Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Subject to change without warning

More trouble about the niqaab.

I'm looking at this issue somewhat differently now, because this new tabloid frenzy is over a female lawyer who has worked for several years in the courts, wearing a veil with apparently no problems.

But Judge George Glossop demanded she remove the veil and she refused, sticking to her beliefs. The tabloids are reporting this as her being in the wrong: yet it seems to me that if Ms Mughal has been working in the field for years without it being a problem, why is this judge suddenly making it an issue? Is he pursuing some sort of agenda?

And the tabloids are loving it, if you have a look at the Daily Express headline on Mail Watch: "The Veil Banned By Judge", indeed. ~Rolls eyes~

Not so.

He doesn't have the power to ban a veil, fortunately: what he has done is put a halt to the tribunal while he seeks advice.

I think part of the reason I feel differently about this case than the teaching assistant case is that where the teaching of children is concerned, I think their needs should come first. IF the children needed to see her lips move to help them sound out words, and if she was assisting with English as a second language, then it seems it should have been possible for her to compromise for their benefit. But not knowing the circumstances fully, it does leave a lot of ifs and buts. :( Maybe ~gasp~ I was wrong in the first place! :D Although I do find the veil a bit of a problem as a feminist.

In a court of law, I would have thought that Ms Mughal could have a microphone IF the veil genuinely compromises the judge hearing her.

No comments: