At University. Have been reading Law related articles, reports and so on. Came across a few that might be worth debating on here. The reports I am reading are effectively legal precedencies. So the Law has been made, but a case has set the way for other cases to be decided.

Here is one (a recent discussion that has come up in the media).

Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council

Judgment March 30, 2007

A Muslim teaching assistant who had been suspended for disobeying an instruction not to wear a veil when assisting a male teacher was not discriminated against directly or indirectly on the ground of religion or belief.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal so held when dismissing an appeal by the claimant, Mrs A Azmi, from a decision of a Leeds employment tribunal on October 12, 2006 that her employers, Kirklees Metropolitan Council, had not discriminated against her contrary to the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations (SI 2003 No 1660) or Council Directive 2000/78/EC (OJ 2000 L303/16).

MR JUSTICE WILKIE, said that the claimant worked at Headfield Church of England (Controlled) Junior School, Dewsbury, as a bilingual support worker.

She was a devout Muslim who wore a long dress and a veil covering her head and face except for her eyes when in the presence of adult males.

On September 12, 2005 she told the head teacher she was willing to work with male teachers but would have to wear a veil.

During October the council’s education service prepared advice to head teachers on the wearing of the veil. It concluded that for teachers or support workers to wear a veil would prevent effective communication.

The head teacher meanwhile had observed her work and had concluded that she would be able to carry out her role more effectively if she were not wearing the veil.

He told the claimant she should not wear the veil when working directly with children. The claimant was not prepared to comply and in February 2006 she was suspended.

Council Directive 2000/78/EC established a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. The 2003 Regulations was the United Kingdom’s attempt to pass domestic legislation giving effect to that Directive.

Regarding indirect discrimination the tribunal was also entitled to conclude that the provision criterion or practice not to wear clothing which covered the face or which interfered unduly with an employee’s ability to communicate with pupils was apparently neutral within the meaning of article 2 of the Directive; alternatively that the council would apply it equally to persons not of the same religion or belief as the claimant.

That being so it had to consider whether it put persons of the claimant’s belief at a particular disadvantage. The tribunal found there was a potential case of indirect discrimination but that it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The appeal on indirect discrimination failed.

I simplified it to take out legal debates that people might not understand/get bored with.

What do people think on this issue? In my opinion the judge's were spot on.

My co worker is studying law in university, she'll go further than you.

My co worker is studying law in university, she'll go further than you.
Nobody is going further than me. A born leader, winner till the end, complete article. The best thing since sliced bread, I am.

I bet your last opponent begs to differ wee yin

Veils in classes by teachers. No opinions on this?

I think in all of these cases the job has to come first. That doesn't mean that employers can make you do whatever they want and discriminate at will, but it does mean that reasonable demands from employers should be met.

Showing your face when teaching children is clearly important, so if you can't do that then you can't do the job. Wearing a veil is quite clearly a choice, and choices have be a lower priority than the job at hand when it can be shown that they impact upon job performance.

I think in all of these cases the job has to come first. That doesn't mean that employers can make you do whatever they want and discriminate at will, but it does mean that reasonable demands from employers should be met.

Showing your face when teaching children is clearly important, so if you can't do that then you can't do the job. Wearing a veil is quite clearly a choice, and choices have be a lower priority than the job at hand when it can be shown that they impact upon job performance.
Agreed. Wearing a veil, especially if its black, covering most of your face, and impairing the childrens chance to see your whole face is the most ridiculous thing I have heard of for a teacher. For young kids also it might be a little off putting/frightening having a teacher who looks different to any normal teacher. I think the childrens communication with a teacher should not be impaired because that is crucial. And I would say that for any christian dress if it did the same thing aswell.

The way this country was going I thought that the PC brigade would take over and we would have stupid decisions taking precedent just on the grounds of it being politically correct, but one appeal judge was smart enough to agree with the original decision.

Who disagrees?