Thus, a scarf (hijab) covering the hair is acceptable.
As Jorje said, in many cases it is mandatory. Besides, that wasn't my point. I'm saying that if you choose to say the veil creates divisions on because of being a cultural/religious symbol, you can't avoid demonising turbans in the same way.

But, don't you think turbans are different in that they don't cover an entire face?
No. Jack Straw claimed that he objected to the veil as a 'symbol' of separation, not a physical one. He didn't object to it on the grounds that the women's voices were muffled or whatever, but on the premise that the veil is a hypothetical religious/cultural barrier. Translation: he was uncomfortable because they didn't look or act like the majority. He should apply this logic to Sikhs in this case also.

It's all based on the erroneous belief that in order to function as a society, you have to all look, act and believe in generally the same way.

~Kiera~
Nov 24th, 2006, 06:49 PM
uh, for many schools of Islam, the veil as well as some other sort of coverings are mandatory. Why would you think a woman would cover herself this way if she didn't think of it as part of the practise of Islam?

As I said, it's more a cultural thing. Such as wearing the burqa in Afghanistan. Many women would love not to wear it, but their society imposes it upon them. Even now many women wear it for fear of reprisals, not because they think they need to in order to be a good Muslim.

Most Muslim scholars agree that the Quran does not insist upon the face being covered. It's certainly not obligatory to wear one in this country. It's their choice.

Apoleb
Nov 24th, 2006, 06:53 PM
Many women would love not to wear it, but their society imposes it upon them. Even now many women wear it for fear of reprisals, not because they think they need to in order to be a good Muslim.



What are you talking about? There are schools of Islam that think a woman should cover herself. Point is, this whole covering thing is part of the practise of Islam for a lot of women, especially for those that are willing to wear a veil in a generally hostile environment to such attire. :rolleyes: So let's not make it as if they are wearing veils just to be confrontational like some people like to believe. It's part of the practise of their religion.

dementieva's fan
Nov 24th, 2006, 06:58 PM
The government's race minister, Phil Woolas, demanded Mrs Azmi be sacked, accusing her of "denying the right of children to a full education" because her stand meant she could not "do her job" and insisted that barring men from working with her would amount to "sexual discrimination".

You have a "minister of Race" in UK? :tape:

!<blocparty>!
Nov 24th, 2006, 06:59 PM
No. Jack Straw claimed that he objected to the veil as a 'symbol' of separation, not a physical one. He didn't object to it on the grounds that the women's voices were muffled or whatever, but on the premise that the veil is a hypothetical religious/cultural barrier. Translation: he was uncomfortable because they didn't look or act like the majority. He should apply this logic to Sikhs in this case also.

It's all based on the erroneous belief that in order to function as a society, you have to all look, act and believe in generally the same way.


Mr Straw explained the impact he thought veils could have in a society where watching facial expressions was important for contact between different people.

"Communities are bound together partly by informal chance relations between strangers - people being able to acknowledge each other in the street or being able pass the time of day," he said.

"That's made more difficult if people are wearing a veil. That's just a fact of life.

"I understand the concerns but I hope, however, there can be a mature debate about this.

"I come to this out of a profound commitment to equal rights for Muslim communities and an equal concern about adverse development about parallel communities."

I think that this applies much more in schools where communication (i.e. facial expressions) between teachers and pupils is really important.

Infiniti2001
Nov 24th, 2006, 07:03 PM
I wonder if they will be asking the Sikhs to remove their turbans as part of their drive to bulldoze these walls of separation.

You can't compare head wear with facial wear ----apples and oranges my friend

veil
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2006/10/20/azmi372x1192.jpg

turban (the face is visible despite the beard)
http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/3307/dsc00604hl8.jpg
http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/4504/dsc00613sn2.jpg
http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/4443/img1869kj2.jpg

~Kiera~
Nov 24th, 2006, 07:20 PM
What are you talking about? There are schools of Islam that think a woman should cover herself. Point is, this whole covering thing is part of the practise of Islam for a lot of women, especially for those that are willing to wear a veil in a generally hostile environment to such attire. :rolleyes: So let's not make it as if they are wearing veils just to be confrontational like some people like to believe. It's part of the practise of their religion.

Where did I say they're doing it to be confrontational? If you read my post again, you'll notice I said "in many instances" it's a cultural thing. I didn't make a blanket statement as I'm aware there are different schools in Islam.

The fact is, in many instances, it is a cultural thing not a religious thing. I mentioned Afghanistan earlier because that highlights my point. Many women wore it because they had to, not because they wanted to. It didn't matter what they believed.

Certainly some Muslim women wear it because they believe their religion instructs them to, but I wasn't referring to those.

Martian Willow
Nov 24th, 2006, 07:42 PM
You have a "minister of Race" in UK? :tape:

No.

wta_zuperfann
Nov 24th, 2006, 09:33 PM
http://arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=89107&d=22&m=11&y=2006


Wednesday, 22, November, 2006 (02, Dhul Qa`dah, 1427)



Women Asked to Leave Seminar
Raid Qusti, Arab News


RIYADH, 22 November 2006 — A presenter from King Saud University at an international medical seminar at the King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center caused a stir yesterday when he insisted that all women — including medical and media professionals — leave the room before he would enter the room to give his presentation. Initially some women expressed consternation at the request, but later relented and left the room so the doctor and orthodox man could give his presentation about Islam and the ethics of organ donation and end-of-life issues.

