Doctorvee is but the latest blogger to comment upon the vexed question of veil wearing and the government’s double standards over both this and their attempts to pass legislation enforcing gay rights.
There are a number of issues here, so I’ll try to break them down rather than ramble. As I see it, we have the matter of religious dress and dress codes, communication and that of trading and private property all mingling in.
Dress Codes
Let’s start with the dress code story that’s been doing the rounds, from Jack Straw’s comments to Aishah Azmi wearing a veil in the classroom. However, can we get one thing out of the way first, please? The veil is not a religious symbol, it is a cultural one. In particular, that of the Wahabbi Arabs of Saudi Arabia. Therefore, when people cite the Q’ran’s requirement for modest dress, it does not specify wearing a veil. The reason this issue is hot news is, I suspect, because Jack Straw did what tactless men always do; he said what many were thinking.
So, on the matter of dress, is Phil Woolas right to state that Ms Azmi should be sacked? Well, the answer is, in all likelihood, “probably”. What Ms Azmi wears in her own time is entirely her own decision. What she wears on her employer’s time is theirs. If they have a written dress policy that requires, for example, conventional appearance, then she is in breach of the code and they have every right to take disciplinary action. I’ve been down this particular road, so have some experience in the matter. What Ms Azmi is doing here is making a statement. That statement is; “I’m different”, she is setting herself apart from those around her. I don’t have a problem with this; I do it myself. I like to wear my hair longer than is fashionable for men, I like to wear leather jackets and jeans, not to mention full length leather coats – yeah, yeah, so I have a thing about leather… However, when I am training on my clients’ premises, I dress conventionally. That is, I wear a suit and tie. There is nothing immodest about conventional business clothing and as a professional educator, it is reasonable of Ms Azmi’s employers to expect her to adopt professional dress. If they specify it in a written policy, the law allows them to enforce it and sack her if she refuses to comply. The question, I wonder, is did they?
Communication
The matter of communication has been raised as an objection to the veil. Doctorvee in his comments challenges this:
More seriously, it is a fact that people are able to take in more information when they are not looking at the speaker’s face. Taking in information from somebody’s face is a waste of brain power. I find myself that when I have to listen carefully I end up focusing on a stationery object in middle distance. So in what way is covering your face going to make people listen less?
Unfortunately, the evidence contradicts this – even if it is the good doctor’s own personal experience. Much of our communication is non-verbal. Around 90%, in fact. We do it all the time, so much so, we take no real notice of it. Until, that is, we are deprived of it. When on the telephone, we have to listen carefully to catch the words – a distraction can mean missing vital parts of the message (at least it does for me). The rail industry has been struggling with communication for decades. Their own internal research suggests that the majority of incidents have communication as an exacerbating factor. This is why the aviation industry and the emergency services use strict protocols for communication; they are compensating for the loss of face-to-face communication. You would not normally expect to use repeat back to ensure understanding in a face-to-face communication, as it is a fairly simple matter to read body language and tell whether the message was understood. Ms Azmi is a professional educator. As such, she will have a profound understanding of the importance of communication in all its forms on the learning process. Frankly, removing a significant factor in that communication in the way that she has, is unprofessional. I too like to be different and assert my identity; but never at the expense of my professionalism.
Gay Rights Legislation
In his post, Doctorvee raises the government’s current stalemate over the gay rights legislation as part of the overall discussion and specifically, Ruth Kelly’s double standards. Ah, yes, hypocrisy writ large from Ms Kelly. Well, what did you expect? However, I believe Ms Kelly is absolutely right to stall this legislation, but for entirely the wrong reason. On this, I take Tim Worstall’s position.
In a free society I must be able to take those quirks of my own character and desires into account when I decide how to dispose of my widget. For if I cannot it is not my property that I am free to keep or dispose of as I wish, not so?
