Battle over veil heats up in U.K. Teachers aide refuses to remove veil.

[Hoping4Change]

LONDON—A British government minister joined an increasingly bitter debate about the rights of Muslim women to veil their faces, saying a teaching assistant should be fired for insisting on wearing one in school.

...

Azmi has refused to remove her black veil, which leaves only her eyes visible, in front of male colleagues. She was suspended from her job, but has taken her case to an industrial tribunal that handles cases on employment law, which will make a decision in the next few weeks.

...

"She is denying the right of children to a full education by insisting that she wears the veil. If she is saying that she won't work with men, she is taking away the right of men to work in school," Woolas said.

Debate began earlier this month, when Jack Straw, ex-foreign minister now serving as House leader of Commons, said Muslim women visiting his office should remove their veils.

...

ASSOCIATED PRESS


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1160949009992&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

[Nolo_Contendre]

1. The standard in the US is "reasonable accommodation"

http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/resource_kit/religion_workplace.asp

The school could reasonably accommodate her dress without interfering with the function of the school. It is not reasonable for her to demand gender segregation. If she wants to work in a public school, she should accept working alongside men. If segregation is more important to her than the functioning of the school, she should find employment elsewhere where they will allow segregation.

Jack Straw's office policy is wrongheaded. He is a public official and he does not have a good reason to demand that women remove a religious headscarf or veil when visiting his government office. Would he require Jewish men to remove their yarmulke or Christian women remove a cross pendant? It is an unreasonable policy for a government official.

[Hoping4Change]

2. A veiled face does not belong in a public school.

Accommodation goes only so far. Personally I do think that veiled faces should be permitted at all, just as I do not believe 12 year olds should be married off to 50 year old men nor clitorectomies performed.

[Nolo_Contendre]

4. How does a veil interfere or create an undue hardship on the school?

Religious intolerance / Islamophobia is not a democratic value.

[Hoping4Change]

7. Just as non-Muslim women are required to cover themselves

in certain Islamic countries, in deference to the prevailing custom and law; Muslim women should defer to Western custom and set aside the veil. There is nothing intolerant about the adage that when in Rome do as the Romans do.

[Nolo_Contendre]

11. Wrong. The US is not Saudi Arabia, and neither is the UK

We are not a theocracy. In fact, the US was founded on freedom of religion. It IS intolerant to expect people from other cultures to adopt your customs. Do you also think that English is the official langauge of the USA and that people who speak Spanish should adopt English as their first language? Sheesh.

[Hoping4Change]

20. Tolerance has its limits. Should I tolerate people who want to

perform clitorectomies? Should I tolerate people who want to burn brides? Should I tolerate men who don't want women to vote? Should I tolerate religious fanatics who assassinate abortion providers?

There is nothing holy about customs. Customs change all the time. Often people immigrate because they want to escape stifling customs. Muslim women who fought against the introduction of Sharia law in Ontario said that they left their countries to avoid Sharia and they didn't want to have it imposed here in Canada.

Women in the West fought tooth and nail for equal rights against male chauvinist who believed in a god given right to have dominion over women. Given that Western men have had their "customary rights" yanked out from under them, a precedent has been set that clearly doesn't place great value on custom.

The fact that the West has provided a framework to challenge custom is the very reason why there is such a thing a individual freedom. If it weren't for people challenging custom and demanding the custom change then by golly we'd be living in theocratic states.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hatalles]

33. Question

What exactly makes the "carving out the clitoris from young girls" an Islamic custom and not a cultural one?

[Hoping4Change]

42. The following WHO document is illuminating.

For instance Egypt which has very high incidence of genital mutlilation passed a law in 1998 outlawing state doctors from performing the mutilation (the law permitted the operation in private homes). However the fundementalist Muslim clerics went to Court to have that decision overturned.

Muslim apologists use the argument that it is a cultural practice. But that doesn't hold water given that Muslims have had centuries to enact Sharia laws forbidding this practice. They haven't done so. If this practice sorely offended Muslim sentiment then it would have been outlawed centuries ago simply by imposing a death penalty on whoever committed this atrocity.



http://www.middle-east-info.org/league/somalia/fgh-who.pdf

[kiahzero]

156. Truly incredible logic

"Because they don't kill the people who do it, they must support it!"

[Nolo_Contendre]

159. Don't confuse them with logic

They know that the truth is what they want to believe.

[kiahzero]

161. Oh, and I guess the Christians who do it are closet Muslims, right?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm1.htm

FGM: A cultural not a religious practice:

This mutilating operation is often associated mainly with the religion of Islam. This is incorrect. FGM is primarily a social practice, not a religious one. Female genital mutilation predated Islam. It originated in Africa and remains today a mainly African cultural practice. Some indicators of this are:
* It is widely practiced in countries where the predominant religion is Christianity: Examples are Ethiopia and Kenya.
* In multi-faith countries, it is often forced on girls whose families follow all faiths: Animism religions, Christianity, and Islam. For example, it is frequently practiced among both Muslims, Christians and Animists in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sierra Leone, and Sudan.
* FGM was once practiced by Ethiopian Jews (a.k.a. Beta Isreal; formerly known by the derogatory term "Falashas"). This practiced was apparently discontinued some time ago. A pediatrician who works in the Beta Israel community claims that they no do not practice FGM in Israel. Also, their daughters who were born in Ethiopia were not mutilated. 6
* FGM has spread to countries in or near Africa (e.g. Egypt) which are Muslim. But FGM is rare or nonexistent in many other Muslim countries. Examples are Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey. Also, It is not done in the Maghreb countries of Northwest Africa.
* FGM is only occasionally found in Indonesia and other predominately Muslim countries in Asia.

One of the motivations for this essay is the misperception by many people that the practice is a religious one. That belief has led to unjustified religious intolerance against Muslims.

I guess the Agnostic, Atheist, Christian, Wiccan, and Buddhist that run that site are just a bunch of Muslim apologists.

Oh, and:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/violence/female_genital_mutilation.html
Although it is predominantly practiced in twenty-eight North African countries, FGM is not inherent to any nation or religion.

Who knew that Amnesty International was such a bunch of Muslim apologists?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JCMach1]

198. Not the same thing at all... 'not' wearing a veil holds no

particular religious significance. And, in most parts of the Muslim world Western women do not have to do it... (with notable exceptions such as KSA and Iran)

[CJCRANE]

246. Do women wear veils in Iran?

I thought it was just hijab (headscarf)?

[Clark2008]

59. That's no different than forcing women to cover.

eom

[Warpy]

6. A face veil may be inappropriate with some children

especially the younger ones. Perhaps she could remove it in class and replace it when she had to cope with male colleagues.

Expecting the world to adapt to sex segregation is not reasonable in the west. Expecting children to cope when they can't read facial cues is also unreasonable.

Headscarves are one thing and obscured faces quite another, especially in any sort of professional setting, and most especially when dealing with children.

I don't give a rip what any woman (or man) wears in public. I only see a problem when it gets in the way, like fringe around heavy machinery and a face veil in a job that requires face to face contact.

[Nolo_Contendre]

13. I'm sure the children can learn just fine without seeing her face

Children learn in schools all over the world where women wear veils. That sounds like a strawman argument. Any evidence to back up the claim?

I doubt she is covering her face from the children anyway. She said she would remove it when children are present. She is covering her face in modesty in case men see her. It is her custom. I am shocked at how much intolerance is being expressed at this site.

[Warpy]

23. Actually, that's not quite true

Schools in face veil countries are strictly segregated by sex, if girls have shools at all.

Young children especially rely on face cues from their teachers. Sorry, but that's the truth, whether or not you remember it.

One hell of a lot of information is conveyed by the face below the eyes. I stand by my statement: any job that requires face to face contact is inappropriate for women who veil their faces especially face to face jobs involving young children.

[Nolo_Contendre]

26. Please provide evidence that veiled women are unable to teach

Or that children taught by women wearing veils are deficient in any way. Evidence. Just one single study that shows that children whose teachers wear veils are handicapped in any way. Surely, with how obvious your beliefs are to you, there must be some evidence somewhere.

By the way, your perception of education in Muslim countries is highly deficient. When you want to exclude women from being teachers becaus they choose to wear a veil, you are acting like Taliban who also excluded girls and women from the educational system.

Afghanistan before the Taliban educated women as does every other Muslim country, including Saudi Arabia, the most conservative one.

[Warpy]

28. What part of sex segregated didn't you get?

Educated women taught girls. No face veil was needed in the classroom. Female students were able to LEARN in veils at the university level. Once again, unversity level is NOT young children.

Here's an exploration of facial paralanguage: http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/srb/srb/face.html

Here's one that applies to teaching young children: http://www.responsiveclassroom.org/newsletter/15_4NL_2.asp

This one is an abstract of the necessity of paralanguage, including facial expression, in teaching language, especially a second language (an issue in many schools in the US and UK). The full article is available at the link: http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/39/2/109

"f one researcher (Mehrabian) is correct, facial expressions are very important elements of non-verbal communication. Mehrabian believes that verbal cues (words) provide seven percent of a message's meaning, vocal cues (tone of voice) provide 38 percent, and facial expressions provide 55 percent. Even if his numbers are only close to being correct, this says we can't afford to take facial expressions lightly."

http://www.amputee-coalition.org/communicator/vol2no6pg4.html

This will certainly get you started. If you want more references on the importance of facial expressions in nonverbal communication in face to face settings, I can certainly supply them.

[Nolo_Contendre]

36. Still no evidence that veiled teachers are ineffective

I can provide a plethora of links showing that kids benefit from exposure to diversity in the classroom. This does not prove that veiled teachers are more effective any more than your links prove that veiled teachers are ineffective.

Evidence would constitute a study that shows that students of veiled teachers suffer significantly lower test scores (or some other measure) than students of teachers without veils (all other factors being equivalent). This would be evidence that veiled teachers are really less effective than teachers who do not wear veils.

Otherwise, I fear that you are couching a personal dislike for what the veil represents in a pseudoscientific guise and a false claim that it is for the benefit of a child's education.

[riderinthestorm]

38. What about handicapped students?

Deaf students who can't see her lips, or blind children who can't touch her face, or Asperger's children who must study facial features to facilitate understanding?

It's not enough to say that all handicapped children should just be placed in other classrooms since she will be interfacing with all of the children at other times outside of her classroom: hallways, libraries, gym class, recess etc. Mainstreaming handicapped children has been proven to be effective (that whole diversity thing you keep wanting to hammer home).

If she can't communicate with that percentage of students, I would say that she can't be an effective teacher.

You do know too that she interviewed with a man without her face veil, only putting it on once she had the job. That sounds like grounds for termination right from the start.

[Nolo_Contendre]

41. Sounds like you are looking for any excuse to discriminate

Are all teachers expected to teach deaf students? You are saying she is unqualified to teach special education kids (which we do not know to be the case) therefore she has no right to teach any kids. That's ridiculous. In any case, she apparently chooses not to wear her veil around children, only around adult men.

I don't know this woman's detailed job history and I don't know the laws against discrimination in the UK.

I am discussing the general issue of whether she has a right to teach despite your opinion of her attire. What about a teacher whose bangs cover her forehead. Would you object because children will miss out on her frown? I think your arguments are spurious.

[riderinthestorm]

46. Deaf children are mainstreamed in virtually all classrooms today

They are not put into special ed. ASL is rarely taught anymore since lip reading is the primary educational tool give to deaf students these days. This is not a stretch. You are looking for an excuse to discriminate by not accomodating handicapped children.

Also, to reiterate, she would have to be out interfacing with others in the school: in the hallways, in the libraries, at recess, during lunch etc. where there are sure to be other male teachers. So who gets preference? The children who need to see her face, or her desire to veil in front of men? Teachers don't live in a bubble - they are in a multicultural, multigendered, multiage group community. She must have known this going in.

[Nolo_Contendre]

52. If you go back to my first response on this article

you will see that I stated my belief that wearing a veil does not impose an undue hardship but that requiring gender segregation does.

