This is 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. She says:
The veil does not create a problem and students can talk to me.
So what she wears to work doesn’t interfere with her ability to do her job. Seems clear enough to me.
This is Phil Woolas. He’s the UK Race and Faith Minister. He thinks Ms Azmi should be fired for her refusal. He says:
You cannot have a teacher who wears a veil simply because there are men in the room. 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 schools. By insisting that she will wear the veil if men are there, she’s saying: ‘I’ll work with women, but not men’. That’s sexual discrimination.
Let’s deconstruct that.
“You cannot have a teacher who wears a veil simply because there are men in the room.“
Meaning: Women don’t have the right to hide their faces and bodies from men.
“She is denying the right of children to a full education by insisting that she wears the veil.“
Meaning: I don’t want to sound like a pompous, privileged perv so I’ll divert attention from what I’m really saying by talking about damage to children’s rights.
“If she is saying that she won’t work with men, she is taking away the right of men to work in schools.“
Meaning: She’s not saying that at all. All she’s saying is that she won’t appear unveiled in front of men but if I bring in damage to men’s rights on top of children’s rights that’ll further deflect attention from what I’m really saying.
“By insisting that she will wear the veil if men are there, she’s saying: ‘I’ll work with women, but not men’.“
Meaning: No, she’s not really saying that either. She’s simply saying that she won’t appear unveiled in front of men but if I make it look like women are in cahoots that’ll clinch it for me.
Unlike the pharmacist in my previous post, Ms Azmi’s religious beliefs do not preclude her from doing her job. The children can understand her with or without her veil. Mr Woolas talks about children’s rights and men’s rights but what about Ms Azmi’s rights? Does Mr Woolas have the right to dictate what she wears to work? And, if he does, what does that mean for the rest of us?
I’m no fan of the veil – but then, neither am I a muslim – but for Mr Woolas, as Race and Faith Minister, to say:
There are limits in a liberal democracy. There are boundaries in a democracy and this is one of them. It’s a boundary we can’t cross.”
as though wearing the veil is some heinous affront to democracy kinda makes me think he’s in the wrong job.
The story broke here
19 responses so far ↓
Fey Hag // October 15, 2006 at 10:27 pm |
It is all about control.
The older I get the more I see the symptoms everywhere.
You are fine as long as you fit the mould men have made for their women & their society. Step outside their norms & you will be hunted to extinction.
Sarah (Ethically Speaking) // October 15, 2006 at 11:15 pm |
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?
Maybe I should blog this instead of ranting in your comments Witchy.
Y. Carrington // October 16, 2006 at 6:07 am |
I’ve been waiting for someone to call politicians out on this bullshit. These edicts for Muslim women to stop wearing the niqab (what we call “the veil”) in European countries smack of patriarchy and white supremacy. Just last week I saw Jack Straw on TV talking about how sistas needed to “modernize” and join the rest of British society. Whaaaat? Whose Britain is he talking about?
Whether hijabs, niqabs, or abayyas are okay for women is not a debate for men to have anywhere, regardless of race or religion. It’s even fouler that white men think they have a say. Nor your call, dudes.
I wish white men (for some reason it’s mostly men) would freakin’ be honest: they have a racist reaction to seeing women in niqabs and abayyas. “Equality” and “modernity” don’t have shit to do with it. All of us in the White West are trained to have this racist reaction. I still have this reaction, and I’m a woman of color (these days greater numbers of African American women are converting to Sunni Islam). Who do Woolas and Straw think they’re trying to fool?
Men’s laws are all the same, whether over here or over there.
Y. Carrington // October 16, 2006 at 6:13 am |
And Sarah, I’m with you…I gotta blog about this too.
Sian // October 16, 2006 at 2:41 pm |
I just wonder…it can be useful for children to see lips move when learning words. Could she not just remove the bit covering her mouth and use a hijab around children and only use the niqab when mixing with adults? Obviously forcing her to wear no veil at all is utterly wrong but, especially as sher admits to wearign a hijab rather than niqab to interview if she couldn;t wear just the hijab when around children for the sake of the children. However I do think that both Woolas and Straw are completely wrong and have no right to dictate waht anyone wears. Furthermore the men on the BBC website who are attacking women for wearing veils in any job are racist sexist gits. Feel free to tell me I’m wrong. I’m still trying to work out my ideas on feminism. I’ve frequently called myself one, only now I’m trying to work out what that actually means. So also, thank you for being somewhere that’s guiding me.
Sarah (Ethically Speaking) // October 16, 2006 at 4:37 pm |
Sian, that was my point with the beard! Some kids do need to see mouth movement to interpret speech. Esp in primary school where hearing and language problems may only just be being picked up.
