Comments on: Thinly-veiled bigotry

By: fetish pic

fetish pic — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:50:49 +0000

fetish

fetish fetish fetish fetish fetish fetish fetish snoxumxiu

By: adult personal

adult personal — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 23:09:03 +0000

adult personal

adult personal adult personal adult personal adult personal adult personal ytfyjomnre

By: Todd

Todd — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:24:03 +0000

The fundamental question is this: what is most important, the children’s rights to a good education, or the teacher’s right to wear a veil. This is a school. The children’s rights to a good education trump, to me, her right to wear a veil while teaching. If wearing a veil inhibits the students’ ability to learn (and that is what the complaint was about), then she needs to remove it. Period. If she refuses, what other recourse does the school have but to fire her?

Apparently the school went out of its way to accomodate her, but it wasn’t enough for her. I say, put the childrens’ needs ahead of her. After all, THAT is what education is supposed to be about.

By: Ballastexistenz

Ballastexistenz — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:44:00 +0000

I am not capable of most facial expressions, yet capable of making quite intelligible speech sounds. (Not capable of using those speech sounds for communication, though.) Most of the time when I do make speech sounds my lips and face don’t move at all, though, except on the occasional sound requiring lip movement (there are not very many).

So by those standards, if I were capable of using speech to communicate, then even if I were totally intelligible to a class in an auditory sense, I would not be considered by some of you fit for the job because my face does not move around enough. (I’m autistic, but what I say could also apply to people with any of a number of neurological conditions affecting facial expression but not speech.)

By: A very long post on niqab-wearing teachers, feminism and disability at The Gimp Parade

Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:40:32 +0000

[...] I want to look at this specific case of Aishah Azmi and the discussion on some feminist blogs where disability has come up in more than one context. [...] Neither R. Mildred or Jill, the original posters at PunkAssBlog and Feministe, respectively, have appeared to consider the intersection of disability, though it’s part of the discussion everywhere. [...]

By: Veil (discussions by white people who don’t know what they’re talking about) suck at PunkAssBlog.com

Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:07:09 +0000

[...] sm for Dummies, Filtered Propaganda, Torture Reading this thread at Feministe made several highly salient points magically app [...]

By: Kyra

Kyra — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:21:44 +0000

Woolas said Azmi’s stance amounted to sex discrimination:

“By insisting that she will wear the veil if men are there, she’s saying; ‘I’ll work with women, not men’. That’s sexual discrimination. No headteacher could agree to that.”

Is he also pushing to make the locker rooms and bathrooms coed? ‘Cause that’s sex discrimination in the exact same way—a lack of willingness to display the same amount of skin to the opposite sex as to the same sex.

By: Galloise Blonde

Galloise Blonde — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:55:42 +0000

Sunrunner: (btw–until about 20 yrs ago, a niqab or face covering was virtually unheard of outside KSA–it has become popular due to the enormous infusion of Saudi money and values into mosques throughout the world )

Absolutely, and also due to its adoption as the uniform of the female division of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in the 70s. 20 years ago, British Pakistani women wore saris or shalwar kameez with a chador (and often, trainers and a cardigan).

By: Donna Darko

Donna Darko — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:31:25 +0000

You’re right, Sunrunner, headscarfs not veils.

By: Nanette

Nanette — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:18:45 +0000

According to the interview with Ms Azmi screened on ABC news here in Australia, she had no problem with removing her veil to teach, but was sacked for refusing to remove her veil in front of male colleagues outside the classroom

She added that although she was unveiled during an interview for the job and that a man was present, her faith meant she could not be unveiled in front of male colleagues while teaching.

Heh. It’s obvious that we’re mostly operating from incomplete (and contradictory, of what is known) information here.

Me, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for her to be asked to unveil for the students, if they are having trouble understanding her while they are trying to learn a new language. While I hold no briefs for any religion at all, I don’t think she should be required to unveil outside of the classroom, as long as it doesn’t affect the job she is doing inside of it.

Other than that I guess it depends on what more of the story comes to light, and who is saying what.

Maybe it’s that some of the classes her partner teacher (I believe she is a teaching assistant) is male, and so for those classes she veils, but not for the other with female partner teachers.