Remember we are talking about a hypothetical case because this is the US and this woman's case is in the UK. Demographics, traditions, schol systems, and laws are different.

I also agree with you regarding deaf lip-reading children. A veiled woman can't very well communicate with them wearing a veil. If no reasonable acommodation can be found between her right to wear a veil around men and the school's right to hire male teachers then I think she loses.

So you will do well to make sure to enrolle deaf lip-reading children in any class where a Muslim woman wants to wear a veil. That'll keep 'em out until a wise man finds a solution to overcome your chicanery.

[riderinthestorm]

55. Or children with Aspergers, or blind children....

:mad:

Chicanery??! Like trying to mainstream handicapped children is chicanery?? You are so wrapped up in trying to placate multiculturalism that you are really losing yourself in the forest.

:wtf:

Look, the UK is a step ahead of us in the cultural clash between the separation between church and state. It's coming here to a school near you soon!

[Nolo_Contendre]

58. I think you are using excuses about handicapped children

to build barriers against a tolerant multicultural society that you feel threatened by.

That's why I referred to your legalistic maneuvering to find a reason to exclude Muslim women from teaching as "chicanery". If you aren't a lawyer, you should consider law school.

[riderinthestorm]

65. I think you ar using excuses about multiculturalism to build barriers

against a tolerant society that welcomes the disabled that YOU feel threatened by. Perhaps you feel that all of the disabled should be shunted (back) off into special classrooms?

And nobody here is advocating "excluding" Muslim women from teaching. Please find ONE single post that advocates that.

[Nolo_Contendre]

70. All of your posts oppose the right of this woman to teach in school

I believe handicapped kids have a right to an education. There is probably a way to accommodate both but I don't think you are interested in recognizing the right of Muslim teachers to wear a veil if they so choose.

[riderinthestorm]

72. All of your posts disregard the needs of handicapped children

and their need to access the faces of their teachers.

I believe Muslim women have a right to teach but they can't be an effective teacher for the children in their schools when they are wearing a full face veil.

[Nolo_Contendre]

78. I granted your point that deaf lip-reading children and others

may have a special problem with a teacher whose lips are covered.
It appeared to me that you only reached this dilemma after long and twisted journey of attempting to find some excuse to keep Muslim teachers out of school. But thanks for recognizing that Muslim teachers have a right to teach and even to wear a veil if that's how they interpret their religion.

Here's a solution. Asking men to knock first before entering a classroom where this teacher is teaching handicapped kids with her veil off. Too much of a burden on the school system? I don't think so. Do you?

[riderinthestorm]

85. Teachers are not bound to their classrooms

They are in the hallways with other children, supervising them at lunch and recess, during library time or at the computer lab....

You aren't seeming to understand how a school works. Nobody operates in a bubble. If this teacher were just confined to her own class, your idea would work but then she would be unfairly burdening her co-workers by not being able to effectively communicate with others outside her class.

And don't particularly thank me about recognizing the rights of Muslimahs to teach. EVERYONE on this thread recognizes that fact, not just me. Nobody has denied their rights to teach.

Those posters like me however have a real problem with a face veil. I do not agree that she has a right to wear that in the school.

[Nolo_Contendre]

90. Well, at least you recognize the rights of Muslims to be teachers

You just don't like them wearing veils. Why? "Because it interferes with teaching" Sure. Evidence? None. Is there a way to accommodate her rights with your manufactured reasons for not wanting to allow a veiled woman the right to teach? Yes, there is a way. Are you willing to accommodate? No. Why? Because you refuse to accept a veiled woman in school even if it doesn't interfere with her teaching. Therefore, I think the reason is much deeper than her effectiveness or lack thereof (which you have no evidence to prove one way or the other).

[riderinthestorm]

97. She got fired because she wasn't being an effective teacher! Her students

complained!

Jayzus fucking kee-rist, are you being deliberately obtuse?

"Manufactured reasons??" Handicapped children are "manufactured reasons????" The logistics and smooth operation of a school is just some kind of fucking joke to you? You only want your solution to this (she gets to wear a freaking mask at school!) while dismissing any other kind of concern.

[Nolo_Contendre]

109. The kids were not handicapped. That was your manufactured reason

for excluding veiled teachers. The kids were immigrant children. She was teaching them English without a veil unless men were present. Someone claimed that children complained about her veil. The government suspended her and some people claim the reason is that there are those who are bigoted against Muslims in UK. Some people would like to see similar exclusion of Muslim women from teaching here in the USA. Are you deliberately trying to prevent children from exposure to multicultural society because you fear a "culture clash" as you wrote a few dozen messages ago?

[riderinthestorm]

118. Right, so no immigrant children are handicapped?

This teacher's aide never leaves her classroom and interfaces with anyone else?

This has absolutely nothing to do with religious exclusion and everything to do with religious garb interfering with job performance. ESL students need to see their teacher's mouth form words so they can effectively learn the language. Hard to do when her face is covered.

And nobody here is trying to exclude Muslimahs from teaching in schools! Now you are just making shit up.

[Nolo_Contendre]

151. You are fabricating the issue of handicapped children

There are no differently-abled children in this story. They are only identified as immigrants or the children of immigrants. You are building a straw man argument about handicapped children to support your anti-Muslim bias. Chicanery.

[riderinthestorm]

171. You have not answered any of my questions

I work in schools daily where handicapped children are mainstreamed in the US. This isn't chicanery or a straw man. Your pathetic efforts to demean this population of students sickens me.

I don't give a shit if this particular case involves handicapped children or not but your utter lack of respect for their needs shines through loud and clear.

"Veiled muslimahs must take precedence over children's needs!!!"

You sicken me.

[Nolo_Contendre]

174. Likewise

Your motives are quite transparent.

[Warpy]

163. ....and it's always a mistake to try to teach a pig to sing.

[Nolo_Contendre]

167. That sounds like a children's book

If you give a pig a pancake....

[Donald Ian Rankin]

189. No, that's wrong.

"Children learn in schools all over the world where women wear veils"

That's not evidence that doing so doesn't disadvantage them. People all over the world do all sorts of foolish things.


"I doubt she is covering her face from the children anyway. She said she would remove it when children are present."

She is - google it, if you want to check. I haven't found any such statement by her, although of course that doesn't prove one doesn't exist. She was given permission to wear it in corridors and the staff room, but told to take it off when in class, and she refused.

"It is her custom. I am shocked at how much intolerance is being expressed at this site."

Saying "it's a custom" isn't a defence. All sorts of things are customs, many of those bad, and when they are we should oppose them. Tolerance is only a virtue when they things you're tolerating aren't harming others, and in this case they are - her wearing a veil is preventing her from teaching effectively. I don't want her forced to remove her veil, but if she's not willing to do so then she shouldn't be doing jobs that she can't do effectively without doing so.

[cali]

191. Nothing like stating your opinion as if it were fact.

It's not. Make a claim that children learn in schools all over the world where women where veils and you should back it up. It's my understanding that this is not so; that in countries like Saudi Arabia, women teach girls and do not wear a veil obscuring their faces. And frankly, I think wearing a veil that covers all but the eyes does present an obstacle. What about a child with a hearing problem? In addition, reading faces is an important factor in a learning situation. Now, if she is willing to leave off the veil in the classroom and only put it on in a mixed gender environment, I have no problem with that.

[formernaderite]

232. young children also need less barriers not more

this is a cultural custom...I would like to see ALL religious symbols removed from the classroom...jewlery included. It's not the place for it.

[riderinthestorm]

204. Her imam, her Muslim MP and the UK Islamic orgs agree with you Warpy

They all back the school's decision to suspend the teacher's aide.

Which means they're all "bigots" and religious discriminators as well I guess?
:shrug:

[Quantess]

207. Inappropriate for a teaching environment.

If my child were in her class, I'd tell the woman straight to her face that her veil is inappropriate for the classroom.

[CJCRANE]

247. In fact I heard an interview

with the woman in question who said that she doesn't wear a veil in front of children, only in the staff-room. So as with most things in the MSM we're not getting the full, accurate story.

[amandabeech]

77. Just a picky point.

According to the article, Mr. Straw demands that women who meet with him remove their veil. In this context, I believe that the veil referred to is one of the black, nearly opaque ones that leaves only the eyes uncovered.

If that is the case, I would suspect that Mr. Straw wishes to see the faces of those talking to him so that he can receive the silent communication that facial expression gives.

The article does not say that Mr. Straw demands that women remove their head scarves as well, which, of course, do not obscure the face.

If obscuring the face is the issue, neither a yarmulke nor a cross pendant need be removed since neither obscures the face.

[Nolo_Contendre]

80. haha sure, he wants to see their "expressions"

Their religious beiefs be damned. Good one!

[amandabeech]

96. self-delete

[muriel_volestrangler]

181. Yes, he does

which is why he started this after a woman behind a veil said it was good to talk to him "face to face", and he thought "but I don't see your face; I'm missing part of the conversation". And he doesn't demand they remove the veil; he asks them if they'd be willing to. Now, I'm not sure that's right in that situation, because as an MP holding his surgery, he's there to help the women, rather than being in a completely even relationship. But I think he's right that their religious beliefs are going to help cut them off from the vast majority of people in Britain. When that belief is a matter of interpretation that only a few cultures have decided to follow, it's worth asking them if they'd be better off by using the normal methods of conversation that most Muslims do, ie allowing everyone to see their face.

[Quantess]

3. If I were a little kid, and she was an assistant in my class,

I would be afraid of her. Maybe wearing a veil makes her job as a teaching assistant easier, because the children avoid her and/or are intimidated by her garb?
Just an idea.

If I were a parent of one of the students, I wouldn't like it. Sorry, but I just wouldn't. I'd demand to have my child placed in a different classroom.

[Nolo_Contendre]

5. Kids exposed to cultural diversity aren't afraid of the Other

Kids who never see people from different cultures have a harder time learning about different cultures and will tend to believe stereotypes. Exposure to diversity is good. There was a time when white parents refused to allow black teachers to teach their children. Now the fear bred in ignorance is more often directed against Muslims.

[Hoping4Change]

8. The majority of Mulsim women don't wear veils. Veils have

nothing to do with Islam.

[Nolo_Contendre]

12. It is her interpretation of Islamic requirements

It doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks are the "true" requirements. What are you going to do, say "No, that's not required. I'm not Muslim but let me tell you how it is and how you should believe."

[Quantess]

14. Great, but

what does that have to do with being a good educator?

[Nolo_Contendre]

15. I didn't know that was in question

I thought the issue was all about her veil.

[Quantess]

21. She's working with children.

She's helping to educate children. Whether the veil distracts from her role as educator IS the question, IMHO.

And yes, I know she's the teaching assistant. Teaching assistants do a whole lot of teaching, though.

[Nolo_Contendre]

22. Provide evidence that the veil interferes with her teaching

before dismissing her attire.
She might be the greatest teacher ever, better than any of the other teachers. Why are you assuming she is deficient? Because you don't like veils for other reasons, perhaps?

[Quantess]

48. Here's a twist:

How about a nude teacher? Hypothetically speaking. Say Mr. John Doe is an award winning teacher, who has converted to a religion that embraces nudity? Now he wants to teach the kids, in the buff. Are the people who tell Mr. Doe to put on some clothes just prejudiced, people who discriminate against his religion?

[Nolo_Contendre]

56. Does nudity interfere with the function of the school?

Does it impose an undue hardship on the educational system? I think so.
by the way, can you point me in the direction of the nudist church?

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. Her specific job is helping teach English to children for whom it is a 2nd

language; as such, it is very helpful for them to be able to see her lip movements. This was why the children complained: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_headline=teacher-axed-for-keeping-her-veil-on-&method=full&objectid=17923551&siteid=94762-name_page.html

[Hepburn]

148. I think I have a pretty basic question on all of this...

...and your post pointed it out.

