Muslim teaching assist. wins damages.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by castlereagh, Oct 19, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. No links as of yet but the tribunal has decreed that Aishah Azmi, was not religiously discriminated against when the school suspended her for refusing to take off her veil in the class room. However her claim of victimisation has been up held and she has been given compensation of £1,100! 8O

    But I think it is good that a legal precedent has been set about the veil.
     
  2. £1,100 wont last long, victory to the legal precedent.
     
  3. But since she has a partial win does that not mean that technically she gets to keep her job? 8O

    I support her right to wear the veil but I just don't think there is any place for the veil in the class room.
     
  4. 10-1 on she takes them back to a Tribunal for Constructive Dismissal !
     
  5. The victimisation verdict is to do with the council not following the grievences procedure closely enough and so no, it doesn't mean that she can stay in post
     
  6. been done elswhere mate.
     
  7. Oops! Sorry.

    Mods, please feel free to remove.

    Cheers.
     
  8. Rayc

    Rayc RIP

    She was victimised but there was no religious discrimination.

    Paradoxical.

    How does asking one to take off the veil while teaching become victimisation?

    No one asked her to disrobe.
     
  9. Ray

    As I had said in the post just above Yours, the victimisation part of the verdict was nothing to do with her being told to take off her veil - it was in fact because the council didn't follow the laid down procedure for grievances.

    Ergo, no paradox
     
  10. BBC:

    If she felt so strongly about men seeing her face she wouldn't have gone through the interview process. I'm pleased that the judgement has gone against the claim for religious discrimination, but annoyed that she's received damages. I don't think that veils have any place in our society - I can accept hair-coverings, as several religions use this - but niqabs and burqas to me represent a physical separation from society.

    As for communicating with the students she interacts with, whilst accepting that eyes 'speak', so do facial expressions and I'd suggest that the majority of people like to see the full facial expressions of someone they're communicating with. Arguments have been put forward that blind people manage perfectly well without seeing the faces of people they speak with, but their visual limitations aren't through choice.

    Finally, when teaching a language, especially to those for whom it is not their natural tongue as was the case with many of the pupils she helped teach, mimicking the shape of the mouth and the placement of the tongue of the teacher is essential to ensuring correct enunciation.


    Edited for writing "hijab" instead of "niqab".
     
  11. Good. Hopefully due to utter commonsense. I hope her lawyer fees top the thousand and so quid given in damages for the related matter.
     
  12. Don't be daft: you and I are paying for her to defend her 'right' to impose her fundamentalism on the children in the school:


    It's part of Kirklees council: your and my taxes have paid for her mischievious case, and will pay for her mischievious appeal, and for her damages.... Orwell couldn't write this and have people believe it... :roll:
     
  13. You have proof of this????

    I haven't seen anywhere that Ms Azmi was awarded costs
     
  14. She doesn't need to be: the quote illustrates (unless she's deliberately lying) that she is receiving her legal assistance from 'Kirklees Law Center'.

    2 seconds on Google will take you to their homepage in the council's website, where they advertise their free assistance and representation.

    They are funded by you and me, as taxpayers: so we have paid for her representation, and any future action in court. Her damages, I presume, will come from the education budget of the local council: further evidence of her concern for the children she professes to want to help... (edit - which means, of course, that we've also paid for them...)

    As I said, Orwell is laughing in his grave.