Church of England School Suspends Muslim Teacher for Refusing to Remove Veil
A Muslim woman has been suspended by a Church of England Junior School in West Yorkshire, after she refused to remove her veil whilst teaching young children in lessons.
by Daniel Blake
Posted: Friday, October 13, 2006, 13:42 (BST)
A Muslim woman has been suspended by a Church of England junior school in West Yorkshire, after she refused to remove her veil whilst teaching young children in lessons.
A council spokeswoman has confirmed the decision, which has come about because Aishah Azmi, 24, refused to heed to requests from the school to remove the veil, after pupils complained that they found it hard to understand her during English language lessons.
The young Muslim woman was told by the school that she could wear the veil in corridors and the staff room at Headfield Church of England Junior School in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, but must remove it when teaching.
A spokesman for Kirklees Council said, “I can confirm she has been suspended. The matter has gone before an employment tribunal and we are waiting for the result. It would be inappropriate to comment further.”
The tribunal heard the case in September and is due to announce its decision within the next two weeks.
Dewsbury MP Shahid Malik backed the school's decision, saying: “In schools the top priority has got to be the education of our children. I fully support the decision of the education authority and the school in requesting the classroom assistant remove her veil when teaching primary school children.
“I believe the education authority has bent over backwards to be accommodating and has been extremely reasonable and sensible in the decision it has come to. There is no religious obligation whatsoever for Muslim women to cover themselves up in front of primary school children.”
We are simply trying to ensure that our children get the best possible education.
Jim Dodds, Kirklees Council's children's services spokesman
The school educates 529 pupils aged between 7 to 11, and is known to have many students from different ethnic origins where English is not used as a first language.
An Ofsted report carried out in February 2006 said: “Most of the children are of Pakistani or Indian heritage, and a few are from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds, including white British. The first languages spoken by most children are Panjabi, Gujarati and Urdu, and many children are still learning to speak English.”
Emphasising that the decision was purely for the good of the school’s students, Kirklees Council's children's services spokesman, Jim Dodds, said Ms Azmi's suspension was “nothing to do with religion”.
He said, “We are simply trying to ensure that our children get the best possible education. Both pupils and teachers raised concerns because they were finding it difficult to make out what she was saying during lessons.
“We have a lot of pupils who do not speak English as a first language and you have to be able to see people's lips move when you are being taught. We asked this young lady to remove her veil when she was teaching English language, but she refused.”
Mr Dodds said that even if Azmi won her case the council would not alter its stance.
"Our only concern is that the children are taught properly.”
Copyright © 2006 Christian Today. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Have your say on this article
The comments below are readers' personal opinions and are in no way intended to reflect the editorial opinion of Christian Today.
Added: Monday, July 7, 2008, 14:35 (BST)
Typical Church of England stupidity! Fancy employing such a teacher in the first place. Was the Archbishop of Canterbury behind the decision? And don't tell me that avaoiding religious discrimination was the reason because can you imagine an Islamic school appointing a Chriostian teacher? NO! Stupidity is the only reason such a thing could happen. The more this sort of thing is encouraged, the sooner Enoch Powell's prophetic 'Rivers of Blood' speech will become a reality. Let's keep a sense of propoortion- Christian is Christian and Musilm is NOT!
Tim Parker, Bangkok Thailand
Added: Saturday, October 21, 2006, 4:20 (BST)
Seen from afar, the case of the Muslim teacher who refused to remove her veil in class and was then awarded 1100 Pounds for her "pain and suffering", is just another indication of the spinelessness of the British authorities when it comes to preserving our values, culture and way of life.
It is to be hoped that Aishah Azani will now put her financial award towards a ticket to wherever she comes from.
Britain does not need these religious fanatics, troublemakers and political opportunists from alien lands undermining the very foundations of our heritage. Either they must conform to our ways, or get out!!
Joe, Calgary Alberta
Added: Saturday, October 21, 2006, 4:17 (BST)
I fully agree with the suspension of the Muslim woman who had refused to remove her veil. Her religious attire is fine with the Saudi Arabian environment but definitely inappropriate in an English School.
Even in multi racial Singapore where the Malays (Muslim) form the other major ethnic group, in Malaysia and Indonesia where the Muslim are the major ethnic group the use of full face (black) veil is even very uncommon.
I have many Malay (Muslim) friends, most of my Muslim friends are devout Muslim and will use the pleasing headscarf to work or when they are out of their homes. Perhaps she is unaware that headscarf that do not cover the face is the other allowable attire for Muslim women when going out of their homes.
She should be allowed to use headscarf but definitely should not be permitted to don full face veil (in black) that only left a slit at her eye level to be used in School in the Western Country like England. There is a limit to how much freedom one is allowed, local rules and regulation should still be respected and complying with the latter is definitely not going against her Religion. The veil will definitely interfere with her lip movement during speech. The School's action against her is not discriminatory and definitely not done against her Religion.
She should perhaps consider moving to another school or better still move to Saudi Arabia which is mandatory for a woman to cover her face even while teaching rather than create unnecesary tension with the School.
Mr. Jack Straw had made a very acceptable comment on this subject matter a short while ago.
Tim, Singapore
Added: Friday, October 20, 2006, 18:29 (BST)
As someone who has difficulty hearing, unless I can watch the lips of the teacher, or whoever is instructing me. I would find it extremely difficult to understand anyone who wears a veil, that restricts me from seeing what they are saying. Is this also a form of discrimination.
If I went to an Islamic country, then I would abide by their countries principles and wear the correct clothing. It seems to me that the indiginent people of Britain have been discriminated against for a long time, they won't mix with us, and yet the CHOOSE to live in this country, and yet want the ways of the country they or their parents originated from. What happened to the saying, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do?" It is about time that we stopped this discrimation towards us and if they cannot accept our way of life etc. Then they should go to a place where their ways are more acceptable, instead of holding everyone else to ransom.
Sandie, Birmingham, England
Added: Friday, October 20, 2006, 15:17 (BST)
The Education and the Welfare of the Pupils is Paramount. A once unwritten philosophy of those in education. With the introduction some years ago of the Children Act, this noteworthy ethos of those working with children, and in particular in our schools, has always been fiercely upheld by educationalists. The Leeds Tribunal and Kirklees Council have continued to make known that philosophy and ethos which is the bedrock of our educational system, and have let it be know publicly through the recent case of Mrs. Azmi. Teachers have always put themselves second when it comes to the education and welfare of their pupils. Why? Because of their belief of being in ‘loco parentis’. And as being in place of the parent, our teaching force have always tried to act as the ‘good parent’, in most cases ‘the very good parent’; the good parent will always put the child’s interest first. This is why teachers work all hours. Why teachers have tried to adapt to the vast changes imposed on them by successive governments. Why teachers have endured the increasing paper workload, planned and organised school trips, societies, sports and so on and so on. And it is not a drudge, it is a joy. Why? For their commitment to children, their education and welfare. I heard recently of one teacher who had damaged her arm out of school and was in some discomfort. It was Ofsted week. It was impossible to take time off and continued through the inspection. A fist class report of the school by Ofsted, and for the teacher? The X-ray at the end of that week showed a small fracture to the wrist. Over and above the call of duty some may say. To those in the profession who have in their hearts the ‘education of the child paramount’, a full understanding of that teacher’s position.
To look at the situation which faced the staff, children, parents and governors at Headfield School, if religion is put aside (and after all who is to say which religion, philosophy, politics or ideologies have precedence), it seems only commonsense, and common courtesy that each one of us should have access to the faces of our teachers, colleagues, employers and employees.
In terms of practical teaching, the teaching of language and communication, facial expression plays a vital role. In our understanding of the other person, and our respect of the other person, we need openness of visage. All of us lip read, to certain extent. (Ask some one who wear glasses how less easy it it to ‘hear’ when one takes off one spectacles).
From the point of view of courtesy and collegiality and professionalism, what message is this conveying to male colleagues, about equality in the workplace? How would the problem be dealt with at a parents’ evening, for a single father attending the evening and not to be able to speak with a child’s teacher or helper ‘face – to –face.’
I am sure that there could be many, many more of these commonsense issues raised if this situation remained. Perhaps these will be addressed by the governors and employees as they meet with Mrs. Azmi prior to her return to Headfield School.
Michael Green, Darlington Co. Durham
Added: Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 0:34 (BST)
To Mr. Langan: It's nice to see comments on Britain, her heritage and her 'National Faith' from somebody who's not even from Britain. I reject your use of the term 'aliens' to describe migrants. And since you're a man who claims he has common sense I don't need to explain why. Britain does not have a backbone and because of that it is flexible, and because of that it has one of the most stable economies in the world. This article has nothing to with immigration. On top of that, I think you've misunderstood something about our English schools, not being a native yourself - 'it is absurd to have an English school, in which English is not the first language'. Common sense leads me to believe that you mean to say that English is not the first language taught - when of course it is. (If you mean English is not the first spoken language of the children, be realistic. Do you expect children to become fluent in a language as soon as they step off the boat? This is the real world. Learning takes time. Common sense should tell you that.)