Wasn't the school system aware of her wearing a veil when they hired her? Seems to me that this issue should have been thought out back then and handled. If it interferes with her teaching, then put her elsewhere. If it doesn't then leave her be. But, I do think the school system was well aware that she wore a veil when they hired her. Like what is the deal??? They didn't notice it?

[muriel_volestrangler]

180. A good question, to which the answer is becoming muddier

A WELSH teaching assistant suspended by her school for refusing to take off her Muslim veil while in class has admitted not wearing it during her job interview.
...
Ms Azmi said yesterday: "I was under the impression that I would get interviewed with a female - and I was interviewed by a female. So no, I didn't have a veil on because I was in the presence of a female."

However, a male member of staff surprised her by joining them "later on", she added.

Asked whether she might have given a "false impression" by not wearing the garment, Ms Azmi said: "Are you trying to question that if I had gone in with the veil I wouldn't have got the job?"

14th October

Mr Whittingham (her lawyer) said: "She was being interviewed by a woman and removed her veil and put it in her bag. The headmaster then walked into the room during the interview. She didn't know he was going to come in or know that the head was male. She had been caught unawares but she did put the veil back on for the rest of the interview."

16th October

If the interview was over a year ago, I suppose she might have forgotten details. In the first story, she seems to be saying she didn't wear it at all during the interview; in the second, her lawyer says she put it on after the head teacher came in.

[Hepburn]

183. No kidding....

...when you said "muddier."

Oh, well....I thought I saw something that could be dealt with by using a bit of logic. Guess not. Seems like there is a question about the simplest of facts in this case.

[panzerfaust]

263. She did not wear it to the job interview

according to an article in the Guardian in the last couple of days.

No, do not have time to search for the reference at the moment, but the Guardian has covered the issue extensively and has a search function

[LostinVA]

184. Children learn through visual and audio clues

Any Education teacher can tell you that. They learn not only "school stuff" this way, but also behavior, etc., but seeing, recognizing, and reacting to visual/facial clues. So do adults. Acting like this isn't true shows your lack of knowledge in how child development and education occurs -- and how human dynamics work.

If the woman in question wants to teach and refuses to remove the veil while instructing, then she can go work in a girls-only school. Lots of those all over the UK.

She does not have an inherent right to do whatever the hell she wants at work and claim religious discrimination. This isn't like working in an office in a computer, this is about teaching. This isn't fair to the students. Oh, and the UK is avery diverse... this isn't a diversity issue.

This is similar to the veiled drivers license photo in Florida. 'Reasonable accommodation" works both ways.

I've read this whole thread you're just arguing to argue now. Indulging in intellectual masturbation doesn't make you right. No one one this thread said she shouldn't be able to teach because she's Muslim. No one said the school shouldn't practice reasonable accommodation. No one is saying the teacher shouldn't be able to go pray, to have off on her religious holidays, etc. All everyone is saying is that the veil SHOULD be removed while she teaches. If she doesn't want to work around men, and she refuses to engage students and staff properly, then she has overstepped the bounds of reasonable accommodation.

She needs to find another school.

And you need to find a better argument.

[WinkyDink]

233. ITA, 100%. Thank you.

[Hoping4Change]

201. For thousands of years India has been home to naked holy men

called naga babas aka sadhus. According to Dolf Hartsuiker, author of “Sadhus, Holy Men of India” there are now an estimated four to five million in India.

In Ontario since 1995 or there abouts women have the right to be topless in public. Hmm given that women have this right, I wonder how religiously minded parents would feel if female teachers exercised this right in the classroom.

[Hoping4Change]

32. Produce a definitive statement that Muslim women are required

to wear a face veil. Ooops sorry shouldn't ask that because you won't able to find a definitive statement which is why millions of Muslim women around the world don't wear one. Now this lack of a definitive statement about veiling the face is telling because if we were discussing pork there would be no discrepancy. Muslims can't eat pork. The Koran spells that out loud and clear. How is it that the Koran is loud and clear about pork but not about the veil? Hmmmm. It must not be very important.

[riderinthestorm]

43. The requirements are very vague.

The most thorough dissection of the verse and the word "khimar" as used in the Quran refers to a garment that was draped across a woman's breasts.

In an era of breast feeding women, modesty would have been covering one's breasts. Full facial veils were only required of Muhammed's wives. I doubt this teacher's aide is one of Muhammed's wives.

[Nolo_Contendre]

63. Your interpretation of the Quran is irrelevant

You don't wear a veil. Good for you!

She chooses to wear one. That is her right. Why are you opposed?

[riderinthestorm]

68. I am opposed to teachers wearing it in school. Period.

This utterly OT point was that that she does not have a religious mandate for wearing a full face veil no matter how you want to contort the Quran.

[LostinVA]

185. It's not inherently her right in every circumstance to wear her veil

I would bet that her driver's license would have her without a veil. Or, she would, if she doesn't have one. As well as her British passport.

[Nolo_Contendre]

62. I don't care about defending the veil itself

Personally, I don't wear a veil or know anyone who does. I do care about defending a woman's right to choose to wear one without being bullied by intolerant bigots.

If a woman interprets Islam's call for modesty as meaning she should wear a headscarf, so be it. If she interprets it to mean she needs to wear a veil, I am OK with that. If she thinks it means none of the above, I am happy for her choice.

What is your problem with a woman's choice?

[LostinVA]

186. "What is your problem with a woman's choice?"

Giggliciously funny strawman.

[kiahzero]

53. Interesting logic

I suppose if 50.1% of Jewish men don't wear yarmulkes, then they have nothing to do with Judaism, right?

[Quantess]

9. A veiled face would be naturally intimidating to kids.

Non verbal communication is the first stage of communicative development for children. Children are so aware of facial expressions, and they largely rely on facial expressions to understand what is being said.

For a kid in the classroom, they see this person all covered up, and they can't see any expression on their face, save for some eye movement. A large part of the communicative interchange is blocked by that veil. I would expect most western children to shy away from a person wearing a veil.

This isn't about race, as you tried to suggest. It's about covering the face.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. The article says she is willing to remove her veil in class.

As for "western children" shying away from a person wearing a veil. I would expect most white kids to shy away from people of color if they were unfamiliar with them. However, I also believe that they would get over it.

[riderinthestorm]

40. But she won't always be in her class

Teachers don't live in their own bubble, in their own classrooms. They are expected to interface with other children outside of their classrooms all the time: in the hallways, at recess, during lunch, in the library etc.

And it goes beyond "shying away" - disabled children who read lips, or blind children who rely upon touching a face would be adversely affected without access to her face. This goes beyond the study after study that demonstrates how imperative non-verbal cues are for effective communication....

[Hoping4Change]

203. Do you mean the way brown kids shy away from yellow kids?

[Quantess]

16. Children rely on non verbal communication

Here's an article I found, after a quick internet search, that encourages non-verbal expression for teachers: http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/commun-1.htm

[Nolo_Contendre]

18. Non-verbal communication is almost as important as cultural awareness

The only thing a veiled teacher doesn't provide is facial expressions. The rest are all there: Eye contact, Gestures, Posture and body orientation, Proximity, Paralinguistics, Humor.

Is there any evidence that children schooled by veiled teachers suffer learning handicaps or any measurable deficiency? I highly doubt it. Sounds more like an excuse to discriminate.

I found this:
http://www.pbs.org/kcts/preciouschildren/diversity/index.html
In our increasingly pluralistic society, it is important to raise children with a greater awareness of others around them, especially those who are different. These articles provide suggestions on promoting racial and cultural awareness at school and at home:

[piedmont]

17. already a long thread going if anyone wants to check it out...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2400745&mesg_id=2400745

In the video I saw, she said she wouldn't be covered unless in the presence of an adult male. She didn't say she wouldn't work work with men.
I'm still uncomfortable with the message that the veil sends to students. It seems to be a statement that men can't be trusted with women, and that women must cover themselves to solve this problem.

[Nolo_Contendre]

19. If you had a teacher who taught you why she held such values

You wouldn't be forced to guess at their meaning.

[piedmont]

37. But those values are religious values

and advocacy of them belongs in mosque, not public school. I know one could argue that the cross or the yarmulke etc. also have baggage, but they aren't a literal manifestation of the sect's attitude toward women-- and the veil is. I wouldn't want my hypothetical kid's teacher explaining why she wears a veil any more than I would want her explaining why she's a creationist. The explanation would come from an immediate authority figure, and would be advocacy. It doesn't belong in public school.

[Nolo_Contendre]

49. Your opinion of the what the veil represents is not the point

Wearing the veil is her choice. If she lives by example and explains why she wears the veil when asked ("It is part of my religion as a Muslim. We believe that Muslim women should wear a veil as part of the religion's requirements of modesty") then she is not proselytizing, she is educating. It is better for kids to understand religions than to live off of stereotypes.

If religious women of any belief are excluded from teaching, then ignorance, bigotry and intolerance will only increase.

You wouldnt expect a Jewish teacher not to wear a yarmulke just because kids might ask him what it means. If he chooses to wear it, it is his right and it does not pose an undue burden on the edicational system.

I'm really surprised this needs explanation to purported progressives.

[riderinthestorm]

51. Religious women of any belief are NOT excluded from teaching

They will be required to prove they can do their job, and if their religious garb gets in the way of that, they will be sacked.

That's the question before the tribunal. Is this aide's religious garb getting in the way of her job? I will put money down that she is going to get sacked - not because the UK school system is racist, discriminatory, or religiously intolerant - but because her face veil prohibits her from being a fully effective teacher, and a fully participatory member of her multi-gendered school/staff.

She should have been sacked as soon as her deceptive hiring scheme was exposed.

[Nolo_Contendre]

67. You have no evidence that she is ineffective

She could be the best teacher in the school system for all you know. They are not firing her for being incompetent. She is under attack for wearing a veil.

Draw your own conclusions.

[riderinthestorm]

71. I have. And the school has too. Clearly they believe her veil

impedes her effectiveness. Besides which, she presented herself falsely at her hiring interview. That's a big problem.

She is going to lose her suit, no question about it. And it won't be about discrimination or religious intolerance - mark my words, you read it here first.

[amandabeech]

86. In another article on this subject linked in one of the posts above,

the head of the school states that the children were complaining that they couldn't see her lips. She is teaching English as a Second Language.

I'm not vouching for the truthfulness of the report myself.

[Nolo_Contendre]

87. Maybe if you wish really really hard

The Muslim bogeymen won't haunt your dreams or come to America.

She was teaching for a year before she was attacked for wearing a veil. Doesn't sound like a performance issue to me. I don't claim to know the future but if the people there are anything like you, I won't be surprised.

[riderinthestorm]

89. The students were complaining that she wasn't being an effective teacher

Your persistent attempts to try to spin this as some kind of religious attack doesn't make it so.

[Nolo_Contendre]

95. Students suddenly complained after she was teaching for a year?

She was teaching without a veil and had no problem. She only wore a veil when men were present. Should we fire all teachers who receive unspecified complaints from unspecified number of students? Have you ever been a teacher? Has a student ever complained about you?

[riderinthestorm]

100. I am not a teacher, I am a parent

There are procedures in place that deal with complaints both by children and parents as well as other faculty. This teacher's aide wasn't summarily fired because a couple of her students "suddenly" complained I can guarantee you that - especially in the UK where shaking people lose from their positions is really difficult.

This is pathetic - your contortions are just pathetic to somehow make this some kind of religious discrimination case!

[Nolo_Contendre]

101. My contortions? Pot kettle black!

[riderinthestorm]

113. Are you a teacher? A parent?

Have you been in a school as an adult for more than just a casual visit? Have you spent years assisting in classes, during recess, during library time or in the computer lab?

Because I do.

My position isn't a contortion, it's facts. Just facts.

[Nolo_Contendre]

116. I am also a parent - of three girls

And I would rather have them taught by a good teacher wearing a veil on her face than by an intolerant teacher with a clouded mind.

[riderinthestorm]

122. I don't think you understand school logistics

and how teachers function on a daily basis in a school. Clearly you haven't spent more than the most cursory visit or you would understand that the teachers MUST be able to communicate with all of the children, and all of the children must be able to communicate with all of the teachers.

Your position deliberately cuts off a certain segment of the school population from one of their authority figures. Either the teacher must take the veil off so she can work freely around the school, with all of the children, handicapped or not, and MEN, or she should be fired.

She was fired.

[Nolo_Contendre]

149. She was suspended pending a review of complaints and her complaints

Get it right and quit the chicanery.

[muriel_volestrangler]

182. Much less than a year

She started in September 2005; by January 2006 she was being asked to take it off, and she went on sick leave; she was suspended in February.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_headline=i-do-take-off-my-veil-with-kids---but-not-a-man-&method=full&objectid=17930182&siteid=94762-name_page.html

[CJCRANE]

248. Interesting about her teaching for a year.

Seems to me that the Blairites have taken a leaf out of the Rove playbook. Make one individual into a massive talking point to distract from everything else. The Repubs tried it with Teri Schiavo and failed but the Blairites are onto a winner with this one.

[piedmont]

212. What the veil represents isn't hard to figure out.

Wearing the veil is her choice. If she lives by example and explains why she wears the veil when asked ("It is part of my religion as a Muslim. We believe that Muslim women should wear a veil as part of the religion's requirements of modesty") then she is not proselytizing, she is educating. It is better for kids to understand religions than to live off of stereotypes.


She'd also be leaving out that the same requirements aren't made of muslim men, and WHY they are not. That's not teaching.


You wouldnt expect a Jewish teacher not to wear a yarmulke just because kids might ask him what it means. If he chooses to wear it, it is his right and it does not pose an undue burden on the edicational system.


I addressed this in post #37.

I'm really surprised this needs explanation to purported progressives.


I'm really surprised that some progressives are ok with advocating sexist practices to school-kids as long as they are founded in religion or in a culture other than western culture.

[PsychoDad]

216. the same requirements aren't made of muslim men

No, but we do have some other ones which are very clearly spelled out in the Quran.

We must also dress modestly, the wearing of silk and gold is prohibited for men.

Women can wear as much silk and gold as they wish.

If you count in the requirements concerning the dress and need to have a beard and proper hair length outlined in the Hadeeth, then we have even more.

Peace.

[piedmont]

223. Psychodad, thanks for the input

From the Qur'an verses that have been cited in this and other threads, there seems to be some room for interpretation of what constitutes modesty for women. Some interpretations certainly seem to put more restrictions on women than on men. The face veil is one such interpretation, in my view and does a disservice to women.
As far as the beard requirement goes, well that's a natural part of a man's face (and one that doesn't cover nearly as much as the woman's veil).

[Hoping4Change]

206. Great post. You make an excellent point that the veil is the

"literal manifestation of the sect's attitude toward women". The veil is a veritable religious billboard, no different than if a Catholic teacher had a plate of wafers and a Communion cup on her desk and claimed that they were simply decoration.


Welcome to DU.:hi:

[piedmont]

210. thanks!

The veil is a veritable religious billboard, no different than if a Catholic teacher had a plate of wafers and a Communion cup on her desk and claimed that they were simply decoration.


yep, or a teacher wearing a t-shirt with one of those christian-fish-swallowing-a-Darwin-fish logos.

[Little Star]

25. When MEN wear a veil......

That veil thing is sooooo discriminatory toward women. Just because some women allow themselves to be demeaned this way why should people want that kind of example for children? I personally find it a very offensive ritual. Keep the oppressive veil out of schools!

[Nolo_Contendre]

27. Unbelievable intolerance

I am shocked. I expect to read this kind of gibberish on ANOTHER political website. Not a democratic one. Good golly!
How do you feel about Jews wearing yarmulkes in schools? How primitive is that?
And don't get me started on teh priests and those funky collars!
What about those nuns? How can they teach wearing those ugly habits?
Please keep those barbaric faith-based people away from my children!

[Little Star]

29. I find none of the things you mention

remotely equivalent to covering a womens face. To me that is purely oppressive of women. Also very bad role modeling for children. Sorry you can not see that.

[Hoping4Change]

34. Which of the above cover their face? That is the question here.

No one is maintaining that Muslim women can't wear scarves. And why are you shocked about these comments on a democratic website. Democracy is all about free speech and the right to challenge customs.

[Tansy_Gold]

165. Nuns and priests and letters of the alphabet

Nuns in traditional habits and priests in roman collars and cassocks do not teach in public schools in the United States.

And I am acknowledging that this case involves UK schools, not US.

If a Muslim woman teaches in a Muslim school and wishes (or even is required) to veil her face, she is free to do so, just as priests and nuns wear their traditional garb in their schools.

The issue here is not one of religious tolerance but of job performance: if the wearing of the veil is determined to impede the woman's performance of her job as a teacher of ESL, then she will probably be told to remove it or find another job. And the issue may (or may not) be confined to whether or not the veil impedes the actual teaching process; it may also involve whether or not others in the facility are forced to make special accommodation.

If, for instance, the father of a student arrives to pick up his child, will he be forced to wait until the teacher has donned her garb? Or will the man be threatened by the woman's relatives because he accidentally saw her face? Or will the woman herself be at risk from her relatives for dishonoring them if an unrelated male sees her face? Since she apparently considers the veil extremely important, important enough to risk her job, it's very likely that others in her family will consider it important, too. How important? Important enough that they would invade the school and kill any male who saw her? Given that such honor killings are not all that rare, and given that the woman herself considers it an important issue, I think I would, if I were sitting on any kind of panel deciding this case, have to take that risk into consideration.

This has nothing to do with intolerance, though I'm sure there are those on this board who insist that any criticism of any religion is the equivalent of bigotry. When the practice of any religion invades the public sphere to such a degree that the normal public activities of non-believers (even if they are a minority) are significantly and negatively impacted, then the public good must trump the right of public religious practice.

Second point -- Although I am a native English speaker, I have learned a number of other languages, both as a child (beginning at age 10) and as an adult. The ability to see the instructor's face while she/he is teaching new words is essential, even for those who have no hearing challenges. There are often sounds in one language that do not exist in another, and teaching those sounds is virtually impossible without demonstrating how those sounds are made. And instructor who veils or masks or in any other manner hides his/her face from the students almost guarantees that they will not learn.

But of course there are those here who will either not believe a word I've written or who will argue for the sake of arguing, and I don't have time for that shit.

Tansy Gold

[Nolo_Contendre]

168. Most of what you wrote was thought provoking

But this paragraph, especially the middle of it, was exceptionally ugly:
"If, for instance, the father of a student arrives to pick up his child, will he be forced to wait until the teacher has donned her garb? Or will the man be threatened by the woman's relatives because he accidentally saw her face? Or will the woman herself be at risk from her relatives for dishonoring them if an unrelated male sees her face? Since she apparently considers the veil extremely important, important enough to risk her job, it's very likely that others in her family will consider it important, too. How important? Important enough that they would invade the school and kill any male who saw her? Given that such honor killings are not all that rare, and given that the woman herself considers it an important issue, I think I would, if I were sitting on any kind of panel deciding this case, have to take that risk into consideration."

Nice trick to interweave the reasonable discourse with the Islamophobic rhetoric. Quite a talent, or handicap, whatever the case may be.

[LostinVA]

195. And, most nuns no longer wear traditional garb

Most just look like your stereotypical image of a librarian.

And, btw -- very good post!

[mondo joe]

44. Sounds like the same old anti-gay teacher crap.

Simply acknowledging that someone exists doesn't set them up to be role models for kids or anyone else.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

115. ...

[riderinthestorm]

175. Until I see the majority of Islamic men at the local library

wearing this, then I call foul. Beyond that, in most major cities (I refer to Chicago as my touchstone) men are NOT swathed in chadors like I see the women.

Only the muslimahs are wrapped up to the eyeballs, if not peeking out of a mesh sreen.

I've watched these same women step back and decline being checked out by male librarians, the men just ignore everyone whose helping them regardless of sex.

There IS a double standard here. Your picture is one desert community, not the norm.

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

194. I actually agree with what you just wrote

As well as it making it more difficult to teach/learn... I consider it a very oppressive, misogynistic symbol that should NOT be allowed in a classroom -- especially a public classroom. It's not a good example for either boys or girls. I understand the headscarf, and believe that is similar enough to a yarmulke to be allowed -- although I still think it's sexist. But, not the veil. To me, this is no different than if a woman's religious beliefs told her to appear in class shackled, and to bow down before every male teacher that walked by. It's the same thing.

It is very interesting to me -- and frankly appalling -- that so many people are defending this as some kind of religious discrimination case, which it isn't. Hmmmm.

[PsychoDad]

217. How about beards?

Muslim men wear beards as a requirement of their religion.

We should ban beards also?


Peace.

[riderinthestorm]

227. Are you honestly trying to equate beards with face veils??

Both in their face covering or their meaning (whether sexist, religious or as perceived by the west)?

[mikelewis]

31. My dog has a beautiful leash and he loves it dearly...

To him, I guess the leash represents freedom and new experiences, a divergence from the everyday reality behind the four walls of the prison he has grown to love. Everyday, when I walk my children to school, he whines and cries, shaking in anticipation for me to clip his leash on and take him on that short walk where he can interact with the couple of children that dote on him every morning. I find it odd (and somewhat shameful) that some women can be trained just as easily as a dog; that they can be taught to love their leashes and even grow to love it for the freedom it represents. A woman should never be forced to hide her face from the world and even worse, she should never willingly choose to accept a bridle that serves to establish male dominance and deny the world the beauty God has created. If God wanted Woman to wear a veil, she would have been born with one... not condemned by it through some word of Man.

The Prophet Mohamed, may God bless his soul, was not perfect in every thought written and every command given; nor were any of our Apostles and Saints for that matter. These people were blessed beings... but not perfect. Only God is perfect and even our understanding of what he wants is limited by our ability to comprehend his Word. God did not create Man to be slaves nor did he create Woman to be slaves either. They were both created free and from the same soul, a soul that was destined for eternity without oppression and without fear. The veil represents both oppression and fear to me and, to me, it is un-Godly. I leash my dog because Man has written a law to protect other men from harm; Man leashes a Woman for the same reason.. neither has anything to do with God... no matter how much they grow to Love their chains.

[Hoping4Change]

35. Great post. I couldn't agree more that if God want women to

wear a veil he would have given them one. Your other comments about the leash are right on the mark. :thumbsup:

[Nolo_Contendre]

45. Your comparing women to dogs is offensive and sexist

Women have freedom to make their own choices in life even if you disagree with their choices. Women have the right to work if they choose. Women have the right to observe the religion of their choice. That's their right. You have the same right.

You do not have the right to impose your misbegotten perceptions of what the veil represents on others. It's that simple.

If you are fascist conservative fundamentalist Repugnican, then i would understand why you would try to impose your views on others and trample their rights. That's the way they are.

I am shocked to find that strain of intolerance on DU.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cameron27]

54. Same ole, same ole in this thread too, I see

Good luck with it though. I'm off to down a couple of aspirin or a pint of vodka taken neat.:evilgrin:

[riderinthestorm]

57. Yup, the other thead got too big and I can't open it anymore

It's just about time for my nightly glass or two myself.

:toast:

I have to admit though, the one poster on this thread has taken it to some new (low) depths. S/He believes that mainstreaming handicapped children is "chicanery" foisted upon poor face veiled Muslim women in an attempt to run them out of teaching in public schools.

Chicanery! I'm still fuming.

(grumbles off to the fridge for a cold one....)

