I don't know whether I was right to have been offended by this….

[DaisyHayes]

I am a teacher, and part of my role in school is to train and mentor new teachers and student teachers.

Last year, when we got the intake of student teachers, I greeted them and delivered my welcome presentation and induction as usual.

One of the students, when I introduced myself to him, refused to shake my hand when I introduced myself to him. He did not offer any explanation for this. I continued to offer my hand expectantly, and after an awkward pause, he told me that he does not shake hands with women on religious grounds.

I found this unbelievably fucking offensive.

Aside from anything else, the man was a student teacher on his first day in the school. I was (effectively) his manager who had the power to pass or fail him - I am fairly experienced and have been in my current school for eight years, so have some responsibility and superiority. He was at least ten years younger than me.

Firstly, I think that if someone in a professional environment is proffering their hand to you upon being introduced then professionalism and simple manners would take precedence over whatever religious conventions you adhere to.

Secondly, if you are going to be so rude as to not shake my female hand, then you should at the very least explain why you are not doing so, rather than let me stand there with my hand stuck out while you studiously ignore it.

Part of me worries that I am being incredibly bigoted. I am an atheist, but have never felt the need to demonstrate a Richard Dawkinesque crusade against those who have religious belief and think that it is good manners to respect others' faith.

On the other hand, part of me just thinks why on earth should I be understanding and accommodating about someone who clearly demonstrated that he thinks my possessing ovaries makes me utterly inferior to him and unworthy of simple manners?

I'd be really grateful for your thoughts on this.

[Hullygully]

You should have given him a big ol snog and a bit of an arse grab

[TeiTetua]

I wonder if the criticism would be equally loud if the student teacher had been a woman and the supervisor a man.

I remember hearing that in India it's considered wrong for men and women who don't know each other well to have any physical contact. The polite greeting would be to put your hands together as if praying, and bow slightly to the other person.

However, it seems very insensitive for someone in a culture where handshakes are expected but who doesn't want to shake hands, not to be ready to say something polite before other people get offended.

[GrimmaTheNome]

That's a bit harsh... he's a trainee. He needs training on this point.

[LodeStar]

As it happened in a school, it should be approached in an entirely professional manner. The student has shown himself unsuitable to be a teacher. He should be suspended from the school immediately and informed that he has breached the GTC's Code of Conduct and Practice for Teachers (even as a student he is bound by a duty to "respect diversity and promote equality") and that his conduct and suspension from the school will be reported to the training provider (a local university?) with a recommendation that he is dismissed from the course. No doubt he has also breached the school's and the local authority's policies and codes of conduct. But act quickly and make sure you have your facts right.

[CrapolaDeVille]

Sq....Yes I agree. I still have doubts that in an operating theatre a woman would be allowed to wear a hijab/niqab, hardy sterile is it?

[SardineQueen]

Many doctors do accomodate people's religious views, as long as it does not interfere with their work or cause an unacceptable use of resources. Same as they will accomodate people's preferences based on other things or just their personal views. That is fine I think and I'm sure it is considered best practice.

Conversely many doctors who hold religious views are allowed to have this impact on how they handle certain situations - something that I feel much less comfortable about if I'm honest.

With the teacher/student thing there is a a parallel - the student is free to hold whatever views they wish and even act on them to a certain extent as long as they don't do anything outrageous. A teacher is held to higher standards because of their position.

The parallel with the teacher in this situation is the doctor, not the patient.

[CrapolaDeVille]

I also do not believe for an instant that surgeons move around to accommodate someone's beliefs.

[CrapolaDeVille]

nailak Mon 20-Jun-11 19:28:55
anyway i have two examples from medical field.

one niqabi i know she went for an opp and the muslim sureon came to shake her hand and she declined and she was belittled and humiliated by him, another non muslim female sureon saw the event and decided to do the opp instead, let her keep her scarf on, and made sure there were no unneccessary males, includin the oriinal male muslim sureon in attendance.

another female i know needed an tonsilectomy? and when she went to hosiptal the staff automatically assumed she would want to cover her hair in the op, althouh she is less strict then the first sister, and as it was medical she wouldnt have minded probably, and the covered her hair with a plastic cap etc durin the opp.

there is a diversity of beliefs within islam, obviously it is down to the overnment to decide what is acceptable and is what not.