Prior to the presentation by Dr. Yousef Al-Ahmed, the audience was informed that the doctor would not be in the same room with women when he spoke about medical ethics.

“We had to ask the female medical staff to leave the hall based on the sheikh’s request,” said a member of the organizing committee who preferred to remain anonymous.

“This is ridiculous,” said one woman, a medical professional and Muslim. “In the Grand Mosque in Makkah men and women pray together. Why are we being asked to leave? This guy knows a hospital is a mixed place. He should have realized that before he came,” she said. “I am being put in a very embarrassing situation.”

A Saudi woman who specializes in neuroscience said the doctor had no right to ask women to leave.

“We had every right to be there,” she said on condition of anonymity. “We were attending a scientific medical symposium. If he did not want to attend the symposium because it was mixed with men and women medical experts doing their job, that is his problem, not ours.”

After Al-Ahmed persisted on his request that women not pollute his presentation with their presence, event coordinators began urging women to leave so the event could continue. Two women reporters from Saudi Arabian Television Channel One and Saudi satellite channel Al-Ekhabriya were also told to leave the hall.

After the doctor was satisfied by the absence of women, he began to speak on medical ethics in an Islamic context. He said that a fatwa from the Council of Islamic Fiqh Academy has declared that it is permissible in Islam to turn off life-support machines once a patient has been declared brain dead.

“That condition applies only if confirmation is given by physicians of the cessation of brain activity and that the cessation is irreversible,” he said. He also said that according to the fatwa from the academy, it was permissible in Islam to remove organs from brain-dead patients, even if the heart was still pumping. “This was also approved by the Islamic Jurisprudence Council held in Makkah,” he said.

Islamic scholar Dr. Abdullah Al-Bar, another presenter, pointed out that many Islamic scholars in the Kingdom do not approve of removing organs from a body whose heart is still beating.

“Their position is that a person is not dead until all indications of death have appeared, such as the heart stopping, the stoppage of the blood system, or vital organs,” said Al-Bar. Debate among the men continued over how to determine when the soul of a human being has left the body. “Even Islamic scholars in the past could only identify that by certain signs such as eye movement toward one direction and blueness of the body,” said Al-Bar.




Although this incident did not take place in the West, it shows how uncomfortable people can be made when one's preferences are allowed. I read the Koran and never came across anything which demands separation of people by gender. In fact history shows that Mohammed's wife was a professional businesswoman who employed him. Therefore, there is no basis for the idea of gender separation. Moreover, the use of a burqa is NOT Arabic but is Persian-Afghani origin and Mohammed never required converts from those areas to continue the practice.

People should always be free to practice their religion in enlightened Western societies. But their preferences need not be accepted if they interfere with Western norms.

Rtael
Nov 24th, 2006, 09:53 PM
Well I don't think the veil makes her incompetent but I don't really see how she could expect to be a school teacher without any men seeing her in the classroom.

Seems a sensible decision to me that she be advised to seek alternative employment.

I wish the politicians and media hadn't made such a big deal out of it though :rolleyes:.


I don't really see why this was such a big issue against her...her wearing the veil doesn't not hurt anything, she can still communicate with, and teach, the kids. And it didn't say that she didn't want to be in the presence of men, she just didn't want to be near them without the veil. I don't really think there was reasonable grounds for firing here.

Lord Nelson
Nov 24th, 2006, 09:57 PM
I don't really see why this was such a big issue against her...her wearing the veil doesn't not hurt anything, she can still communicate with, and teach, the kids. And it didn't say that she didn't want to be in the presence of men, she just didn't want to be near them without the veil. I don't really think there was reasonable grounds for firing here.

She is teaching in a Christian coutnry and I believe she is teaching in a school that is part of the Anglican Church. She should abide by the culture of that country. So yes it should be a big issue. Can non muslim women not wear veils in Saudi Arabia? No of course not. In UK the conflict is not about wearing veils or not veils, it is about the fully covered veil over the face.

Kart
Nov 24th, 2006, 10:03 PM
I don't really see why this was such a big issue against her...her wearing the veil doesn't not hurt anything, she can still communicate with, and teach, the kids. And it didn't say that she didn't want to be in the presence of men, she just didn't want to be near them without the veil. I don't really think there was reasonable grounds for firing here.

The thing is though Rtael (in my understanding) she's covering her face from any male which basically means they can't come into the room, or even look in, when she's teaching but she would still wear the veil outside the classroom but still on school grounds.

So basically the entire male contingent on the school grounds has to accomodate her - the impracticality is why I reckon it's reasonable to dismiss her.

If she were willing to compromise I might feel differently but her own inflexibility hasn't done her any favours.

~Kiera~
Nov 24th, 2006, 10:27 PM
Interestingly, Mrs Azmi had attended her interview with a male governor without her veil.

Aside from the fact that might be considered to be deliberately deceptive it also raises the point of why, when she's clearly made exceptions in the past, she wasn't willing to do continue to do so.

wta_zuperfann
Nov 25th, 2006, 04:09 AM
In an earlier article it was suggested that she said that she cannot work in the presence of men. If her wishes were honored it would mean that the school district couldn't hire male teachers or administrators. Of course that would be illegal under UK law.

