| |
|
I think that's where the "again" comes in in:
And, again, it puts women in an impossible situation, where they must negotiate their religious beliefs, their political persuations, their physical safety, their social standing, and the laws of their country, and make a decision which will inevitably be under attack from someone.
That is, being forced to wear the veil and being forced not to wear the veil are both impositions on women.
Suitcase Rider: Well, the short version is "no". The United Kingdom is not a secular state. It has an established church - the Church of England - of which the Queen, the head of state, is the defender. The House of Lords, the upper house of our bicameral system, has among its membership the 26 Lords Spiritual - the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Bishops of London, Durham and Westminster and the 21 longest-serving other bishops of the Church of England. If Britain were a secular state, then a ban on all external signs of religious affiliation in government buildings would be more credible, although then we're back to to whether it's a religious thing, a cultural thing, an ease-of-communication thing or a covering-the-face thing. Also, this might sit ill with current government policy on faith schools. Polly Toynbee has this to say on that.
Meanwhile, another Guardian article today which follows that standard Guardian model - rather than talking to somebody who wears the veil regularly, they got one of their reporters to wear the veil for 24 hours. Result? People who don't wear the veil don't feel very comfortable wearing a veil. Hmmm. One interesting thing is that at no point in the article does the reporter suggest that it is difficult to speak to or hear while wearing the niqab - although it does seem to make it harder to see. Which brings us back to Aishah Azmi.
Now, my understanding is that Ms Azmi did not wear her veil during her interview - which suggests that she might be able to draw a link between not wearing it and not being raped. My next question would be whether she negotiated an agreement whereby she could be veiled in the common room and corridors, but not while teaching, or whether this was subsequently suggested when she turned up for work in a veil. Regardless of why this might be, if this is a case of a person deciding that the terms of their employment were no longer appropriate to their lifestyle, that's a slightly different issue. Why the veil was not suitable for the classroom is another issue. What she actually does in the classroom is another. She has so far been called a teacher and a learning assistant, but deeper digging seems to suggest that she provided "bilingual support". At a guess, that means that she translated the Urdu or Panjabi of the students into English for the teacher, and vice versa. In that context, we're back to whether the niqab was making the accomplishment of her job impossible. Having a dress code in a classroom does not seem to me unreasonable - my plans to teach primary school children without trousers on, due to my belief that trousers are a signifier of cultural separation, went down in flames rather at the first PTA meeting.
On a somewhat related topic, the Muslim Council of Britain has come out in support of Marion Eweida, suspended by British Airways for refusing to wear a cross under rather than above her clothing. BA says that this rule is not a religious one, but rather applies to all jewellery on chains as part of their dress code. Eweida's defence, however, has been that Muslims are allowed to wear veils, Sikhs are allowed to wear turbans, and therefore that she should be able to wear a visible crucifix - that is, that this is an issue of religious freedom to display signs of faith rather than a case about the wearing of jewellery on chains. Not sure where to go on this - it's certainly a kind of sidenote. |
|
|
