MELTDOWNBLOG

LIFTING THE VEIL ON INTOLERANCE

The “Badge of faith” that once set Christian’s apart from other faiths was the sign of the fishes scribed graffiti like upon a wall in Judea and ancient Rome. Early Christians were not tolerated by the establishment and were thought to be troublemakers an example had to be set so that it was clearly shown that The Roman state was sovereign over both matters physical and matters temporal.

Around 33 AD [no one is really certain of the date] a crucifixion took place that was intended to disperse the fledgling Christians to the obscurity of fragmentation and disarray. The flawed premise being kill the man and his ideas die with him. But what happens when the dead not only rise again but also ascend to the heavens? A religion begins, an unstoppable leviathan that eventually encircles the world and the instrument once used to strangle the new faith at birth becomes a symbol of that faith.
To this day Christians around the world choose to wear a crucifix as the symbol of their faith though some wear the same symbol for more cosmetic reasons. The difference can be found on the lips of a jewellery counter assistant who’s retort when asked for a crucifix puts the two into context as she says, “Do you want the one with the wee man or just a plain cross”? The modern Christian could not be said to be devout to the point of intolerance of what could be said to be a “Graven Image” but the fashion victim would have a clear idea of exactly what is required.
For many years in countries world wide the sight of a crucifix dangling upon a gold or silver chain around the neck has been acceptable but recently the right to wear such a symbol openly has been challenged by the purveyors of a mode of transport that mimic that first ascension into the heavens every day, the Airlines.
A check in worker has been forced to take “Unpaid leave” of absence from her job because she wore a crucifix openly, the company rules as she understood them demanded that a crucifix must be removed completely or hidden beneath the uniform.
It was feared that the mere sight of a crucifix hung around the neck of a British Airways check in clerk at a British airport on British soil in a Christian country would “Offend” Muslim customers. On a visit to an undoubtedly Christian country it would seem strange if the cross was not in evidence would it not? A mile from Heathrow Airport where the company rules do not apply a Muslim visitor might pass many such crosses and they would not be small ornamental symbols but illuminated crosses standing ten feet high at any church that might erect one. The question then arises, ”Would those same Muslim visitors feel misled by the impression given by BA that Christianity did not exist here”? The check in clerk who is 54 and an established member of staff for several years is seeking legal advice. She regards the situation as religious discrimination, which was outlawed in the UK many years ago. It might be thought that the case is perhaps an “Isolated incident” but it is not, as recently as January 2006 British Midland international [BMI] forbade its cabin crew to take bibles wear crucifixes or St Christopher medals on flights to Saudi Arabia to avoid offending the Muslim culture of the country. A BMI spokesman was reported to have said, ”In providing an airline service we have an obligation to respect the customs of the destination country”. If that is the case then surely the reverse is also an obligation. In Saudi Arabia there are what is called “Religious police” who jealously guard the rights and customs of Islam, in the UK there are not which presumably means that this destination country can be offended at will.

A senior politician also called the practice of Muslim women wearing a headdress, which completely covers the head apart from a small area around the eyes permitting the wearer to see, into question this week. Not just a senior politician but also the current leader of the House of Commons. The headdress is called a “Hajib” and is worn by Muslim women to avoid drawing attention of a sexual nature to her person.
It is usually worn in public or where the wearer might incur the admiring glances of an unknown male, it is a device to protect the modesty of the Muslim woman.
The item has many names but the purpose is the same, the name Hajib is Arabic and means “To cover or to veil” when used as a noun but means “To screen or to shelter” when used in verb form. In Islamic teaching its meaning is conveyed as Modesty, Privacy or even Morality.