Now imagine if that male medical lecturer that I showed above demanded that all female personnel be permanently removed from his presence. How would that sit with everyone?

Nobody despises Islamophobia more than I. But the dismissal of that teacher is not a matter of Islamophobia. It is the preservation of the right of equal opportunity to teach, to administer, and the right of youth to have access to good education.

DevilishAttitude
Nov 25th, 2006, 10:41 AM
Good! :D

Hopefully the bitch will make some sort of *statement* and leave Britain and go back to Iraq or somewhere :)

Wigglytuff
Nov 25th, 2006, 10:57 AM
Veil row teacher sacked

Mrs Azmi said she was willing to remove her veil in front of children - but not when male colleagues were present.


this is really important. means that there should of been NO PROBLEM with her doing her job. none. the kids get to know her, see her face and her female colleagues and supervisors get to evaluate her work. so what the hell is the problem?

Wigglytuff
Nov 25th, 2006, 11:01 AM
The veil makes her incompetent for the job, because kids do need to communicate with facial expressions too, and this is part of education. I'm more worried about the comments of Blair and co, that the veil is a mark of separation. It only is this way if you chose to see it that way; it's like asking people to conform to society in order to be tolerent of them, which is quite contradictory to the concept of tolerence.

wow that is suck fucking bullshit.

for one she said she would take of her veil in front of the kids. secondly, a good teacher, or in this case teachers aid is a good teachers aid. veil or none.

!<blocparty>!
Nov 25th, 2006, 11:03 AM
this is really important. means that there should of been NO PROBLEM with her doing her job. none. the kids get to know her, see her face and her female colleagues and supervisors get to evaluate her work. so what the hell is the problem?

I'm assuming she had male colleagues in the school.

Wigglytuff
Nov 25th, 2006, 11:13 AM
I don't really see why this was such a big issue against her...her wearing the veil doesn't not hurt anything, she can still communicate with, and teach, the kids. And it didn't say that she didn't want to be in the presence of men, she just didn't want to be near them without the veil. I don't really think there was reasonable grounds for firing here.

exactly. all this says to me is that this shows how little ALL WOMEN are respected in that place.

why cant her teaching performance be supervising by other women? do the posters in this thread think that women are completely incompetent to supervise her work? do they think that women should not be allowed to supervise her? do they think that men have the right to ask a woman to reveal whatever part of her body they want to see on command? do they think that someone ELSE'S hatred and ignorance should force women to reveal themselves on command like dogs or do they think that these things are only true when it comes to Muslim women?

Wigglytuff
Nov 25th, 2006, 11:15 AM
I'm assuming she had male colleagues in the school.

so. she had female colleagues too. are you saying the women at her school are unfit to see her work unveiled?

actually that last part wasnt really a question. :(

!<blocparty>!
Nov 25th, 2006, 11:21 AM
so. she had female colleagues too. are you saying the women at her school are unfit to see work unveiled?

actually that last part wasnt really a question. :(

Good, because I have no idea what it means.

Wigglytuff
Nov 25th, 2006, 11:23 AM
Good, because I have no idea what it means.

check the edit. i left out the word her.

Wigglytuff
Nov 25th, 2006, 11:27 AM
in america, the ONLY valid reason a co worker, who is not a co teacher or assistant, has to be in the classroom when the teacher is teaching, is to do a peer or supervisor evaluation. so a male or female teacher doesnt have the right to just walk in, during a lesson because THAT is more disruptive and problematic than any veil will ever be. and this is true for all teachers.

and there are PLENTY of women muslim teachers who teach in veil in NYC and do just as well a job as any other, and students dont respect that teacher any less because of the veil.

!<blocparty>!
Nov 25th, 2006, 11:31 AM
are you saying the women at her school are unfit to see work unveiled?

Uhm, that... has nothing to do with anything I (or anyone else) said. :scratch:

I just read your last post and clearly... it's useless. :wavey:

Sam L
Nov 25th, 2006, 11:41 AM
Uhm, that... has nothing to do with anything I (or anyone else) said. :scratch:

I just read your last post and clearly... it's useless. :wavey:

:lol: You did try. It was a good effort on your part. :)

Wigglytuff
Nov 25th, 2006, 11:43 AM
http://arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=89107&d=22&m=11&y=2006


Wednesday, 22, November, 2006 (02, Dhul Qa`dah, 1427)



Women Asked to Leave Seminar
Raid Qusti, Arab News


RIYADH, 22 November 2006 — A presenter from King Saud University at an international medical seminar at the King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center caused a stir yesterday when he insisted that all women — including medical and media professionals — leave the room before he would enter the room to give his presentation. Initially some women expressed consternation at the request, but later relented and left the room so the doctor and orthodox man could give his presentation about Islam and the ethics of organ donation and end-of-life issues.

Prior to the presentation by Dr. Yousef Al-Ahmed, the audience was informed that the doctor would not be in the same room with women when he spoke about medical ethics.

“We had to ask the female medical staff to leave the hall based on the sheikh’s request,” said a member of the organizing committee who preferred to remain anonymous.

“This is ridiculous,” said one woman, a medical professional and Muslim. “In the Grand Mosque in Makkah men and women pray together. Why are we being asked to leave? This guy knows a hospital is a mixed place. He should have realized that before he came,” she said. “I am being put in a very embarrassing situation.”