[mikelewis]

144. I am not imposing my views on anyone...

I am offering them. I am not saying a woman is not allowed to wear a veil if she chooses, I'm saying it has nothing whatsoever to do with God or His will on Earth. The veil, in the context of which I speak, is viewed as a religious obligation, not a fashion statement. The ridiculous idea that God is somehow ashamed of that which he has made is as preposterous as as you assuming I am being intolerant to women's rights to choose what manner of fashion they wish to wear. If you choose to wear a veil because you feel it is a part of your identity and wish to augment your wardrobe by slipping into the latest Burka fashions, I could honestly care less. The problem I have with the veil is that is has become some sort of symbol of divine obedience when in fact the only reason it was ordained and accepted as customary in certain societies is because of the desires beauty elicits in Men. Because a beautiful woman can inspire lustful and thus sinful thoughts, certain people believe they should be hidden away so Man will not be tempted into sin. The thinking is... you can't covet what you don't see... which is of course ridiculous.

For example, I watched the movie "Ray" the other day. (Great movie btw, Jamie Foxx is amazing) In the movie, the blind Ray Charles would feel the wrist of the women he intended to woo to determine whether or not they were desirable.

Fathead Newman: "Look at Ray over there. You see that? He feels her wrist because he figures that's the way to tell if she's good looking or not."

One would think that appearance would mean nothing to a blind man but society has created such a powerful impression on men that even those who can't see look for physical beauty over inner beauty. That is the apostasy and that is why draping a sheet over a woman is wrong. The physical beauty is a distraction from God and hardly compares to the inner beauty. If a woman chooses to hide her looks from society (whether she be comely or not) should be a decision a woman makes for her own personal reasons, not because some Man said God commands it. The beauty that God created should not be hidden away and oppressed; it should be allowed to roam free as any man and expressed or accentuated any way a person sees fit. If you have lust in your heart because you see something you covet, that is your problem and how you deal with that must be reconciled with your own inner demons.

If you choose to believe that I am a "fascist conservative Republican", you of course have a right to your opinion just as I have a right to mine about the veil; though I do believe you may have viewed my post in a the wrong light. Also, if your shocked to find intolerance on DU, you may want to search the archives a bit and find out just what exactly you're dealing with. DU does not tolerate all opinions, we are not all leaves in the wind blowing around in popular circles. All of us come here with our own personal views and offer them up for discussion and debate. Your ad hominem attack hardly refutes any of the ideas I expressed and only shows that you either did not read my post or that you do not understand the symbolic nature of the veil.

In either case, I would like to welcome you to DU and hope that you find other posters here more to your liking. Please do not construe my response as a personal attack on you or your character as this was not my intent. Feel free to offer any comment you wish but I would prefer it if you refrained from name calling. It's not that I can't take it, mind you... it's just that I hate writing, "Stick and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me..." or my least favorite, "I'm rubber..." well, you get the idea. Passion is a wonderful thing but only if it is directed and poignant, otherwise, it's just called raving. May God bless you.

[Nolo_Contendre]

152. You need to work as hard on your comprehension as you do on your logorrhea

I never called you a fascist Repugnican who tramples the rights of others. I did say that I was surprised to find that strain of intolerance on a progressive board.

[mikelewis]

164. Obviously, I must work harder on my comprehension...

especially when dealing with posters whose ideas seems so contradictory...

First you say I'm trying to impose my "misbegotten perceptions" on others like the "fascist conservative fundamentalist Repugnican's" do. Then you say, that even though you drew the comparison, there was no intended name calling. Is it so odd that I would jump to that conclusion? Now you say that that you find it odd that you'd find "that strain of intolerance on a progressive board" and yet that statement sort of begs the question of which "strain of intolerance" you are speaking... where you speaking of the "fascist conservative fundamentalist Repugnican's" strain of intolerance, that according to you, I was not exhibiting or rather, I was exhibiting but you had the decency not to mention except through thinly veiled innuendo. If not that strain, then which?... because it's sort of hard to comprehend your point through the thick veil of smarminess. I felt a long and thorough reply was required because your reply was dripped with arguendo and oozed ad hominem. Obviously, it was my mistake to think that you truly wished to discuss the topic and debate the merits of the veil.

At no point in your replies have you addressed any of the points I've made other than to level ad hominem attacks and trite quips that offer nothing of substance to the original post. If you believe applying pressure upon women to hide their face from society by claiming God has commanded it, then please lay out that argument. If you believe a religion has a right to single out and oppress women's freedom of expression in order to facilitate societal concepts of morality then lay out that argument. You're reply had no argumentative value and I mistakenly believed you either did not read my post or you didn't understand it. Clearly, you must have some other much grander point to make but for some reason believe it is so self-evident everyone should just automatically grasp your inconspicuous point. For those of us who are not mind readers, either state you case or find a site that hosts telepathists.

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[riderinthestorm]

173. Up until it impacts the education of secular children in public schools.

If their faith expression interferes with their ability to do their job, then they will get fired.

And I support that.

This woman's (dubious) religious props are interfering with her job performance.

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mikelewis]

178. That is entirely my point...

A veil does not represent a choice, it represents a commandment from God which by it's very nature is not a choice. There are some of God's commandments which are self-evident, such as gravity and inertia. These are no brainers and it's very difficult to survive drastic breaches of these laws. Without respect for these laws, man would not be able to drive a car or fly in a plane. Other laws are not so self-evident, these are what's known as the Commandments and breaches of these can kill the body but more importantly and more dire, breaking these laws can kill the soul.

I care very little if a woman were allowed the choice of wearing a veil or not but I do care when that flimsy piece of handmade cloth is held up as some sort of access to God. God has made nothing by which he is ashamed and nothing is hidden from God. A veil's intent is to hide a woman from man with the sole intent of keeping the man from sin. It is designed to save the man's soul while it oppresses the womans soul; even if she grows to love it, like my dog loves his leash.

No woman should be taught that God wants her to hide her face from any man. By singling out only the woman as a treasure to be hid from view is in essence reducing her to an object of possible temptation and in no way glorifies God. A veil is merely a piece of cloth, having no more power to save a man's soul than crucifix has in a wicked man's hand. To teach anything else is an apostasy in any religion. This is not bigoted against the Muslim faith and truth be told there is a great deal in the Koran that I find great comfort in. If it weren't for my belief that Jesus truly was the son of God, I would probably be a muslim (though I daresay, not a very popular one). Finding the veil to be an apostasy is not disrespecting the entirety of the faith, it's saying that no piece of cloth worn by a woman can save a man's soul from damnation but forcing a woman to accept a leash can condemn her soul to damnation. That to me is much more important than offending anyone's sensibilities. Call me a bigot if you like but what does one call a person who sits idly by while a fellow human is reduced to a mere object or something resembling an animal of property? I'm not sure if they have a name for that but they should.

[Nolo_Contendre]

179. A woman's choice is not her choice, I see

Can I have some of what you're smoking?

[Quantess]

238. I thought mikelewis' post was great. An apt comparison.

Some women don't have a whole lot of freedom or independent decision making, many of whom happen to wear veils. The leashed dog is an apt comparison, in many ways.

Not sure what planet you live on, if you think women in some middle east cultures have the right to make any decisions on their own, save for choosing their own socks, and how the dishes shold be stacked. Many women aren't allowed to come and go as they please, for example.

[stepnw1f]

50. If a Woman Choses to Wear One I Have no Problem (nt)

[riderinthestorm]

61. You would if your child read lips. nt

[stepnw1f]

66. Interesting Point....

I just wouldn't get pissed at her for doing what she feels is the right thing to do religiously. But if there are kids who are hearing impaired and NEED to read lips then I would say there needs to be an exception.

[riderinthestorm]

74. I'm not pissed

I think the guy who hired her is pissed - she misrepresented herself in her interview.

I suspect the school is pissed - they hired an esl teacher whose face can't be exposed - not too helpful when trying to demonstrate mouth shapes for learning the language....

[Nolo_Contendre]

154. Assuming that's their reason for firing her after a year on the job

And not because they are intolerant bigots who hate the sight of a veiled woman in public like so many DUers.

[Hoping4Change]

200. Your continued insults and ad hominem attacks clearly show you

to be an intolerant and bigoted toward those who believe that God created the human body,intellect and sexual desire and found them to be good but man perverted with the desire to control others imposed laws and sanctions and subjugated the credulous by fear and shame.



William Blake (1757-1827)


I went to the Garden of Love,
and saw what I never had seen:
A chapel was built in the midst,
where I used to play on the green.

And the gates of this chapel were shut,
and "Thou shalt not" writ over the door;
So I turn'd to the Garden of Love,
that so many, many sweet flowers bore;

And I saw it was filled with graves,
and tombstones where flowers should be;
and priests in black gowns were walking their rounds,
and binding with briars my joys and desires.



You are also clearly bigoted toward those who embrace the democratic right to disdain and criticize religion, regarding religious beliefs to be potentially dangerous unless subject to human reason.

[riderinthestorm]

202. Then her imam, her Muslim MP, and the UK Islamic orgs are all bigots too

since they all support the school board on their decision to suspend this woman.

[KitSileya]

221. Per the timeline posted up-thread,

She worked for about 3 months before the complaints of ther pupils got her in trouble. The British school year starts in September, and by January, she was on sick leave. In other words, the matter became a problem rather swiftly - there are steps to be taken when one complains about a teacher - the problem must maifest itself, i.e., the children must have complained at home, or they must have exhibited slower learning, which then caused the parents to question the children. Then they must have taken it up with the teacher and the person in question, or talked to the school administration. If the former, that makes for another step in the process before the matter came to the notice of the school admin, who then would meet with the teacher's assistant to see what could be done to resolve the situation. When that couldn't be solved, the next step might have been the sick leave the assistant got in January. This is a lengthy process, and having it done in just 3 months would indicate that the children and their parents felt it was a big problem.

As a teacher, I have no problem with my Somalian pupils wearing their all-covering, flowing traditional garment, because it covers everything but the face. They're teenagers, and I understand and accomodate Muslim students partaking of Ramadan - which makes it virtually impossible for them to concentrate in the 7th and 8th period - because it is only for one month. I would not be able to teach a student whose face is covered in a normal class situation year-round. By the same token, I think it is nigh impossible for pupils - especially primary/elementary school pupils, to learn fully and properly from a teacher whose face is covered. I am an esl teacher myself, tho' in high school, and I have no count of the times I've had to demonstrate proper pronunciation of sounds with exaggerated lip movements etc.

Just like how I cannot accept a pharmacist who refuses to fill birth control prescriptions because of religious beliefs, I cannot accept a teacher who needs her face covered during school lessons. And before someone argues that she would only do that if there are men present - in some schools, we encourage parents to participate in school lessons at elementary school level - are fathers to be excluded? We encourage fathers to be more involved with their children - what if they feel rejected? What if the class has a male teacher? What if pupils (special needs pupils) in the class need personal assistants - who are male? What if there are people observing the class for various and sundry reasons?

[PsychoDad]

219. According to the sister...

She did not wear the veil while teaching the children, only when men came into the room.

So the "Visual Communications " argument doesn't seem valid.

Until the pending labor inquiry meeting, the results of which should be interesting, it's all he said/she said.

Peace.

[Hoping4Change]

224. You find the arguments Kitselya makes against veil

interesting. She/he made the post just ahead of yours. One of the interesting points she/he raises is what happens if the teacher she is aiding is male.

[kiahzero]

60. Odd

Debate began earlier this month, when Jack Straw, ex-foreign minister now serving as House leader of Commons, said Muslim women visiting his office should remove their veils.


I guess it'd be OK with everyone if he said that Jewish men had to remove their yarmulkes, right? Or if he decided that women shouldn't wear pants, and said that women visiting his office needed to wear skirts or dresses instead?

[amandabeech]

93. Veils cover the entire face below the eyes.

Neither yarmulkes nor ladies' pants obscure the face.

Many posters here believe that learning English as a Second Language is much better done if the students can see the shape that the lips make to make English language sounds. If the teacher is veiled, then the students cannot see the lips.

Others believe that facial expression communicates much meaning and feeling to all, but especially young children, who are the students here. If the teacher is veiled, then the students cannot see the lips, even to see the teacher smile.

