Religion in the Workplace.

[Tigranes]

Just a little note.

 

There is a possibility that the Muslim teacher in question CANNOT communicate effectively with the children, partly thanks to the Veil. I have seen some teachers with some truly appaling English teaching children, and resist the sack despite the fact that about 90% of all students taught complain that they can't understand anything and therefore find it hard to learn.

 

The fact that the Veil is the reason is for lack of communication might be compounded by the fact that she's not very good at English in the first place. It is very difficult to know without actually conversing with her in person, which is what I suppose the proper authorities should do.

[Hurlshort]

One thing I noticed is that the head teacher said the assistant could NOT do their job effectively. I'm sorry, but he is the actual teacher in the classroom, and if he is having trouble with an assistant, it should be his right to have her removed.

[astr0creep]

Something else about his:

 

In the case of the cross and veil, they are not simple jewelry and clothing. They are first and foremost religious symbols.

 

Of course a cross at the end of a chain around a neck is also jewelry and for many people(me included) only serve as a decorative item but in the case of a veil, it is rarely "in fashion" to wear them.

 

I'm just saying that basing arguments on jewelry and clothing and dress codes alone is not all that credible. "

[alanschu]

I'm just saying that basing arguments on jewelry and clothing and dress codes alone is not all that credible.

 

Why not?

 

Should people be able to circumvent anything simply by finding a way to incorporate religion into it?

 

Does the woman really need to have her cross hanging out for all to see (since from what I understand, the company has little problems with it being tucked in her shirt). If it's somehow protected simply because it's a religious symbol, can we take the slippery slope to the extreme, and allow myself to tattoo a cross on each buttock and then be allowed to walk around in public with no pants on?

 

 

And is a veil really so cherished, when the person that "requires" it had no problems taking it off for job interviews?

[Calax]

anyone else notice that this was taking place at a CHURCH OF ENGLAND school?

[Judge Hades]

I wonder if they offered her cake or death. That explained why she took the veil off at the interview. Its hard to eat cake with a veil on. Wouldn't it?

[Dark_Raven]

I have to side with their employers in this case.

 

If you're working "for" someone and they are "paying you" to do it, you need to abide by their workplace rules and regs.

 

It's that simple.

 

If you don't like it, find another job that is more in tune to your needs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You got that right. Don't like it? I'm sure the McDonalds down the road is hiring.

[Judge Hades]

Only reason why they are hiring is because they cannot keep people longer than two weeks there.

[Tigranes]

To Darque's quote.. it's too simplistic. Extend that argument and you could say "It's okay for people not to hire black people, because they should be able to choose whot hey pay and employ and set their conditions. Dont like it? Dont work under them."

 

Which, naturally, is not what you meant.

 

Workplace impositions cannot supercede laws and human rights.

 

Does the right to wear a veil count as the latter? Is the real question, obviously.

 

Although, I say again, I can totally see the teacher (who wanted the assistant gone) totally bemused by all this, when he actually wanted her gone for not being good at her job. :D

[Walsingham]

In the case of the BA employee I do see the point. Its a question of mixing the BA corporate image (the uniform) with a Christian symbol. The uniform is the uniform for a reason. In other words I'd have no problem with her wearing a crucifix if it were, say, in the small of her back or something.

 

In the case of the teacher I get Hades point about acclimatising kids to other religions. I also would point out that the way things are going now, we'll be expecting our teachers to work in massive hazmat suits to keep them from being paedophiles. We're so scared of having humans teach our kids I'd think we'd like them to be covered head to toe.

 

However, I also think that the veiled teacher should be a moot point as I consider the veil an emblem of female submission, and inconsistent with general societal rules about hiding your face! In other words I don't see how anyone should be wearing the veil, let alone a teacher.

 

But that's just me, and maybe I'm a terrible person.

[Surreptishus]

In the case of the teacher I get Hades point about acclimatising kids to other religions.

But that's just me, and maybe I'm a terrible person.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Acclimatisation" could still be achieved without the veil since presumably the woman would still be dressed in black from head to toe with her hair covered. In other words she would still be dressed distinctly enough so that its obvious she is expressing her faith.

Edited October 19, 2006 by Surreptishus

[alanschu]

Would exposure to someone wearing a veil offer any significant form of acclimatization to other religions?

[Surreptishus]

Not in any accepting sense. More of a "point and look" sense.

[Walsingham]

Well, I think there's plenty of ways to open kids eyes to other cultures than just the veil. Anything that teaches them that people who look 'funny' can be kind and gentle and worthy of respect etc etc. Anything that teaches them not to judge on external factors is good IMO.

 

But, as I say, this isn't a simple thing about a headscarf or somesuch. This is about a very specific message being transmitted, and about the wider issue of hiding your face. There has to be a line where membership of a common society requires personal sacrifice. It's political philosophy 101. As has already been said, how about I start a religion where I am obliged to paint myself red, and dash about in the nude shrieking every Thursday. Frankly I'd quite enjoy that. BUt I'm not allowed to.

[Judge Hades]

[metadigital]

However, I also think that the veiled teacher should be a moot point as I consider the veil an emblem of female submission, and inconsistent with general societal rules about hiding your face! In other words I don't see how anyone should be wearing the veil, let alone a teacher. 

 

But that's just me, and maybe I'm a terrible person.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is not necessarily why women wear a veil ... just observe the behaviour of the far-too-populous yobs in the streets when a woman of average-or-better-

[Judge Hades]

That is easy. Just give them... A FLAME THROWER! Who would attack a woman that can make them into crispy critters?

[metadigital]

Thanks for that ... considered response. (How old are you again?)

 

Violence is not going to solve the problem, and in fact will create more violence (and against the weaker / more disenfranchized members of society: women).

[Judge Hades]

Hey, I just woke up. Its hard to be all dreary and serious when you haven't finished your morning caffiene binge.

[taks]

Once we eliminate sexual inequality and allow women to express themselves without fear, then there will be no need for a hajab.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but the problem is that many women are just plain hawt, and we men are just plain dogs on the prowl. it is a good standard to have, but a tough one to meet when testosterone is involved.

 

reminds me of the south park episode last night... kindergarden teacher having an affair with stan's brother, 3 or 4 year old boy genius, and all the cops said "is she hot?" the reply "she's the kindergarden teacher!"... "yeah, she's hot"... "niiiiice."

 

taks

[Judge Hades]

[Colrom]

However, I also think that the veiled teacher should be a moot point as I consider the veil an emblem of female submission, and inconsistent with general societal rules about hiding your face! In other words I don't see how anyone should be wearing the veil, let alone a teacher. 

 

But that's just me, and maybe I'm a terrible person.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is not necessarily why women wear a veil ... just observe the behaviour of the far-too-populous yobs in the streets when a woman of average-or-better-

[Walsingham]

OK. I guess I went a bit far there. You could wear it for fashion reasons or because you were shy. But as Meta says that's up to Society to help with.

 

I think the answer is actually stormtrooper outfits. That would permit covering up AND protect against tiny bears. Oh wait...

 

Maybe I'm being too damn serious all round. I think in general I am just railing aginst the notion that everyone can do as they please, if they claim its a religious thing. And yes, Hades, I think the nude shrieking would be fun once a week. How about next Thursday in Trafalgar square? We'll go in opposite directions.

[Colrom]

Careful Tarna, Colrom will call you a bigot!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Look Kor Qel Droma, don't dress up in my clothes and put words in my mouth calling other forum members names. :angry:

[Pop]

Muslim lady lost in court.

 

October 22,2006 | HAMTRAMCK, Mich. -- A judge dismissed a small-claims court case filed by a Muslim woman after she refused to remove her veil when she testified.

 

Ginnnah Muhammad, 42, wore a niqab -- a scarf and veil that cover her head and face, leaving only the eyes visible -- during a court hearing this month in Hamtramck, a city surrounded by Detroit. She was contesting a $2,750 charge from a rental-car company.

 

District Judge Paul Paruk told her he needed to see her face to judge her truthfulness and gave her a choice: take off the veil while testifying or have the case dismissed. She kept it on.

 

"I just feel so sad," Muhammad told the Detroit Free Press for Sunday's edition. "... I didn't feel like the court recognized me as a person that needed justice. I just feel I can't trust the court."

 

Paruk said he told Muhammad to remove her veil Oct. 11 because it is his job to determine whether witnesses are telling the truth. "Part of that, you need to identify the witness and you need to look at the witness and watch how they testify," he said.

 

Michigan law lacks rules governing how judges handle religious attire of people in court, so judges have leeway on how to run their courtrooms.

 

Metropolitan Detroit has one of the country's largest Muslim populations, and Hamtramck has a particularly large concentration, but Paruk said it was the first time someone had come before him wearing a niqab.

 

Dawud Walid, executive director of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the judge violated Muhammad's civil rights.

 

"Although a niqab is donned by a minority of Muslim females, it is still a bona fide religious practice," he said.

 

Britons are in the middle of a heated debate over veils, set off this month when former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, now leader of the House of Commons, said Muslim women visiting his office should remove their veils.