A Saudi woman who specializes in neuroscience said the doctor had no right to ask women to leave.

“We had every right to be there,” she said on condition of anonymity. “We were attending a scientific medical symposium. If he did not want to attend the symposium because it was mixed with men and women medical experts doing their job, that is his problem, not ours.”

After Al-Ahmed persisted on his request that women not pollute his presentation with their presence, event coordinators began urging women to leave so the event could continue. Two women reporters from Saudi Arabian Television Channel One and Saudi satellite channel Al-Ekhabriya were also told to leave the hall.

After the doctor was satisfied by the absence of women, he began to speak on medical ethics in an Islamic context. He said that a fatwa from the Council of Islamic Fiqh Academy has declared that it is permissible in Islam to turn off life-support machines once a patient has been declared brain dead.

“That condition applies only if confirmation is given by physicians of the cessation of brain activity and that the cessation is irreversible,” he said. He also said that according to the fatwa from the academy, it was permissible in Islam to remove organs from brain-dead patients, even if the heart was still pumping. “This was also approved by the Islamic Jurisprudence Council held in Makkah,” he said.

Islamic scholar Dr. Abdullah Al-Bar, another presenter, pointed out that many Islamic scholars in the Kingdom do not approve of removing organs from a body whose heart is still beating.

“Their position is that a person is not dead until all indications of death have appeared, such as the heart stopping, the stoppage of the blood system, or vital organs,” said Al-Bar. Debate among the men continued over how to determine when the soul of a human being has left the body. “Even Islamic scholars in the past could only identify that by certain signs such as eye movement toward one direction and blueness of the body,” said Al-Bar.




Although this incident did not take place in the West, it shows how uncomfortable people can be made when one's preferences are allowed. I read the Koran and never came across anything which demands separation of people by gender. In fact history shows that Mohammed's wife was a professional businesswoman who employed him. Therefore, there is no basis for the idea of gender separation. Moreover, the use of a burqa is NOT Arabic but is Persian-Afghani origin and Mohammed never required converts from those areas to continue the practice.

People should always be free to practice their religion in enlightened Western societies. But their preferences need not be accepted if they interfere with Western norms.

the part in red is just too vague. just vague vague vague rules do more harm than good. should blacks be asked to leave a board room meeting because NORMALLY there are no blacks there? of course not. instead i think it should be on a case by case basis using the rules of polite society and the laws of the land to fill in and guide any questions. and when i doubt the laws of the land win out.

so for example in the case of the teacher's aid, it causes the students no undo harm to know that on some days the teachers aid will be wearing a veil. nor does it cause the male supervisors any harm to evaluate her work while she is wearing the veil and know that she wont be it wearing every time.

however if say she refused to teach male students at all and asked them to leave every time she walked in the room that would be a radically different ballgame. because now its not about what shes wearing now she really is denying them an education.

Wigglytuff
Nov 25th, 2006, 11:50 AM
Uhm, that... has nothing to do with anything I (or anyone else) said. :scratch:

I just read your last post and clearly... it's useless. :wavey:

actually it does. there is no merit to male colleagues being her classroom unannounced, and if thats the reason she was fired. than she was fired for no reason.

but i guess for some the teaching, and classroom realities have nothing to do with wanting her fired. and if you are that person than of course what happens in the classroom is "useless".

Kart
Nov 25th, 2006, 01:36 PM
exactly. all this says to me is that this shows how little ALL WOMEN are respected in that place.

why cant her teaching performance be supervising by other women? do the posters in this thread think that women are completely incompetent to supervise her work? do they think that women should not be allowed to supervise her? do they think that men have the right to ask a woman to reveal whatever part of her body they want to see on command? do they think that someone ELSE'S hatred and ignorance should force women to reveal themselves on command like dogs or do they think that these things are only true when it comes to Muslim women?

I don't think it's about supervision Jigglypuff. Obviously she can do her job in the confines of the classroom but being a school teacher in not just limited to one room.

I'm not even sure that's my point though - it's more the inflexibility that she's exhibiting now in digging her heels in when it's clear she's not going to win. I'm not expecting her to compromise her religious beliefs but there must be plenty of middle ground from where I'm sitting.

I would hope that the school and this lady had tried to negotiate something that would suit all - if it's not possible then I'd say cut your losses and move on rather than forcing everyone else to accomodate you.

By the fact that it's gotten as far as a legal challenge though it's obviously gone beyond that to a childish stubborness on both sides.

Kart
Nov 25th, 2006, 01:37 PM
^ On a side note, I keep forgetting that you've evolved to Wigglytuff :o :smash:.

I like the name Jigglypuff better :hearts:.

wta_zuperfann
Nov 25th, 2006, 01:43 PM
There's no such thing as Islamaophobia only Islamofascism.


That sure as heck is a bigotted statement.

wta_zuperfann
Nov 25th, 2006, 01:45 PM
i think it should be on a case by case basis using the rules of polite society and the laws of the land to fill in and guide any questions. and when i doubt the laws of the land win out.



This is precisely what I'm driving at. In fact, you took it a step further and wrote just like a lawyer!

Who knows - maybe you found your true calling!