[kiahzero]

103. None of which is relevant for visiting a legislator's office

What exactly makes it acceptable to demand a woman remove certain items of clothing, but not others? What is the relevant difference that you think allows a legislator to demand a woman strip off certain items, but not others?

On the topic of teaching:

The Free Exercise should be read as to not compel individuals to violate their religious beliefs except where to do otherwise puts a significant burden on the government (Note the emphasis on *should*, as it is not always interpreted this way in current jurisprudence). Thus, the question is whether allowing this teacher to wear her veil is a significant burden on the government. Making it so that she cannot do her job would be a relevant fact, but only if she is responsible for the duties in question: if she isn't teaching ESL or dealing with children so young that facial expression is so fundamental, those arguments are irrelevant.

[amandabeech]

199. You make some interesting points concerning various scenarios..

However, I think that you greatly underestimate the importance of non-verbal communication. That seems to be a big dividing line in this discussion.

I disagree with your interpretation of the Free Exercise clause, but simply do not have the time to enter into further discussion now.

[Matariki]

140. what about people wearing ski masks?

i think that's a closer analogy.

[kiahzero]

153. One's covered by Free Exercise

One isn't. So no, it's not a closer analogy.

[piedmont]

222. thought crime???

So if I wear a face-covering veil in public (which is outlawed in many places) while believing there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet, I should be allowed to continue. But if I should waiver in my beliefs and (gasp) become agnostic or atheist, I'm guilty of a crime?

[Matariki]

64. 'religion' aside - how is this different than wearing a mask in public?

it strikes me as creepy. i don't think anyone would be allowed to teach wearing a mask.

[Nolo_Contendre]

73. See Freedom of Religion

Also known as the First Amendment of the Constitution.

[riderinthestorm]

75. None of our "freedoms" are without qualifications....

"Can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater..."

[Nolo_Contendre]

84. Good one! All men are created equal

Unless they are slaves and then they only count for 3/5. It's in the Constitution!!

[Matariki]

76. well, this is going on in England so the US Constitution isn't moot

but I don't see it as a religious issue. I see it as a woman who insists on wearing a mask at work. Around children.

[riderinthestorm]

79. Yup, its a performance issue, pure and simple nt

[Nolo_Contendre]

81. You have no evidence that her performance was deficient

She was attacked because some people do not like what a veil represents to them - as evidenced by the messages here.

[Matariki]

91. you are absolutely right

many people, including myself, DON'T like what a veil represents. Repression of women. I think it sucks bigtime. I don't see why you're defending it. Do you hate women? Fundamentalist religions all seem to have something against women.

No, I wouldn't want a woman wearing a veil while teaching my kids, I don't like what it communicates - that women are 2nd class citizens. Nor do I see it as a good representation of Islam, any more than I see Jerry Falwell's ilk is a good representation of Christianity.

[Nolo_Contendre]

102. I believe woman have the right to choose their religious beliefs

Do you hate women so much that you would deny religious women the right to practice their religion?

[Matariki]

108. You can't marry 4 women either

even if Islam condones it. Fuck fundamentalism. There's nothing progressive about it - and this is a progressive board. No one is stopping her from practicing her fucked up version of Islam - the issue is whether she should be allowed to teach dressed like that. I don't think so.

[Nolo_Contendre]

117. Because you don't like what the veil represents to you

aka bigotry, which is irrelevant to her rights to teach and practice her religion.

[Matariki]

120. she has a right to her religion - that isn't the issue

[mondo joe]

124. The only issue would be if her expression prevents her from performing

the function of her job and a reasonable accomodation cannot be arrived at.

[Matariki]

129. right. that's the issue

whether she can do her job teaching kids with her face covered. She could be doing telemarketing for instance and this wouldn't be an issue.

[mondo joe]

131. As I understand it she only claims to need to cover her face when

in the company of men. Can a reasonable accomodation be provided is the next question.

[Matariki]

132. not when she's teaching boys?

that's a different issue then. It would depend on how much of her job was about communicating with co-workers, imo. I'd be creeped out if one of my male co -workers wore a mask to work - say if his religion was mexican wrestling or something.

[riderinthestorm]

137. Nope, boys aren't a problem. It's her male co-workers that are

the crux of the issue.

Plus there's the whole issue of having to communicate with her esl students when a man comes into the classroom (or the difficulty of dealing with a deaf lipreading child children on a playground when a male co-worker is with you supervising, or an Asperger's child who is having a temper tantrum in the lunchroom....) with your face covered.

[smirkymonkey]

236. Does anyone else find it a bit presumptive that this woman feels

that every man is going to go insane with desire simply by glimpsing her face? I find the entire notion kind of silly. :shrug:

[mondo joe]

141. Appparently boys are not an issue.

I think I could handle speaking with someone in a veil without being so upset I couldn;t do my own job.

[riderinthestorm]

134. Do you understand the logistics of a school day with young children?

In an elementary school situation? I'm not trying to be snarky, you seem reasonable and if you understand how teachers (male and female), students, and aides operate in a school, I would really like your input on how you think this woman could operate with her veil in a school? Taking into account that she is going to have to interface with all of the children, and all of the staff in the public areas? (recess, lunch, joint assemblies etc.)

Cause that is the problem here. She can't do it as far as I can see. And the school can't accomodate her. It's impossible without trampling someone's already established rights (gender equality, handicapped accessibility etc.) in order to accomodate her religious "requirements" (that are already a bit dubious actually).

[mondo joe]

143. I think she could interact with most people. If not, the school can make

their case.

[riderinthestorm]

146. I think she has to interact with them ALL, equally. That's the case.

Thanks for the input.

Peace!

[Nolo_Contendre]

170. Religious rights are dubious?

No bias there!

[mondo joe]

121. Nothing progressive about separation of church and state?

Pheh.

[riderinthestorm]

92. Her students were complaining that she wasn't being an effective teacher

Please read the whole thing before you persist here. It's getting really annoying.

[Nolo_Contendre]

98. Her community is complaining that the decision is religious discrimination

Please read the whole issue before you persist. The arrogance and intolerance displayed here are really really annoying.

[riderinthestorm]

107. This is going to court to get settled. She will lose. nt

[Matariki]

110. Then why not find a fundamentalist board that shares your views

if you're annoyed.

[Nolo_Contendre]

114. I am not a fundamentalist for supporting a woman's right to choose

how to express her religious beliefs. If anyone is a fundamentalist, it is those who would deny a woman the right to wear a veil if she so chooses. Fundamentalists want everyone to follow their ways of living and believing. It's clear here who supports freedom and who supports denial of religious freedom and individual rights.

[Matariki]

119. you can choose to be Mormon but you can't marry more than one woman

The Koran allows a man to have four wives but US and European law does not allow it. Religious law doesn't trump secular law, thank god.

[mondo joe]

125. No, but reasonable accomodation is called for, and religious

expression can't be denied simply because you don't care for it.

[Matariki]

128. It doesn't have anything to do with the woman's religion

It has to do with her wearing a mask to work.

[mondo joe]

130. And that is an expression of her religious belief.

The questions are - does it prevent her from performing the basic functions of the work, and contingent on a "yes", is there a reasonable accomodation to be provided.

[Matariki]

135. Religious belief doesn't give you automatic license to do anything

That was the point of my example. Just because your religion allows you to marry multiple underage girls doesn't mean you get to.

[mondo joe]

138. No one said it gives license to do anything.

Hence thhe questions of function and reasonable accomodation.

[Matariki]

142. well that IS the question isn't it.

whether a person can function in a modern work place wearing a mask. i think it's creepy.

[mondo joe]

145. Whether you think it's creepy or not isn't really relevant to whether or

not she can perform, or if a reasonable accomodation is available.

[Matariki]

147. didn't say it was

just stating my opinion of how i'd feel if a co-worker wore a mask all the time to work. Say, if a man wore a mask because he didn't think women should see a man's face. Creepy.

[Hoping4Change]

209. Wearing a veil is like wearing a religious billboard. It screams

out that something is wrong about men seeing a women's face. It is no different than a Catholic teacher have a plate of Communion wafers and a Communion cup on her desk, claiming that they are simply decorations.

[piedmont]

220. So if I wear a mask into a bank..

and I'm atheist, it's not ok. But if I'm a member of a mask-wearing religion, it is?

[smirkymonkey]

237. Touche!

[magellan]

82. How is that different to a teacher with a facial disfigurement?

That can be creepy too, at first, but I don't think a qualified person should be denied the chance to teach just because they were badly scarred in an accident or have a congenital condition...do you?

If we want to raise more tolerant, accepting children then they need to be exposed to more diversity, not shielded from it.

[riderinthestorm]

88. This isn't about opposing "diversity", it's about religious gear that

impedes effective teaching.

[magellan]

94. How does it impede effective teaching?

What limiting properties does a veil have that facial disfigurement doesn't?

[riderinthestorm]

106. I imagine that a facial disfigurement would be evaluated individually

I'm not sure how that works. I would assume that there are protocols in place for a situation like that.

The case in question however is about a woman esl teacher who was interviewed by a man without her veil, and now wants to teach with it on. Clearly the complaining students found it to be problematic.

A face veil has a more uniform look to it than individualized facial deformities. Obviously the UK school system has some kind of regulations about a face covering since it is more universally consistent that isn't applicable to disfiguration.

And if the person with a facial disfigurement couldn't perform their job, they would be sacked too, justifiably so. Regardless of how many people wanted to cry "discrimination!"

[magellan]

133. I see, and I'll have to agree with you on this one based on the new info

My husband (who's a Brit) said he'd read the reason the kids complained was simply because they "couldn't hear her", which struck us as disingenuous. But if she's teaching English to students for whom English is a second language, the veil is indeed an impediment to them seeing how sounds are formed.

[Matariki]

136. what's the real story?

some people say she's teaching with a veil on, others that she takes it off while teaching and only wears it if an adult male is present. Students complaining they can't hear her implies she wears it while teaching.

[magellan]

139. I don't know

I've heard/read two different versions of this story now. No doubt it'll all be sorted out at the tribunal. Personally I don't have a stake in it unless she's being discriminated against. I'm not religious and think faith should be kept out of public schools, but at the same time I don't have a problem with teachers who wear a cross or yarmulke or even a veil, as long as the belief behind those affectations isn't being inserted by the teacher into the instruction.

[Matariki]

126. Isn't it obvious?

have you ever had a conversation with someone wearing a mask? It really impedes communication. It'd be like having a guy in ku klux klan gear or a ski mask talking to you.

[Nolo_Contendre]

158. Comparing Islam to the Klan says more about you than anything else

and explains the roots of your hostility to freedom of religion, if that religion is not yours.

[riderinthestorm]

169. Wearing a mask in western culture means that you are

1. a criminal.
2. brainwashed (religiously indoctrinated)
3. part of a cult that espouses hatred (KKK)

That's just off the top of my head. I would assume there are social scientists who can name more.

Masking yourself isn't any kind of virtue in the west: it causes serious offense.

But you know that don't you?

Here we are at that cultural clash you want to denigrate, but is reality none the less....

[Nolo_Contendre]

172. Your opinion about other people's religious belief is fascinating

but irrelevant and totally off base. You need an education in the meaning of the veil to people who wear it as opposed to people who are ignorantly rejecting it. Who cares what anyone else thinks? A woman has a right to wear it if she believes it is her religious duty. I don't wear one and I don't know anyone who does actually but I support women who choose to wear one for religious reasons (modesty, not criminal intent).

I am amazed and appalled that purportedly progressive people can be so intolerant of the religious beliefs of others. Wow. What has happened to this country? A few years of Bush and we have regressed 5 decades in civil liberties.

[Hoping4Change]

208. Odd how Muslims with an agenda are sooooo ardent about

freedom of religion but were mute when the Danish cartoons threatened freedom of speech.

[Nolo_Contendre]

105. It's about finding excuses to exclude religious Muslims from public life

It's about not accommodating religious freedom because people are threatened by "culture clash".