Quite. This law is wrong because it seeks to involve the government where it has no right to be involved. Remember that leather jacket that I like to wear? Well, on more than one occasion I have been turned away from public houses by landlords who do not like motorcyclists. They have the absolute right to refuse whomsoever they wish, much as this might annoy me. My response is to take my business to a hostelry with a more liberal landlord and give that establishment my money rather than the prejudiced git who turned me away. Bed and breakfast establishments that discriminate against gay couples will either lose or gain business according to their stand and society’s view of their stance. The market will decide. The gay community tends to have plenty of disposable income. Those businesses that would rather not do business with these people will lose that slice of the market; possibly more as others will also seek out less prejudiced establishments. And, if that business fails as a consequence, well, so be it. What we do not need is government ministers involving themselves where they have no business poking about. With whom we choose to trade is a matter for the parties involved and no one else.
“No dogs, no blacks, no Irish”?
Haven’t my taxes gone to pay for the roads, infrastructure and tourist board subsidies and advertising that lead to such people (landlords, B&B owners, etc) making a living? If so, I think its reasonable for the government to ensure that the services that a business provides is provided in an equitable manner to everyone. I don’t think the principles of sale on, say, eBay (Tim W uses an auction model to make his point) apply to the hospitality industry.
Furthermore, isn’t the idea that “the market will decide” problematic here. If people are refusing to trade based on these arbitrary characteristics of the buyer/seller, rather than what price the buyer and seller can agree upon… then that’s a market failure, isn’t it? Sure, I’m confident that the homophobic B&B will eventually go bust, but not before they’ve reaped the benefits of my taxes, and fallen below the threshold for paying tax themselves. A sub-optimal outcome.
Yes, well, that’s one way of looking at it. However, I have a huge problem with taxes going to support these establishments in the first instance (roads, I can just about live with)…
I don’t see a market failure at all. I used a pub turning away a motorcyclist to make my point because it has personal experience behind it, so is perhaps more relevant than Tim’s. There are two things to bear in mind here, pub landlords have always had the right to turn away custom based upon their own prejudices. While I really object to being turned away, I don’t see why these people should benefit from my custom; so the market decides. The landlord doesn’t have bikers in his pub and may suffer lost revenue as a consequence. The landlord who encourages them will benefit. Equally, people who own a B&B should, ultimately, have the right to decide who they will have sleeping under their roof.
We have too many laws and too many offences on the statute book already, more we do not need.
There seems to be a general misapprehension that Ms Amzi is a teacher. She isn’t, she’s a classroom assistant. This is not a professional post. Indeed it’s not one for which any formal qualifications are required. It’s pretty clear though that the veil wearing is indeed a political statement. I would be very surprised if she had attended her original interview for the post thus attired.
Re: discrimination laws. AFAICR in the US such laws apply only to the government, which makes sense – all citizens have a right to expect equal treatment from the state, because the state has a natural or acquired monopoly on so many types of services (armies, police, taxes – not that the last is a service as such…).
Fair point. The issue of dress codes will still apply, though. It is reasonable for the employer to expect a professional appearance at work. It does mean that she can be excused my point on communication because I assume that classroom assistants do not cover the theory behind learning. 😉
The dress code is the point really. I’d be interested to know how she presented herself at interview.
Me too.
Robert,
There never were any signs saying ‘No dogs or Irish’.
Their existence is an urban myth, variations of which appear from Glasgow to Chicago to Shanghai’.
If you locate a photograph of such a sign, I’ll more than happy eat my words.
Lots of good points Longrider. The point about dress code is definitely the strongest. Most people would probably like to go to work in jeans and t-shirt, but everybody accepts that this isn’t a professional way to present yourself.
I’m interested that you think that Phil Woolas was “probably†right to suggest that Aishah Azmi should be sacked. Surely that decision is for employers, not politicians. Maybe this line is blurred a bit in the public sector, but as far as I’m concerned Woolas should have just kept his nose out.
I used the term “probably” because although it isn’t up to government to intervene, if the employer had a robust dress code in place, then the outcome would, indeed, be dismissal. He would, therefore be right to make that statement. After all, he is entitled to voice an opinion.
[Comment ID #1361 Will Be Quoted Here]
She was interviewed on the BBC during which she admitted that at the interview for the job she didn’t wear the veil even though a man was conducting it.
The most revealing part of the BBC interview was her comment of “do I have to answer all the questions” when she was asked anything awkward.
I think the bottom line her is that she’s decided to take her politics and religion into the classroom.