But it’s not about her religion or the veil – it’s about clarity for the kids and as such maybe all male teachers should be clean shaven then.
Oh, and Witchy is fab at guiding – but it can be a scary path she shows you!
witchywoo // October 16, 2006 at 4:48 pm |
“Furthermore the men on the BBC website who are attacking women for wearing veils in any job are racist sexist gits.”
Yay to that!
Apparently, Kirklees Council are saying that the children couldn’t understand Ms Azmi when she was helping during English lessons and yet she is quoted as saying that no children have complained. She also brings up the question of blind children who manage to learn without seeing any of their teachers.
All these men weighing in with their opinions, though.
Sarah (Ethically Speaking) // October 16, 2006 at 6:50 pm |
Children often won’t speak out at school – already being shoved in those predetermined, subservient little boxes (but that’s another rant…)
I’d be interested to canvas parent opinion at the school gates though.
Sian // October 16, 2006 at 8:43 pm |
I actually think you are right about the beards too. Especially with very young children like those because if they have conditions like dyspraxia or partial hearing it wouldn’t necessarily have been picked up so having lips to read would help. With older children it shouldn;t matter. Still parent opinion and if, having reread it, she was only a teaching assistant that would mean there would be at least one other presumably unveiled and therefore capable of being lip read person in the room. At that point it does seem increasingly like attacking a woman for her clothing and faith alone.
simplywondered // October 16, 2006 at 9:19 pm |
It’s a school with a history of failure (tho not sure if it was in special measures?) – perhaps the education department (becuase this certainly didn’t start with Woolas) decided to show they were ‘doing something’.
simplywondered // October 16, 2006 at 9:20 pm |
and is that a niqab on your head(er) witchy? i suddenly find it very hard to understand your blog because I can’t see all of your face. get it off.
Sarah (Ethically Speaking) // October 16, 2006 at 9:36 pm |
you’d never see her mouth move anyway SW, always got a fag on or a glass of vino handy!
Amananta // October 17, 2006 at 5:19 pm |
This kind of bullshit makes me so mad (scuse my French.) I am equally against forcing women to veil as I am against forcing them to unveil.
I get so aggravated with men who outright lie about what women are saying to try to make them look bad. She doesn’t say she won’t work with boys, she says she won’t unveil around them, AS HER RELIGION COMMANDS HER NOT TO DO! Now I may have personal issues with her religion, but I wouldn’t force her to violate it.
I wonder how American Christians would feel if there was a country where toplessness was no big deal and people were demanding Christian women go topless in schools even if they were in a classroom full of boys?
hedonistic // October 18, 2006 at 2:08 pm |
Wear it!
No, don’t wear it!
Wait! YOU MUST WEAR IT upon pain of flogging!
No, you CANNOT WEAR IT upon pain of losing your job!
Shit. It seems no matter what women wear or don’t wear, it will be wrong to some Man, and this Man’s opinion will be So F*cking Important that the mainstream media will give him a voice, and then men everywhere around the world will weigh in. Because Teh MANZ opinions MATTER. As if what a woman puts on her body should be any of their concern, unless it’s a disruptive and/or safety hazard.
As for this woman’s reason for wearing what she does? It apparently doesn’t matter much, does it?
Bah.
whiztle // October 18, 2006 at 8:14 pm |
This is men arguing over which group of men should have the right to decide what women should wear.
simplywondered // October 18, 2006 at 8:27 pm |
I wonder how American Christians would feel if there was a country where toplessness was no big deal and people were demanding Christian women go topless in schools even if they were in a classroom full of boys?
Not sure but the boys would probably be in favour.
This is men arguing over which group of men should have the right to decide what women should wear.
Well it’s important – you wouldn’t want to be ordered around by the WRONG patriarchs, would you?
Pony // October 19, 2006 at 9:49 pm |
Sheema Khan on Muslims, the veil, and fitting into Western society:
http://tinyurl.com/weygy
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061018.wlivekhan1019/BNStory/specialComment/home
simplywondered // October 19, 2006 at 11:54 pm |
seriously, though this one will continue to build for a while and then when enough’respectable’ people (ie men) have said tut tut one daft bastard will forcibly unveil a woman and then some muslim yout’ looking for a fight will find one and blah blah blah. the only saving grace is that it isn’t in the middle of a hot summer when people will get even more het up and testosteroney (type of nasty soup?)
but that’s what happens when our alleged leaders give signals like this.
Ethically Speaking :: Sacked :: November :: 2006 // November 24, 2006 at 1:35 pm |
[...] Oct 15th – Witchy Woo. 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. [...]