[LostinVA]

187. Oh brother -- no, it isn't

Nice strawman -- YET AGAIN. Damn! You must have bought the whole straw warehouse.

[PsychoDad]

218. And that's how many muslims see it.

:applause:

It's a reactionary response directed toward the "others" who don't fit in.

Peace.

[riderinthestorm]

225. Except of course that her imam, Muslim MP, and UK Islamic orgs

don't see the suspension as an exclusionary act either. They support the school's decision to let her go.

So how is it again, that the school's decision is a "reactionary response"?

[PsychoDad]

257. I suspect that her Iman, Muslim Mp, et al...

could also be from a different Islamic culture from the sister.

I would suspect that if one of the above were saudi, then their opinion would have been different.

Mind you, I agree if the sister had known that she would be working with men and the school did not want her wearing veil, she should have sought employment elsewhere.

But not every Muslim would agree with me.

Islam is not monolithic, we don't all get the same memo. Different islamic cultures have different norms.

peace.

[Marrah_G]

239. I have to ask...

Your answers have all been well thought out and frankly if all Muslim countries behaved as you describe Islam it would be a beautiful thing. Unfortunately, as with all religions, it has been molded to fit the culture of the ones in power. It seems the rigidity tends to lessen as cultures change.

As you stated in an earlier thread even the Christians "Mary", a jew, had her head covered. This was the culture of the land at that time. It has far more to do with the culture of the time and less to do with religion. There was a terrific History channel piece on the birth of Jesus and the culture of the time.

With that said I have to ask this:

A) In Western culture covering the face is not seen in a positive light, male or female, and in some places it is even illegal.

B) In some Muslim cultures covering the face by female is seen in a positive light, sometimes even mandated by law.

Should we not respect the culture of the countries we live and work in?

Would I not be harmed or even killed in some countries if I were to take a teaching position and walk into class not only in my western style clothes but also with my hair and face exposed?

Why is it expected for certain cultures to accept "Others" and have that same respect reciprocated?

Blessings,

Marrah

[PsychoDad]

258. You are right.

It was not my intention to apologize for the acts of these various countries, but to demonstrate that what they are doing was not "Islamic".

If every "Christian" country followed the teachings of Christ, then this world woule would be a much more wonderful place also.

We need to be able to seperate the real teachings from what has been done in the name of that religion.

With that said I have to ask this:

A) In Western culture covering the face is not seen in a positive light, male or female, and in some places it is even illegal.

B) In some Muslim cultures covering the face by female is seen in a positive light, sometimes even mandated by law.

Should we not respect the culture of the countries we live and work in?

I think we should find a middle ground. We need to foster a culture of acceptance.

Why is it expected for certain cultures to accept "Others" and have that same respect reciprocated?

Because they are not "Others", they are human beings like you and me, with the same hopes, fears, and flaws. And I would hope that my culture (I am an american) would be big enough and strong enouth to accept someone who is different with open arms.

Would I not be harmed or even killed in some countries if I were to take a teaching position and walk into class not only in my western style clothes but also with my hair and face exposed?

You might be harmed in some places, annd not in others. But then that problem probably isn't exclusive to Middle eastern or "islamic" countries.

I might be killed somewhere in the world for how I dress or for what I say, or what I belive. That doesn't change the fact that I would hope that I could be better than that, and that I and my countrymen could be more accepting and inviting than those countries.


Peace :)

[Marrah_G]

260. I agree with much of what you say

It's always sad to see religions perverted by governments/cultures. Unfortunately I don't know how we will ever get past that. The point I was trying to make is that when you visit another culture, whether permanently or temporarily the right thing to do is to change your own behaviors (even in minor ways) so as to not offend the culture and/or religious practices of others. Also the host culture should do it's best not to be overly sensitive to visitors or new residents differences. Compromise is the key.

I do not want you to think that I am anti-muslim in any way. I believe all faiths worship the same higher power, but they do so in different ways. Understanding and accepting other traditions is best done in a way that makes all feel at ease. Changes to cultures come slowly and cannot be forced. Each new group of immigrants slowly but surely weaves itself into the tapestry we call America adding its own vibrancy.

Blessings,

Marrah

[Chomp]

83. Less theocracy, not more. Please. nt

[Nolo_Contendre]

99. More freedom of choice; Less intolerance of others

Thanks!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

104. The Koran does NOT require women to cover their faces

The full-face and full-body coverings are strictly ETHNIC variations.

By the way, I am a Christian, and and I wore a cross in class on exactly one occasion, the day after a fundie student inserted a Chick tract in his homework with a handwritten note begging me to read it and consider carefully whether I wanted to accept Christ as my Savior. But that was the only time.

[Nolo_Contendre]

111. Yes, it is a cultural variation in religious interpretation

That doesn't make it less valid.

Some Christians eat fish on Friday, some don't. Which one is the real Christian?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

123. Catholics haven't been required to eat fish on Friday (actually, it was

avoiding meat, not eating fish, that was required) for about forty years.

My guess about this particular case is that either

1) She's doing this because some male relative told her that she couldn't work unless she wore the full veil or

2) (since she didn't wear the veil to the interview) She's doing this just to attract attention to herself or to cast herself in a martyr role

Both the U.S. and most European countries have outright banned one allegedly Islamic (but actually ethnic) practice, female genital mutilation.

[Nolo_Contendre]

150. You are denying that this woman has a right to make her own decisions

Denying that a woman has the independence to decide her religious beliefs for herself and claiming that she must be controlled by men just becaise you don't like her decisions is pure sexism.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

155. No, but the significant fact to me is that she

went to the job interview without a veil and all of a sudden needs one. That sounds like either coercion or an attention-getting ploy.

[Nolo_Contendre]

157. If true, there are many other potential reasons

1. She became more devout over time
2. She feared that she would not be hired if she wore a veil at interview because of a known intolerance among the hiring officials
3. She was interviewed by a woman
etc

Your jumping to conclusions that she must have been coerced by men or is just a hysterical attention-getter seem quite biased and sexist.

[LostinVA]

197. Agreed

[WinkyDink]

234. Sure, but no one has a right to a job.

[phylny]

112. Man, WHERE have you all been?

Dialup warning on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2400745

[Cameron27]

127. I think the thread got to big for people with dial up

[Rex]

160. This is one hot topic!

I never thought it would get so much attention. Really says something about tensions in the world.

[Nolo_Contendre]

162. The veil symbolizes the contested role of women

between the Western and Islamic worlds.
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~elguindi/AARvuVeil.htm

[LostinVA]

188. bwwwahhhhh

[SoCalDem]

190. Empire has consequences.

The UK has had a large influx of "former subjects", and although they came to the UK for financial gain, and a "better life" for their kids, they brought their homeland and its customs * religion with them.

The UK ignored these people for a generation or so, and it's biting them on the ass now.

Tell the woman to remove the veil, and they're insensitive
Let her wear it, and everyone else is pissed..

It's a lose-lose.. no one's "happy".

It's just like the "english-only" stuff here..

[Generic Other]

192. Nice to see all my posts deleted from this thread

I guess if you don't agree with someone's politics around here, you can always alert on the person and silence them completely.

[Little Star]

193. Sorry you were silenced.

I would like to have seen what you wrote. Thats what happens when the gangs strike, with the alert button. They must pm each other.

[hsher]

229. I got "silenced" last night too

There are people on this community calling themselves "liberals" when actually they seem a lot more like Republican conservative fascist thought police. To bring them on, all you have to do is have a shape and a personality and say something definitive. Doesn't matter if it's offensive. They'll claim it is, rally their penpals, and come slinging flames. I got called a Stalinist last night by someone who couldn't even spell "fascist" and called me fascist and communist *in the same breath*, simply because I posted an Abbie Hoffmanlike Merry Prank to pull against the neocons. Suddenly I had flamers all over me DEFENDING NEOCONS AND THEIR FAMILIES and calling ME "a Nazi" and "hateful".

I asked them to point out where in my post I was being hateful. Not one time could they do it. I asked them to show me how advocating a boycott could be "Nazi" and "Stalinist". They couldn't do it and didn't even understand the terms they were using. So cheer up. Others here are being attacked and silenced, too.

I suspect some folks here may call themselves "liberal" because nobody else is tolerant enough to welcome them and their various issues. They know who they are, and they belong on a Freeper site.

[LostinVA]

196. Why didn't she wear the veil to the interview?

Seriously -- I want this answered... WHY? If the wearing of the veil is sooooo serious that no adult male can see her without it, then how the heck did she get to the interview, conduct the interview, and get home without ONE male adult seeing her face? Answer: they did.

Just really weird.

[Quantess]

205. Lose the veil, lady.

It's just another Fundie demand, this time from a Muslim fundamental. Nutjob fundies want the world to revolve around their beliefs and their wacky ways. If she won't take off her veil, she should find another job, likewise, any pharmacist who refuses to dispense birth control. She better take that veil off before getting behind the wheel, too.

A Muslim fundie is not any more culturally dignified than a Christian fundie.

[piedmont]

211. I'd like to know....

Can I, as an agnostic male, walk into a bank or a school wearing a mask over my face? If not, why is it ok for someone whose "culture" or religion says it's required? Freedom of religion doesn't dictate special privelages for certain religions.

[mondo joe]

228. Freedom of religion does, however, call for reasonable

accomodation in employment.

[piedmont]

230. yes, and ...

It's not reasonable to allow someone to do something that we disallow for others, just because of that person's religion.

[mondo joe]

231. But by definition reasonable accomodation does precisely

that - it accomodates a special need.

The only question is if this acomodation is reasonable or not.

[piedmont]

241. "Being religious" doesn't equal "above the law"

The only question is if this acomodation is reasonable or not.
Wearing a facemask in a bank or school is not reasonable. If everyone can't do it, then neither should religious people.

[mondo joe]

242. Indeed. No one has suggested that it does.

That's why even if your religion calls for you to kill people, you can't.

Whether it's a reasonable accomodation or not is at question. You may have made up YOUR mind about it, but that's not authoritative.

And you again seem to be forgetting the ACCOMODATION part of REASONABLE ACCOMODATION. It does, in fact, mean there would be an exemption or special allowance if granted.

[mondo joe]

243. More on Religious Accomodation

This regards US law, which is obviously not applicable in the UK - but just referencing it for the purpose of discussion.

Federal law requires an employer to “reasonably accommodate” an employee’s religious observances, practices and beliefs. However, an employer need not “reasonably accommodate” if the employer can show that accommodation would cause an “undue hardship” on business.

What constitutes “reasonable accommodation” and “undue hardship” depends on the facts in a particular situation. Regardless of whether an accommodation is ultimately possible, the employer bears the burden of showing that a serious attempt was made.

Requested accommodations vary — an employee may need a particular day off each year for a religious holiday; or to refrain from work every week on his or her Sabbath; or to wear religious garb; or to have a place to pray. An employer must try to arrange for these religious obligations.

An employer may not simply refuse to accommodate an employee. If the employer claims that accommodation is not feasible because it would result in undue hardship, the employer must demonstrate the effect accommodation would have on the business; that is, the employer must prove the undue hardship.

The employer is not mandated to provide the specific accommodation requested by the employee. As long as the employer has reasonably accommodated an employee’s religious needs, the employer need not consider the employee’s alternative suggested accommodations even if the employee's preferred accommodation would not cause undue hardship to the employer. Ansonia Board of Education v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60 (1986).

Some examples of possible accommodations may include shift swaps between employees, voluntary assignment substitutions, flexible scheduling (allowing an employee to work on Sundays, Christmas or other national holiday in place of the day he or she needs off), lateral transfers to other positions in the company, and use of lunch time in exchange for early departure. An employer could allow an employee who is a Friday-night Sabbath observer to work longer hours on Monday through Thursday to enable the employee to leave early on Friday to be home for the Sabbath.