Infiniti2001
Nov 25th, 2006, 01:52 PM
I don't think it's about supervision Jigglypuff. Obviously she can do her job in the confines of the classroom but being a school teacher in not just limited to one room.

I'm not even sure that's my point though - it's more the inflexibility that she's exhibiting now in digging her heels in when it's clear she's not going to win. I'm not expecting her to compromise her religious beliefs but there must be plenty of middle ground from where I'm sitting.

I would hope that the school and this lady had tried to negotiate something that would suit all - if it's not possible then I'd say cut your losses and move on rather than forcing everyone else to accomodate you.

By the fact that it's gotten as far as a legal challenge though it's obviously gone beyond that to a childish stubborness on both sides.

I can see your point Kart--- but she would get more sympathy had she not she attended the interview in the presense of a male sans veil . She really should have thought this through before making her demands UGH. Oh well, hopefully she will accept this defeat and we will never hear about or from her again http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/2086/iconredfacehz6.gif

Sam L
Nov 25th, 2006, 01:55 PM
There's no such thing as Islamaophobia only Islamofascism.


That sure as heck is a bigotted statement.
Please! I know where your true phobia lies. Put it this way, that Mother Theresa avatar ain't fooling me.

Wigglytuff
Nov 25th, 2006, 01:57 PM
I don't think it's about supervision Jigglypuff. Obviously she can do her job in the confines of the classroom but being a school teacher in not just limited to one room.

I'm not even sure that's my point though - it's more the inflexibility that she's exhibiting now in digging her heels in when it's clear she's not going to win. I'm not expecting her to compromise her religious beliefs but there must be plenty of middle ground from where I'm sitting.

I would hope that the school and this lady had tried to negotiate something that would suit all - if it's not possible then I'd say cut your losses and move on rather than forcing everyone else to accomodate you.

By the fact that it's gotten as far as a legal challenge though it's obviously gone beyond that to a childish stubborness on both sides.
i see your point. but it looks like you see mine as well. it doesnt look like the school explored ways to make this work for everyone, and i does seem to me that being willing to take off the veil when teaching does display a willingness to get to some middle ground.

i dont see why from an academic point of view this is a problem for the act of teaching. but if its a problem from a social point of view thats within reason, what is not within reason is forcing someone to reveal parts of their body when its against their religion and it does not do anything. what exactly does revealing a part of her body for male colleagues do? nothing. but for students of course it does make a difference for them to see her face and understand why on some days thats not ok for her.

so i dont understand why the school was unable to accept that or offer some other middle ground?

Kart
Nov 25th, 2006, 01:58 PM
I can see your point Kart--- but she would get more sympathy had she not she attended the interview in the presense of a male sans veil . She really should have thought this through before making her demands UGH.

I'd forgotten that bit :o.

Yeah that really didn't help her case did it :lol:.

Wigglytuff
Nov 25th, 2006, 02:00 PM
i think it should be on a case by case basis using the rules of polite society and the laws of the land to fill in and guide any questions. and when i doubt the laws of the land win out.



This is precisely what I'm driving at. In fact, you took it a step further and wrote just like a lawyer!

Who knows - maybe you found your true calling!

:lol: :lol: :lol: do you know that literally EVERYONE who knows me says i should go into law. but before i wasnt looking forward to the reading. but now that i found out i can get my academic books on tape i might look into it again. :lol: :lol: Wigglytuff the Lawyer :lol: :lol: :lol: seems kind of dangerous if you ask me :devil: :devil:

!<blocparty>!
Nov 25th, 2006, 02:02 PM
:scared:

Wigglytuff
Nov 25th, 2006, 02:09 PM
I can see your point Kart--- but she would get more sympathy had she not she attended the interview in the presense of a male sans veil . She really should have thought this through before making her demands UGH. Oh well, hopefully she will accept this defeat and we will never hear about or from her again http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/2086/iconredfacehz6.gif

she did WHAT???

ok nevermind. everything i said earlier still holds for someone who is serious and consistent and honest about their reasons.

but if she is going to show up without the veil to an interview done by a male, she should be able to go to school that way as well.

i still dont think its right to force women to reveal themselves, but i also think that if you are going to ask people to accommodate you in a way that may make them uncomfortable you should have a good reason other than "today i dont feel like it"

for example say you are a meat eater, hunter, type person and a vegetarian is for whatever reason invited over to your house. its fair for that person to ask that they not be served meat. now if a week later you find that person at McDonalds eatting a bacon cheeseburger. sorry but our little vegetarian is going to have more than a little explaining to do. and in that case its MORE than fair to ask that person to not return to your home.

Wigglytuff
Nov 25th, 2006, 02:10 PM
There's no such thing as Islamaophobia only Islamofascism.


That sure as heck is a bigotted statement.

understatement of the year.

Steffica Greles
Nov 25th, 2006, 02:14 PM
Tony is always going on about how Muslims, especially those born and raised here, are already part of British society. It therefore seems stupid to ask them to integrate into a society of which they already form a part. :confused: Besides, everyone knows that this "essential debate" was started because Jack Straw wanted to project himself as a grown-up who is unafraid of confronting controversial issues, ahead of the deputy leadership campaign, it has bugger all to do with the welfare of society.

I wonder if they will be asking the Sikhs to remove their turbans as part of their drive to bulldoze these walls of separation.

P.S. The woman's sacking was justifiable.

You're absolutely right that this debate was started for political expedience and that Muslims are already part of society. They are British, whether they want to be, whether we want them to be, or not.

I think what Blair means, or at least what he should be saying, is that to have an opinion on the niqab, or even the hijab, or the turban, or the nun's costume, or any other religious symbolism, is absolutely legitimate. Therefore the right to express those critiques is also imperative. Muslims are part of a wider community -- Britain. All in Britain should be allowed to criticise one another. Some Muslims claim the West is decadent, filled with debauchery. I defend their right to make those criticisms, however much I would disagree.

The trouble is, this thoroughly reactive and incoherent government has tried to bring in religious hatred laws to coincide with this debate, so its own stance is undermined. Thus the issue has been exposed as expedient.

As for the woman in question, I think she has every right to wear her veil in the streets and at home. But where rules of the workplace specify that this is not acceptable, she should remove it. If I wore a t-shirt which had something emblazoned across the front which I claimed was a conviction I personally held sacred, would I be allowed to wear it? And furthermore, of course teaching children with a veil on is not the best way for children to learn.

She claimed she would remove the veil when men were not in her presence. As a man, I find it highly offensive that men are portrayed as innately predatory. A feminist would find this equally offensive because this misconception is the very premise upon which women are blamed in rape trials for "provoking" men's lust and predatory instincts. In other words, it is incumbent upon the woman and not the man himself to control his libido.

Do Muslim men cover their faces for the same reasons?

Steffica Greles
Nov 25th, 2006, 02:37 PM
She is teaching in a Christian coutnry and I believe she is teaching in a school that is part of the Anglican Church. She should abide by the culture of that country. So yes it should be a big issue. Can non muslim women not wear veils in Saudi Arabia? No of course not. In UK the conflict is not about wearing veils or not veils, it is about the fully covered veil over the face.

Christian country? Absolutely NOT!

Britain, unlike its "great" ally, the United States, is one of the most secular countries in the world.

The UK is a country with a Christian tradition - that much is true. We celebrate Easter and Christmas, but predominantly as commercial or annual festivals. Some choose to go to church, but very few care much for the Christian message in Christmas. For most, Christmas is almost comparable to Guy Fawkes' night. It's a tradition rather than anything that holds any great spiritual meaning. It's a time when people like to be happy and around the people they love the most (although the reality is often stress, depression and bankrupcy). But not many celebrate the birth of Jesus.

!<blocparty>!
Nov 25th, 2006, 02:45 PM
Slightly :topic: but I'll add it in anyway. Do some of you guys think it's time relgions updated themselves into 21st century mode? I mean, how old are some of these 'rules' now? Things have moved on... do women need to be walking around mid-summer wearing veils while men can wear T-shirts? Wearing veils in front of men? etc. etc. etc.

Wigglytuff
Nov 25th, 2006, 02:51 PM
Christian country? Absolutely NOT!

Britain, unlike its "great" ally, the United States, is one of the most secular countries in the world.

The UK is a country with a Christian tradition - that much is true. We celebrate Easter and Christmas, but predominantly as commercial or annual festivals. Some choose to go to church, but very few care much for the Christian message in Christmas. For most, Christmas is almost comparable to Guy Fawkes' night. It's a tradition rather than anything that holds any great spiritual meaning. It's a time when people like to be happy and around the people they love the most (although the reality is often stress, depression and bankrupcy). But not many celebrate the birth of Jesus.

plus Christmas and Easter are pagan holidays that are celebrated by Christians.

Easter is/was a spring equinox festival celebrating the birth and rebirth of life, thus all the bunnies and eggs. and Christmas was jacked from the winter solstice

Steffica Greles
Nov 25th, 2006, 04:42 PM
Slightly :topic: but I'll add it in anyway. Do some of you guys think it's time relgions updated themselves into 21st century mode? I mean, how old are some of these 'rules' now? Things have moved on... do women need to be walking around mid-summer wearing veils while men can wear T-shirts? Wearing veils in front of men? etc. etc. etc.

But religions are theories of scriptures thousands of years old. By definition they are. These scriptures can be interpreted in many different ways (which is why there are so many different sects within Christianity, Islam and Judaism) but ultimately the words cannot be changed.

In most religions the theologists have invariably been men, with women denied access. Go figure.

So I go back to my point. If I picked up any book from a shelf and said I wanted to live by it, would my new religion be respected and given status? Of course not! So why should a select few recognised religions thousands of years old, with no relevance to post-industrial society, be allowed exemptions from the rules.

gentenaire
Nov 25th, 2006, 05:04 PM
So I go back to my point. If I picked up any book from a shelf and said I wanted to live by it, would my new religion be respected and given status? Of course not! So why should a select few recognised religions thousands of years old, with no relevance to post-industrial society, be allowed exemptions from the rules.

Exactly! That's what bothers me about all of this as well.

Also, if wearing the veil is mandatory, like some here claim, doesn't that go against freedom of religion? If it's mandatory, the woman isn't free.

!<blocparty>!
Nov 25th, 2006, 05:37 PM
But religions are theories of scriptures thousands of years old. By definition they are. These scriptures can be interpreted in many different ways (which is why there are so many different sects within Christianity, Islam and Judaism) but ultimately the words cannot be changed.

In most religions the theologists have invariably been men, with women denied access. Go figure.

So I go back to my point. If I picked up any book from a shelf and said I wanted to live by it, would my new religion be respected and given status? Of course not! So why should a select few recognised religions thousands of years old, with no relevance to post-industrial society, be allowed exemptions from the rules.

Yup, that's a very good point. Everything updates itself. Altering a few things here and there would just make things so much easier for everybody.

Steffica Greles
Nov 25th, 2006, 05:43 PM
Exactly! That's what bothers me about all of this as well.

Also, if wearing the veil is mandatory, like some here claim, doesn't that go against freedom of religion? If it's mandatory, the woman isn't free.

The veil is not mandatory within Islam, if that's what they mean? That shows as much ignorance as those who believe all Muslims are terrorists. 95% (and I've also read 99%) of Muslim women do not wear the niquab/burqa, and I'd estimate that 50% don't even wear the hijab, which covers the hair.

However, if a woman chooses to wear the burqa, she is no less free than a Sikh who wears a turban or a western woman who shaves her legs for social acceptance. Of course, if a woman is forced to wear the burqa, as some undoubtedly are, then she is not free. Yet the reality is that many Muslim women choose to wear the burqa, often as a rejection of the western pressures on women and increasingly on men as well. Do I like it? No, as I've said, because of what the burqa symbolises and because caged creatures often choose to remain in their cages.

My point is that we are all caged creatures choosing to remain in our cages to some extent. What I'm against is Islamists who rebuff our critiques, as if we have no right to talk about these cages, to which some Muslims, among others, are confined within their cultures. If non-Muslims cannot voice these concerns, simply because we are not Muslims, then who is really discriminating here? As I've also said, Muslims are not a "community", but part of a wider community where there is debate and scrutiny.

mykarma
Nov 25th, 2006, 06:44 PM
I don't think it's about supervision Jigglypuff. Obviously she can do her job in the confines of the classroom but being a school teacher in not just limited to one room.

I'm not even sure that's my point though - it's more the inflexibility that she's exhibiting now in digging her heels in when it's clear she's not going to win. I'm not expecting her to compromise her religious beliefs but there must be plenty of middle ground from where I'm sitting.

I would hope that the school and this lady had tried to negotiate something that would suit all - if it's not possible then I'd say cut your losses and move on rather than forcing everyone else to accomodate you.

By the fact that it's gotten as far as a legal challenge though it's obviously gone beyond that to a childish stubborness on both sides.
This reminds me of back in the day, when blacks could lose their jobs for wearing their hair natural We were accused of being radical, hating on white folks, etc. etc.

mykarma
Nov 25th, 2006, 06:56 PM
You're absolutely right that this debate was started for political expedience and that Muslims are already part of society. They are British, whether they want to be, whether we want them to be, or not.

I think what Blair means, or at least what he should be saying, is that to have an opinion on the niqab, or even the hijab, or the turban, or the nun's costume, or any other religious symbolism, is absolutely legitimate. Therefore the right to express those critiques is also imperative. Muslims are part of a wider community -- Britain. All in Britain should be allowed to criticise one another. Some Muslims claim the West is decadent, filled with debauchery. I defend their right to make those criticisms, however much I would disagree.

The trouble is, this thoroughly reactive and incoherent government has tried to bring in religious hatred laws to coincide with this debate, so its own stance is undermined. Thus the issue has been exposed as expedient.

As for the woman in question, I think she has every right to wear her veil in the streets and at home. But where rules of the workplace specify that this is not acceptable, she should remove it. If I wore a t-shirt which had something emblazoned across the front which I claimed was a conviction I personally held sacred, would I be allowed to wear it? And furthermore, of course teaching children with a veil on is not the best way for children to learn.

She claimed she would remove the veil when men were not in her presence. As a man, [QUOTE]I find it highly offensive that men are portrayed as innately predatory. A feminist would find this equally offensive because this misconception is the very premise upon which women are blamed in rape trials for "provoking" men's lust and predatory instincts. In other words, it is incumbent upon the woman and not the man himself to control his libido.I don't know about that. Men can walk around without any covering on the top of their bodies, where it's against the law for women to do the same. I don't think most men find that practice offensive. Looks like it's primarily about culture.

Wigglytuff
Nov 25th, 2006, 06:57 PM
This reminds me of back in the day, when blacks could lose their jobs for wearing their hair natural We were accused of being radical, hating on white folks, etc. etc.

fuck, its still like that in some places. i had an internship at a school for the deaf in Wisconsin some years ago and i was shocked, as a new yorker, when i got there how many really weird interactions i had with people over my dreads. like weird shit, like "do you wash your hair" "what did you do to make your hair so curly" WTF???

i mean dont get me wrong these were nice people, i dont think anyone meant any harm, i was just shocked at some of the ideas they had. i had no real clue where they got it from and when i talked to people about it and answered their questions people were really cool about it. in my case i felt that people had questions. i tried my best to answer them.

i was you know 19 or 20 i was there as an intern doing the job of a teachers aid for 3 months for free, they would have been fools to ask me to leave, but i do wonder if it was a pay position would it have been a bigger issue. i would hope not.

