Facing up . . .

So now there is a Muslim classroom assistant who has been suspended because she refused to take off her veil in the presence of male members of staff. She stated that she was quite happy to remove her niqab in front of the schoolchildren but insisted that if a male member of staff was in the room she should have the right to wear it.
The school in question is not a Muslim school. It is, in fact, a Church of England primary school which has both female and male teachers. When she was interviewed for the job - by a male governor - she did not wear her niqab. Now she is taking the local education authority to an industrial tribunal to retain her job. She admits that she did not reveal her need to wear the veil during her interview. Perhaps because she was afraid that such a disclosure would preclude her from the job - which entailed working with other members of the teaching staff in the classroom. If the school only used her in classes with women teachers it could mean disruption of the timetable and - worse still - disruption of the children's education.
This is a difficult enough decision for the industrial tribunal to resolve but it has been exacerbated by a junior education minister stating in a Sunday newspaper that she should be sacked. Whether or not you agree with him it is wrong for him to intervene while the case is still being dealt with. If it was in a court of law then the minister would be in contempt of the court and could be fined or even imprisoned for such an intervention. The minister should apply the same common sense and courtesy to the present proceedings. It could even be that because of his intervention the tribunal will feel obliged to rule in the lady's favour even if its instinct is to rule against her.
Then there is the case of British Airways who have disciplined an airport worker for wearing a small crucifix. They are saying that all such items should be worn discreetly under the uniform. At the same time they allow Muslim employees to wear scarves on their heads and Sikh employees can wear turbans and iron bangles - all very plainly to view.
Is there to be one rule for some and one rule for another? The company wants a corporate identity to be carried by the uniforms of its staff but it should either be totally uniform or allowance should be unconditionally made for the individual's beliefs to be discreetly displayed within the uniform.
Or should it?
Should the Muslim ladies wear a headscarf emblazoned with the BA insignia? Should the Sikh air steward have a red, white and blue turban made from a Union flag? Should this Christian lady have a crucifix with the BA logo stamped on it?
I work for B&Q, a large DIY chain. Everyone - from the trolley boy to the chairman of the company - wears an orange apron when they are on duty in the store. Each one has his forename written on the nameplate. So the supreme boss has "Ian" showing as his identity on his apron and should he be in a store and a customer approaches him then he does his best to help the customer even though he knows bugger-all about where things are in that particular establishment.
That is uniform - except that you can always tell when someone is from Head Office. Their aprons are always brand new and still have the creases in them from having been just taken from their wrappings. But the public don't know that. They just see an orange apron and know that guy should serve them.
Perhaps the B&Q way is not a bad example to follow. We have people of all faiths, colours, political and sexual persuasions in our ranks. So does the wider world. In B&Q you just look for an orange apron and know that he is a member of staff. It does not matter what else that person is wearing. It may be a headscarf, a turban or even just too much eye make-up. They are all there to do the job and in the eyes of the public they are all equally able to do it.
Have I made my point?
Nuff said . . .