Similarly, an employer should not schedule tests or training in a manner that totally precludes the participation of Sabbath observers. As with the scheduling of work, the employer must attempt to accommodate the religious needs of the employee. The employee cannot be unreasonable in demanding accommodation. For example, if the same test or training is being given at another location on another day, the employee may be required to take it elsewhere. In addition, the employee may be required to use personal time to take the test or training.

Must the employee be paid for time taken off for religious observance?
An employer is generally not required to pay the employee for time taken off for religious observance. The United States Supreme Court determined that allowing an employee to take unpaid leave for holiday observance would generally be a reasonable accommodation with the added caveat that unpaid leave would not be a reasonable accommodation when paid leave was provided for all purposes except religious ones.

What is an “undue hardship”?
Not only must there be a reasonable accommodation available, the accommodation must not cause undue hardship on the employer. Neither federal civil rights law nor the courts have clearly defined “undue hardship. ”Again, different states have interpreted it differently. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that an employer need not incur more than minimal costs in order to accommodate an employee’s religious practices. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977).

For example, an employer probably does not have to train a part-time employee at substantial cost in order to cover for another employee who is unable to work on Saturdays.

Also, if a collective bargaining agreement is in force which sets forth rules regarding seniority and assignments, it may be an undue hardship to ask the employer to violate that agreement.

An employer is also not required to pay premium or overtime costs in order to accommodate the religious needs of employees. Some employers do voluntarily pay these costs; however, this is up to the employer.

What are the employee’s responsibilities?
Employees seeking to observe their religious beliefs and practices have a responsibility to do their part to help resolve conflicts between job duties and religious needs. To this end, an employee should tell his or her employer about the religious commitment at the time the job is accepted or immediately upon becoming observant if he or she becomes more observant while employed. Some states have laws requiring the employee to notify his or her employer a certain number of days before each absence. Moreover, the employee should arrange to take religious holy days as vacation days or unpaid personal days.

Employees do not have to justify or prove anything about their religious belief to the employer (for example, the employee need not provide a note from clergy): an employer is required to accommodate — subject to the undue hardship rule — any of the employee’s religious beliefs.

If an accommodation issue arises and it is not easily resolved, the employee should discuss the matter with his or her union representative, contact an attorney or contact the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the state’s EEOC-equivalent.

What counts as a religious belief that needs to be accommodated?
Title VII protects all “sincerely held religious beliefs.” The law’s intention is to provide protection and accommodation for a broad spectrum of religious practices and belief — not merely those beliefs based upon organized or recognized teachings of a particular religion.

However, it is equally clear that Title VII was intended only to protect and accommodate individuals with sincere religious beliefs and not those with political or other beliefs unrelated to religion. Thus, the religious accommodation rules do not apply to requirements based on personal preferences rooted in non-theological bases such as culture, heritage or politics.

Employees must be clear when explaining why they need an accommodation. Vague objections such as saying that he or she cannot work on a particular day because of cultural tradition will not suffice; the employee must clearly state that he or she is required not to work because of religious beliefs.

May an employee wear religious garb or symbols to work?
Employers must attempt to accommodate employees who, for religious reasons, must maintain a particular physical appearance or manner of dress in keeping with the tenets of their religion. Again, accommodation is possible if it can be made without undue hardship to the employer. When it comes to religious apparel, typically only safety concerns constitute undue hardship.


http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/resource_kit/religion_workplace.asp

[piedmont]

245. good info

Hi mondo joe,
Thanks for the input. I definitly am for reasonable accomodations (RA from here onward), on the whole. Where we disagree I think is on what is reasonable. A couple of things:

1)The info you posted (very helpful) only talks about RA in the employment sense. In many jurisdictions, wearing a face-covering mask is illegal. Is there a federal law requiring reasonable accomodations that exempt some religious people from other laws?

2)Keep in mind that in this case the employer is a public school. Also, this religious garb isn't like any other, in that it covers the face. And muslim men aren't expected to wear it. This sends the the message to impressionable children that men can't control themselves around women, and that women should cover themselves. If the goals of a public school include instilling a desire for equality in young people, how can this teacher fulfill her role?

[mondo joe]

249. My answers

1) Don't know --- and if not, I doubt it has been tested.

2) The role of school isn't to instill a desire for equality, but even if it were that wouldhave to mean equality of choice - as in, men and womencan both CHOOSE for themselves, as this woman has. But beyond that you're getting into questioning the religion itself, and that is not the role of the school or government and violates the free exercise clause. (That is, if it can be considered a reasonable ccomodation, which is the only proper measure - not whether you think it promotes equality or not.)

[PsychoDad]

213. The real disappointment here...

Is that out of a religion of 2 billion people with a rich and diverse history with many lofty highs and an equal number of lows in it's 1400 year history and the grandeurs and triumphs of Islamic civilization the only thing that elicits such lively discussion is a piece of cloth.

2 billion people, 1400 years, multiple advancements in science and art, one piece of cloth.

One piece of cloth.

700+ posts.



But don't feel bad. The same is true on Muslim boards. The Islamic golden age of learning and advancement, a rich tradition of spirituality, a diversity of culture that calls us back to the call to social justice that Islam calls for and the only thing that rouses the most passionate posts is...

A piece of cloth

A piece of cloth, and a woman's right to wear it or not.

Peace.

[piedmont]

214. yep, and according to some....

the piece of cloth in question isn't a requirement or characteristic of the religion, but of certain cultures that have the religion in common.

And with the two threads together, it's over 900 posts.

[PsychoDad]

215. Yes, It's primarily cultural....

You will find fatwa (opinions) from Islamic jurists and scholars on both sides of this question, not surprisingly many of those opinions fall along cultural lines.

Overall most scholars agree that there is no clear evidence for the requirement for the veil.

Peace.

[hsher]

226. She will probably end up teaching in a Muslim school

And nothing of the matter will ever be settled. Muslims will continue to see the West as insensitive and oppressive, London will continue to see Muslims as archaic, repressive, weird and threatening, and the beat goes on... the beat goes on...

[WinkyDink]

235. How is this demanded "right" different from fundie pharmacists

demanding the "right" not to fill certain prescriptions?

Both parties want their "religious freedom" to trump the requirements of the job they voluntarily applied for.

[mondo joe]

240. The question would be if this in fact prevents her from

fulfilling the function of the job.

IMO, refusing to fill a prescription does prevent that.

Whether wearing a veil in the presence of adult men does or doesn't is at question.

[Hoping4Change]

244. Non verbal expression is one of the most significant

forms of communication. Smiles between strangers establish a sense of trust, affiliation and goodwill. What could be more important in a multi-cultural society than strangers sharing smiles? When someone is masking her face, she is in effect thumbing her nose at fostering that sense of affiliation that can only be established by non verbal means. We humans are extremely sensitive to non verbal cues which tend to be regarded as more spontaneous than verbal declarations. Non verbal communication speaks volumes.

An unmasked face symbolizes openness and trust between humans, whereas veils represent distrust and separateness. There is no good to be gained with masked faces in multi-cultural socities.

[mondo joe]

250. People are allowed to thumb their nose at affiliation.

The question - in the US anyway - is whether a reasonable accomodation can be reached.

Your thoughts on the good or lack of good to be gained from masks is not relevent to the legal question at hand - if it were in the US.

[Hoping4Change]

251. What happened to the notion that Islam is a religion of peace?

So Muslims have no problem thumbing their nose at affiliation and attach greater significance to a piece of cloth than to the establishment of friendship, openness and trust amongst strangers.


Gee what happened to the Koranic injunction as pointed out by a DUEr "we will not be judged upon what we wore, what we look like or our wealth, but upon the content of our heart."

[mondo joe]

252. That's a theological, not a legal, question.

And since there are variations among any faith, some Muslims may agree with this woman's interpretation and others (even most) may not.

But you're really now in the theological realm, which is not the role of the government.

[Hoping4Change]

253. Government is not the solution. Muslims have to decide which is

a higher good. Is a piece of clothing which masks essential non verbal communication such as smiling the greater good or is promoting the sense of affiliation between strangers the greater good?

If Muslims decide to thumb their nose at affilation, it will speak volumes about Islam.

[mondo joe]

254. I think we're talking about a few different things here.

One is: freedom of religion, and the right to have reasonable accomodation.

One is: is it a good idea from a PR perspective for some Muslims to have an expectation of veiled (masked) women.

Another is: can whatever any other Muslims do compel this person to modify her behavior?

So what I'd say is this: Many muslims don't believe in the full masking, only some Muslims do, so you can choose to decide that they (or even just this one woman) defines all Muslims, but I don't think it makes sense to do so.

That said, even if most Muslims don't belive in full veiling, it doesn't make any difference to those who do, which includes this woman.

PS: All references to freedom of religion and reasonable accomodation reference the American system.

[Hoping4Change]

255. Firstly this is not a "PR" issue, its much deeper.

My basic contention is that a visible human face is essential to promote friendliness and understanding between people of radically different backgrounds. In fact I would argue that one reason Muslim men don't veil their faces is because of the importance of non verbal communication while conducting business.

This is an aside but a friend's mother was trained as a doctor in Sweden in the 1950's. I don't know what the policy is now but then when people went to the doctor they stripped naked for their check-ups. Niether doctors nor their patients would not have it any other way.The complete nakedness gave the doctor the opportunity to gaze over the entire body, allowing the doctor to preceive the body (male and female) in its entirety without haste. Dr L said that so many things could be picked up by having this ability to freely inspect the body whole and not peek at one spot at a time. Furthermore this lack of modesty between doctor and patient engendered a sense of trust. There was also a pyschological benefit to setting aside modesty.

Humans need to look at each other.

As for comelling Muslims- Muslims like other close knit communities can exert tremendous influence over the behavious of others in their communithy. And if respected Imans who not advocate veils preached against veils, women wouldn't wear them.

Again if Muslims make this simply a freedom of religion issue then it will speak volumes about Islam.

[mondo joe]

256. But, again, it is a legal issue.

There are already many Muslims who speak out against full veiling. That doesn't stop those sects that do practice itt from doing so.

That's still beside the point as regards her legal case.

[Hoping4Change]

265. Why is it that Muslims living in the West claiming the choosing to wear

the veil is an inalienable right not ever organized to protest Islamic countries from prohibiting women the right to choose. Why is your efforts to give women choice not directed across the spectrum. I find this pure hyprocrisy given the Islamic notion of the Ummah. If I saw veiled women picketing outside mosques, and consulates demanding democratic rights for their sisters who have no rights I'd change ny views. As it now stands devout Muslims in the West don't have any problems with the lack of freedom in Islamic countries. Not only do women in those countries not only lack the right to choose being veiled but they lack the more basic right to choose whether or not they want to be Muslim.

[muriel_volestrangler]

259. Just announced: Mixed Result For Teacher

Ms Azmi was today awarded £1,100 for "injury to feelings" after she succeeded in her claim of victimisation.

She was awarded £1,000 and an extra £100 because the respondent failed to comply with the statutory grievance procedure.

But her claims of direct and indirect discrimination, and her claim of harassment, were dismissed.
...
She said she was considering an appeal against the decision to dismiss three of her claims.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1237944,00.html

I think this means they don't have to reinstate her in the job (but I'm not sure about that).

[riderinthestorm]

261. So she wasn't discriminated against, but the school didn't follow protocol

for removing her.

Fair enough.

Does anyone still think this is about bigotry and discrimation?

[panzerfaust]

262. Case, sort of, settled

She got 1000 pounds for 'hurt feelings'

I find it interesting that, again according to the Guardian (several days ago), she DID NOT wear the veil when she interviewed for the job.

Fascinating too was an article by an islamic woman reporter who tried wearing a 'niqab'

[Hoping4Change]

264. Thanks for posting the article. A very worthwhile read.

I am disappointed that she got money for hurt feelings. My personal opinion is that women who wear veils are really no different from punks especially when they frst appeared on the scene except that punks didn't disguise their hostility for society at large as an expression of piety.