It came as some surprise to hear that Jack Straw the New Labour Member of Parliament for Blackburn said that he would ask for the veil to be removed when taking consultation with Muslim women who had chosen to “Take the veil” for that is what it is, a choice. The constituency represented by Jack Straw is in Blackburn, Lancashire and has a very high Muslim content. Mr. Straw’s motive in asking for the temporary dispensation was two fold; the immediate concern was one of clarity and understanding. It is difficult to discern the true nature of a request or instruction from a constituent when all that can be seen is a pair of eyes accompanied by words from behind a veil, that can be how misunderstandings occur and with an exchange of views between a Muslim woman and her MP it is of paramount importance that the true nature of the exchange is clear. To insist that the veil cannot be removed for this purpose is a little “One Sided” as there must be other circumstances where the veil is such an encumbrance that it has to be removed. How do passport inspections work? What happens in the dentist chair? What of consultations with doctors? [Not all consultants are female] The answer is of course a “Chaperone”, so why is the veil so immovable in circumstances that render it an impediment?
The second reason for the request was a wider political aim, one of integration and unity. The veil whilst being a sign of faith is also a barrier serving to “Insulate” Muslim communities from the indigenous population. The Islamic “Chapter” of the British population does not integrate well into existing communities because they deliberately confine themselves to their own enclaves refraining from contact with the “Non-believer”. The veil is fast becoming a target for racist and Islam phobic attacks much of which is being made far too easy by the Muslim communities custom and practise.

It was not that long ago that the problem of “Hooded thugs” roaming our shopping centres became an issue. The government reaction was to ban the use of hoods which had become a fashion accessory but it had become obvious that they were being used to obscure the identities of the perpetrators of crime, violent street robberies and similar attacks and CCTV camera footage was often inconclusive where a hood was used. The resistance to the measure was widespread as was the support for the measure, many older citizens felt intimidated by the presence of a gang of youths wearing the hoods. The intended measure was dropped quietly but the problem still remains, the majority of cases involved ethnic minorities in search of what has become known as “Street cred”.

The double standard of acquiescing to the hood whilst suggesting that the Hajib is of a lesser importance has not been lost upon the press who have exploited the story this week sparking a debate, which has further isolated Muslim women to a point where they feel forced to defend their chosen faith.

The Hajib is as much an article of faith as the Crescent Moon or the Kippah [skull cap] and the Star of David worn by Jews, the turban and the symbolic Kirpan [Sword of faith] carried by the followers of the Sikh faith or the Crucifix so precious to the Christian. In the UK there are laws that protect such articles of faith for all religions.

In the UK there is religious tolerance, a female teacher of an Islamic persuasion obtained a teaching position at a Church of England school. The woman is a teaching assistant and was suspended from duty for refusing to remove her veil in the classroom at Headfield Church of England school in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire. The point she made was one of modesty, whilst she was prepared to remove the veil in the presence of children and female staff the presence of male staff removed that option and she felt unable to comply.

The local government minister responsible for community cohesion called for her dismissal upon the grounds that she had intentionally placed herself in a position where she could not do her job. The reason for her employment was that she was bilingual and many of the children did not have English as their first tongue despite being born and raised here which is surely a case for integration
Yet if a person with access to children in a classroom should elect to wear the veil permanently how would anyone know that the person with the children was in fact the same person that had been engaged on any given day? They could in fact be anyone.
Though there is merit in confirming a teaching assistants identity by recognition of that person daily the point seems lost in the furore that followed, The Muslim council of great Britain condemned the ministers comments as outrageous and inferred that many Muslims would see this as persecution.

The woman was seeking advice upon an appearance before an employment tribunal but if she is to remain at that school it would mean that if she discards the veil no man can teach there because she would then have to take the veil again and the conflict would escalate, that is sexual discrimination aimed directly at the male teaching fraternity of whatever faith, persuasion, race colour or creed. That is illegal.

The woman may have taken the job with the best of motives but surely one of the prime responsibilities of the classroom is to educate and integrate children into society, the events at this school seem bent on preventing the integration of schoolchildren into our society by maintaining a language separation, fostering the ideals of Islam and clearly depicting the cultural differences between Islamic society and Christian society. The events, if anyone had forgotten are taking place inside the classroom of a Church of England School, how many Christians work inside Islamic schools? Integration is a two way street.

JP.

Posted: October 18, 2006

Comment Here

Excellent Good Average Poor Bad

Comments

Email Address
(Optional)

[Last 100 Blogs] [Blog Search] [Contact Us] [FREE Site] [Home] [Writers] [Login]