Wigglytuff
Nov 25th, 2006, 07:01 PM
As a man, I find it highly offensive that men are portrayed as innately predatory. A feminist would find this equally offensive because this misconception is the very premise upon which women are blamed in rape trials for "provoking" men's lust and predatory instincts. In other words, it is incumbent upon the woman and not the man himself to control his libido.


but i dont think, that that should result in women being forced to reveal parts of their bodies they dont want to. i hope you can agree with that much.

Steffica Greles
Nov 25th, 2006, 07:56 PM
but i dont think, that that should result in women being forced to reveal parts of their bodies they dont want to. i hope you can agree with that much.

Yes, of course I'd agree with that. It's a very fine balance. I think a woman who choosedly wears a veil has been indoctrinated into a conception of womanhood which is inherently oppressive.

One could argue that a woman who wears only her knickers on the front cover of a magazine has also been indoctrinated into western patriarchal conceptions of womanhood.

Except, in SOME of those cases I would argue that the woman posing naked or semi-naked is actually exhibiting sexual confidence. Men pose topless all the time. Why should a woman posing naked be an example of exploitation?

So the analogy does not work, because Muslim men do not wear veils.

Wigglytuff
Nov 25th, 2006, 08:08 PM
Yes, of course I'd agree with that. It's a very fine balance. I think a woman who choosedly wears a veil has been indoctrinated into a conception of womanhood which is inherently oppressive.

One could argue that a woman who wears only her knickers on the front cover of a magazine has also been indoctrinated into western patriarchal conceptions of womanhood.

Except, in SOME of those cases I would argue that the woman posing naked or semi-naked is actually exhibiting sexual confidence. Men pose topless all the time. Why should a woman posing naked be an example of exploitation?

So the analogy does not work, because Muslim men do not wear veils.

exactly. i agree completely.

mykarma
Nov 26th, 2006, 04:04 AM
fuck, its still like that in some places. i had an internship at a school for the deaf in Wisconsin some years ago and i was shocked, as a new yorker, when i got there how many really weird interactions i had with people over my dreads. like weird shit, like "do you wash your hair" "what did you do to make your hair so curly" WTF???

i mean dont get me wrong these were nice people, i dont think anyone meant any harm, i was just shocked at some of the ideas they had. i had no real clue where they got it from and when i talked to people about it and answered their questions people were really cool about it. in my case i felt that people had questions. i tried my best to answer them.

i was you know 19 or 20 i was there as an intern doing the job of a teachers aid for 3 months for free, they would have been fools to ask me to leave, but i do wonder if it was a pay position would it have been a bigger issue. i would hope not.
So true.

Volcana
Nov 26th, 2006, 05:15 AM
The veil makes her incompetent for the job, because kids do need to communicate with facial expressions too, and this is part of education.Are you unable to read? The article clearly states

"Mrs Azmi said she was willing to remove her veil in front of children - but not when male colleagues were present."

wta_zuperfann
Nov 26th, 2006, 11:35 AM
Mother Theresa avatar ain't fooling me.


Who cares?

wta_zuperfann
Nov 26th, 2006, 11:39 AM
do you know that literally EVERYONE who knows me says i should go into law. but before i wasnt looking forward to the reading. but now that i found out i can get my academic books on tape i might look into it again. Wigglytuff the Lawyer seems kind of dangerous if you ask me


I absolutely hated law school. Besides, the cost is way too high and not worth the effort unless you have relatives in the business who can get you a lucrative job.

Steffica Greles
Nov 28th, 2006, 03:36 PM
Are you unable to read? The article clearly states

"Mrs Azmi said she was willing to remove her veil in front of children - but not when male colleagues were present."

True, as I did acknowledge in one of my posts. But I think that's immaterial.

Imagine if a bloke taught at a school and claimed it was inimical to his beliefs (because that's all that religions are) to be seen by other women. Wouldn't that create a wonderful atmosphere amongst the staff. The gentleman would be told "On yer bike!".

Either we ban uniforms altogether from our societies, which, although I hate the wearing of them, I certainly do not propose, or we allow institutions to enforce their own codes. If religious symbols can be accommodated within these codes, which I am not against so long as they are practical and clearly inoffensive, then those rules must be fair to both sexes. After all, are we not trying to build bridges between sexes as well as races (a term I dislike at any rate)?

Sam L
Dec 2nd, 2006, 02:54 PM
Have you guys seen this interview she did on TV? It's some hilarious stuff. :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNTNWf5Q2Zo

Wigglytuff
Dec 2nd, 2006, 04:41 PM
do you know that literally EVERYONE who knows me says i should go into law. but before i wasnt looking forward to the reading. but now that i found out i can get my academic books on tape i might look into it again. Wigglytuff the Lawyer seems kind of dangerous if you ask me


I absolutely hated law school. Besides, the cost is way too high and not worth the effort unless you have relatives in the business who can get you a lucrative job.

yeah thats what it seems like. and i definitely dont know anyone who can give me a start with a high end job of the bat like that.

Hagar
Dec 2nd, 2006, 06:54 PM
The veil/headscarf/burqa is a symbol of oppression of women and should therefore not be allowed in a public context, whether a retarded religion prescribes it are not.
Gender equality is the norm in Western Europe, and there is no gender segration, just like there is no racial segregation. So if Muslim women want to participate to public life here, they should adapt.