Sacking a Muslim teaching assistant for refusing to remove her veil is akin to discriminating against Catholics for going to mass on a Sunday, a hearing was told today.Aishah Azmi, 24, took her first step yesterday on her long march to the European Courts to appeal against a tribunal ruling that she could not wear her veil in the classroom.
The test case - estimated to cost taxpayers up to £250,000 - comes after the teaching assistant was suspended and later sacked last year for wearing a full-face veil.
Primary school pupils complained that they found it difficult to understand her because they could not see her lips move.
Yesterday as she launched her appeal against the ruling, lawyers for the bilingual support worker claimed that she had been discriminated against by Kirklees local education authority on the grounds of her religious beliefs.
In an echo of the British Airways row over wearing religious symbols, Mrs Azmi's dismissal from Headfield Church of England Junior School was compared to stopping a Christian from wearing a cross or attending mass by her counsel.
Representing Mrs Azmi, Declan O'Dempsey told the Employment Appeal Tribunal that she should be able to wear a veil at work in the same way as a Sikh can carry a Kirpan sword as a symbol of their faith.
He said: "Religious belief is expressed verbally but also symbolically. All of these can be described as manifestations of religious belief. "It is hard to see why you can carry a Kirpan but not wear a cross, for example."
He added: "We say that the tribunal should have constituted this as discrimination on the grounds of religious belief."
Last October an employment tribunal in Leeds threw out Mrs Azmi's claims of discrimination and harassment, although it ruled that she had been victimised by the school in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, and awarded £1,000 for "injury to feelings".
It found that the school's decision to order Mrs Azmi to remove the veil was a "proportionate means" of ensuring "children received the best possible instruction and assistance in the English language".
She was sacked a month on from the ruling, which was described by a local Labour MP as a "victory for common sense" and sparked a fierce debate about Britain's race relations.
But she vowed to fight the decision all the way to the European Courts under new religious discrimination regulations and she has secured legal aid for her battle.
British-born Mrs Azmi, originally from Cardiff, was appointed to the £15,000 a year post, which involved helping non-native English speakers with English and maths, in September 2005.
She attended her interview without her veil, even though a male governor was present, and did not wear it for teacher training days on taking up the post.
But problems arose when she started wearing it in the classroom and she was suspended in February 2006.
The teaching assistant has always maintained that she was willing to remove her veil in front of children - but not when male colleagues were present.
On Thursday, her counsel condemned comparisons made at the previous tribunal to Mrs Azmi wearing a balaclava or bandages, saying that the panel had failed to take into account that she was wearing the veil on religious grounds.
But a lay member on the panel chaired by a High Court judge, Mr Justice Wilkie, rejected the comparisons, saying communication with the pupils remained the most important aspect in the case.
Samuel Yaboah said: "I find it difficult to accept the appellant's argument of creating hypothetical questions about religion when the case is about the ability to communicate with children."
Mrs Azmi was not present for the hearing as she was said to have been affected by the media coverage of her high-profile case.
The tribunal is expected to rule on the appeal in a written judgement later this year.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce