Aishah Azmi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daily Express launched a "crusade" against the "Veil"

Aishah Azmi is a Muslim woman who came to public attention after being suspended and then dismissed from her position as a classroom assistant in a Church of England school for refusing to take off her niqab face veil when teaching small children. A picture of her in her niqab appeared on the front pages of British tabloids, such as The Sun, The Times and the Daily Mail, as well as Newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph. Prior to the outcome of her religious discrimination tribunal case, Prime Minister Tony Blair broke from the traditional protocol of not commenting on a case before the courts, and gave his backing for her dismissal.

1 Employment case
2 Government reaction
3 Newspaper commentary
4 Employent Appeal Tribunal March 2007
5 See also
6 References
7 External Links

[edit] Employment case

When Azmi went for an interview for the school in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire she was wearing a hijab, which shows the face but not the hair. She did not inform the interviewers that she intended to wear the niqab. The school maintains that they decided to ask her to remove the veil only after complaints from the pupils that they were unable to fully understand what she was saying ^[1]. Azmi informed the school that she would only remove the veil if no male member of staff was present, in accordance with a Muslim interpretation of the Qur'an concerning modesty for women. This stipulation was deemed unacceptable by her employer, Kirklees Council, but rather than take a normal employment law course of instructing her not to wear the niqab, warning her and then dismissing her, it suspended her pending the outcome of the tribunal case. This course of action was expressed to be 'without prejudice' by a spokesman for the local authority. It appears that Mrs Azmi remained on full pay although suspended from her position until the outcome of her legal case. She was 24 years old at the time.

Azmi had maintained that the wearing of a niqab was a personal decision, although towards the end of October the Sunday Times published an article claiming that her decision was actually made following a consultation with her local Islamic cleric, Mufti Yusuf Sacha at the Tablighi mosque in Dewsbury. Sacha issued a fatwa stating that it was obligatory for women to wear the niqab in the presense of men who were not their blood relative, and this would include Azmi wearing a nuqab whilst teaching.^[2] However this fatwa on wearing the niqab is strongly disputed by other British Muslim clerics.

Azmi took her case to an employment tribunal on the grounds that she had been discriminated against on religious grounds and that she had been victimised as a result of complaining. The tribunal dismissed her case of religious discrimination but found that she had been victimised. She was awarded £1000 in compensation for this victimisation and because in dealing with her grievance the school had not followed minimum grievance procedures set out in the law it was bound to increase this award by between 10% and 50%. It choose the minimum increase of 10% and therefore awarded her £1100 in total. £1000 compensation for victimisation is about the smallest award a tribunal could reasonably make in such a case. Azmi was subsequently dismissed by Kirklees Council.^[3] She lodged papers with the Employment Appeals Tribunal in London, although she was publicly advised by her MP Shahid Malik to drop the case, since 'there is no real support for it'.^[4] Azmi's lawyer Nick Whittingham, of the Kirklees Law Centre, expected the case to be heard in the first half of 2007 and in fact it was decided in March 2007: see below. ^[5]

[edit] Government reaction

Her case came on top of remarks by Jack Straw who said that he had asked women visiting his constituency surgeries to consider uncovering their noses and mouths in order to allow better communication. He claimed that no women had ever chosen to wear a full-veil after this request^[6]^[7]^[8]. When asked whether he would prefer veils to be abolished completely, Mr Straw said: "Yes. It needs to be made clear I am not talking about being prescriptive but with all the caveats, yes, I would rather."^[9]

As the case was ongoing, Phil Woolas, a junior minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government, said that "she should be sacked". Tony Blair, the Prime Minister also signalled that he considered women who wore a veil when teaching should be sacked, and added that in his opinion the veil was a "mark of separation" that made him "uncomfortable".^[10] ^[11] As it states above a further 10% was added on top of that as the Kirklees Council had failed to comply with the correct grievance procedures. ^[12]

[edit] Newspaper commentary

Writing in the Times on 2nd November 2006, Mary Ann Sieghart described Mrs Asmi's refusal to uncover her face when facing a class of young children as being as culturally insensitive as it would be for Ms Sieghart to walk through a souk in the Middle East in shorts. Another broadsheet commentator said that Ms Asmi should have been sacked because she clearly didn't care about the education of the children in her care.

[edit] Employent Appeal Tribunal March 2007

On 30th March 2007 the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed Mrs Asmi’s appeal. It held that the employment tribunal had been entitled to find that she was not directly discriminated against on the ground of religion or belief. The appeal tribunal found that there had been indirect discrimination, but that this was acceptable because it was an appropriate way of raising educational standards.^[13]