And on the subject of heritage and backbones - Australia, after being colonised by the British, was a prison island. Before that, your land was populated by Aboriginal people. So, you have a choice of which heritage to choose from. Criminal, or Aboriginal. And what will you choose? I hope your belief is strong enough to tell me that your heritage is Christian, for whatever reason... Which is contrary to your country. So please have some consideration for the developments of a country. We are not in the 14th century, Henry VIII did set himself up as the head of the Church of England, and since then the slow recline of Christianity from mainstream life in Britain has occured. But don't be afraid - nobody seeks to harm you or take away your jobs because of your religion. It's just the truth with no frills. Did anyone instruct you to become a criminal or paint your face & hunt wild animals, just to be in touch with your heritage? It really is an old fashioned opinion, with no real benefits - everyone will act like you do, basically, because they will be constricted by the same heritage. Pluralism is a good thing, don't shun it.
On a purely educational note - do you have your own government in Australia? you say 'we get the government we deserve' - is my government your one? I don't know...
Finally, it is pure common sense to tell you that your comment "if they don't like it here, they should leave" is completely nonsensical. Do you think life in England is perfect? Do you think life in England has ever been perfect? There are plenty of born & bred English people who don't like it here, because there are many things wrong. Your broad-brush strokes are harsh and unrealistic in a world where everything cannot be bundled into the same category. Instead, don't you think it would be better if those who have a problem with the way our society works have a chance to discuss these problems, in the hope of making our society more inclusive to the people that belong to it? Believe it or not, immigrants are a part of our society. If you are in Australia, you or somebody in your family was once an immigrant. If a government was elected and you didn't agree with it, how would you feel if someone told you to leave? (Obviously that would never happen, since the natives have all but died out... But use your imagination).
Your comments could be seen as, at the most, racist, as you admit, but I don't think they are. At the very least, they show a high level of ignorance. Please prove me wrong.
To: Jonathon Scott. - Are all religious symbols now deemed unsatisfactory to 'uniform regulations' , or is it just the cross? Isn't the case you cited as simple as the one above? Removal of religious symbols from people in their work environment? Please post back.
Michael Ahmed, London, England
Added: Sunday, October 15, 2006, 17:39 (BST)
I heard this lady speak on the BBC news and I find her accent difficult to understand. Many people depend on lip reading or facial cues to properly understand a person's speech. Children especially are more dependent upon these cues. It is academic to say that telephone converstations or e-mail is the same as dialogue face to face; it is not. The basic issue here is cultural, not religious. In our culture it is rude to cover ones face. We must as a nation teach visitors to our country the etiquette of our country as we are expected to cover our arms and wear long skirts in their countries. In their country this lady would not even be heard of locally let alone nationally.
As with the Christian BA worker, she must follow the rules. Our witness is our life and the message of the gospel. Muslims have "Jesus the Messiah" it is up to us to inform them that the Messiah is "The Prophet" who is prophet, priest and king and Emmanu El - (With us, God - this is why he can raise dead to life; Jesus does this in the Qu'ran, yet their Jesus is merely a man and not the Echad God we know; we must say that there are no more revelations after the Book of Revelation and for us Islam offers no atoning blood salvation and that is why we, as Christians do not consider it.
Kate, Cheshire uk
Added: Saturday, October 14, 2006, 21:22 (BST)
The BBC reported today, that one British Airways worker had been banned from wearing her cross as it did not meet 'uniform regulations'. Any comments?
Jonathan Scott, Oxford, UK
Added: Saturday, October 14, 2006, 3:45 (BST)
It is absurd to have an English school,in which English is not the first language. Are we now ashamed of our native language under the leadership of a government determined to destroy our heritage and turn our National Faith into a second rate mockery. If we offer shelter, hospitality and protection to alien peoples they should accept our laws and customs. Religious freedom is one thing the destruction of our heritage is another thing altogether and it is about time that Britain found a backbone again.If these people do not like us and our heritage let them leave. As things are they want all of the advantages of our culture without accepting the responsibilities of citzenship. If we are so flabby one can only conclude that we deserve the government we have. Let the message be heard loud and clear "Come legally if we will have you but accept our customs" . This will of course, be seen by some as racist but it is not at all thus. Simply common sense with no frills. .
Langan, lLongford, Australia
