Sacked
Aishah Azmi. She’s a 24 year old muslim woman who works as a teaching assistant at a school in West Yorkshire. She’s been suspended for refusing to remove her veil in front of male colleagues.
A Muslim classroom assistant suspended by a school for wearing a veil in lessons has been sacked.
Dewsbury MP Shahid Malik:
"While I would absolutely defend her right to wear the veil in society, it’s very clear that her wearing the veil in the classroom setting inhibits her ability to support children."
Classroom? Society? Same thing surely? Children aren’t part of society? Schools aren’t part of society? Ms Azmi has maintained all along that her veil does NOT affect her ability to support the children in her care. She’s the one in the classroom. She’s a teaching assistant so there’ll be a teacher as well, probably another assistant too.
Here are my comments from WW’s original post. I said at the time I’d blog it and forgot. Sorry.
The only valid reasoning I can think of for asking ANYONE to remove any facial covering is the same as that used in banks to ask people to remove motorcycle helmets. And even there I think it’s pushing it a bit.
As far as I can tell there is no formal uniform required at this school (there isn’t at most schools tbh)
“You cannot have a teacher who wears a veil simply because there are men in the room.”
Why not? Surely it’s the same as “You cannot have a teacher who wears TROUSERS simply because there are men in the room.” Or replace veil with any other item of clothing. Or make-up? Surely that too hides the wearers face? Glasses? Beard?I’m sorry Mr Bearded Teacher but I find it hard to understand you as the lower part of your face is obscured by your beard. Will they sack him if he refuses to shave?
Ye gods. This so isn’t about whether wearing the veil inhibits anyone’s ability to do their job. Power and control, eh?
I guess this made the news because of the Muslim factor but it’s happening all the time and it’s maddening. Twice in my working life I’ve had to agitate for freedom of dress - the last time only 16 years ago.
They didn’t sack me for it though - and I was as intransigent as Ms Azmi. I wonder how they can get away with sacking her. It’s disgraceful.
Comment by witchy-woo — November 24, 2006 @ 8:42 pm
It looks mad on the surface and quite frankly I am amazed that the HR dept got away with it. It does seem to be more to do with putting the uppity woman in her place though, as does the post above I’m afraid.
Comment by ethicallyspeaking — November 25, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
Sorry, but after reading all about it, it seems she was a support teacher helping children who had English as a second language - how is she supposed to assist with language if the children can’t see her lips move? And bear in mind these kids will be coming from a variety of backgrounds, so won’t be familiar with her accent. And why didn’t she wear the niqab to her interview? It doesn’t say anywhere in the Quran that a woman must cover her face - only her bosom, and what is required for modesty. I haven’t been through the hadith on the subject though.
Muslim women aren’t allowed to cover their face for the Hajj.
Comment by Kris — November 25, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
PLEASE at least report the whole story! this woman has no need (in any interpretation of the Quran)to wear a veil in a female or child only environment and she was invited to only wear her veil when not teaching.
She did not feel the need to wear her veil at the interview - where men were present. She could have been sacked for this alone as she willfully misrepresented herself. The purpose of an interview (is in the word) it is a chance to view each other, if one side of the interview is being actively deceitful they should not get the job.
Comment by debs — November 27, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
PLEASE at least report the whole story! this woman has no need (in any interpretation of the Quran)to wear a veil in a female or child only environment and she was invited to only wear her veil when not teaching.
She did not feel the need to wear her veil at the interview - where men were present. She could have been sacked for this alone as she willfully misrepresented herself. The purpose of an interview (is in the word) it is a chance to view each other, if one side of the interview is being actively deceitful they should not get the job.
Comment by debs — November 27, 2006 @ 12:38 pm