So you think the medical profession should do things differently with Muslims women? I don't. Are you seriously suggesting that non Muslim women do not have their hair covered during an operation? Or that anyone would allow a Muslim hijab to be worn during an operation?

[GruffalosGirl]

This could cause huge problems for his employer down the line. As MillyR said earlier, under the Equality Act as a Government body a school is held to a higher standard and has to be seen to promote equality so if he refused to shake a mother's hand at parents evening but shook a father's hand, giving the reason that she was a woman and the parents complained and it came out that the school had been colluding in his behaviour by allowing him to behave in a sexist way, for whatever reason, then they could be liable.

As an employer if the school then found out you as his supervisor had known about this behaviour and not at least raised it with the equality officer you could be in real trouble for leaving the school in this position.

[claig]

humorous, intelligent, apposite, informative, insightful. The comments are well worth a read, but may come as a shock to non 'flat-earthers'.

[claig]

The comments of Mail readers to that article are instructive, as ever.

[claig]

Yes but of course they are not really 'flat-earthers', that's just what Gordon Brown calls them. He also called Mrs. Duffy a bigot, and then said he was "a repentent sinner".

[GrimmaTheNome]

A real 'flat earther' wouldn't pass point 4.

So far the judiciary are, on the whole, doing pretty well on the cases I've heard of.

[claig]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1224961/Green-views-religion-environmentalist-wins-claim-sacked-beliefs.html

[HellAtWork]

Key things about the above case was that
(a) he was claiming he had been discriminated at work (not just in general everyday life)
(b) he was head of sustainability at a construction plc
(c) he was able to demonstrate that his beliefs impacted on his actions and his life hugely (so he didn't just say I believe x, he was able to demonstrate his belief through the way he lived his life and action)

Think it ended up settling out of court in the end.

[HellAtWork]

A belief in climate change is capable of being a 'philosophical belief' and therefore subject to the anti-discrimination law

[posted 3rd November 2009]
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld a decision by an employment tribunal that a belief in climate change is capable of being a belief for the purposes of Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 and therefore discrimination in employment and/or dismissal that is made wholly or in part because the employee holds such a belief is unlawful. To amount to unlawful discrimination; such a belief must be genuinely held, it must not simply be an opinion or viewpoint, it must be a belief that has a substantial impact on human life and behaviour, it must attain a certain cogency and seriousness, it must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others. Employers should be conscious that such beliefs in climate change and other beliefs which have the relevant attributes as described above may be afforded protection from discrimination by the Regulations.

From what I remember of the case the claimant lived his life in an extremely green way. Not pleaded under new Equality Act but doesn't make a difference on the grounds the claim was made.

[claig]

Good news for the 'flat-earthers', it sounds like they are given the respect they deserve in a democratic society.

[MillyR]

Yes, I would say their beliefs are protected, in exactly the same way that other philosophical beliefs are.

[StayingDavidTennantsGirl]

PatientGriselda made what is, to me, the most important point on this thread.

The OP needs to sit down with this student teacher and ask him about his reasons for not wanting to shake hands, and to explore with him what this might mean in terms of interactions with staff, pupils and parents during his teaching career.

[claig]

'secular philosophical beliefs (such as Green politics) are equally protected under the Equality Act'

what does that mean in practice? What about the beliefs of what Gordon Brown described as 'flat-earthers' who don't believe in climate change. Are they protected under the Equality Act, or are their views "not worthy of respect in a democratic society"?

[HellAtWork]

MillyR Ooh good point. Wasn't there a case about someone with green politics

[HellAtWork]

Grimma I think a persuasive advocate (barrister or solicitor with higher rights for England) can shape the law by how they put their argument across - but yes ultimately the decision will lie with a judge - but a judge can't pluck a judgment from thin air. S/he will need to choose the most convincing and legally persuasive arguments from both sides to make a decision and if that argument hasn't been made, s/he can't decide to introduce it into court themselves. It's always interesting to see how new legislation 'beds down' for that reason because it all depends on the cases that make it to court first.

nailak But that's still what I'm talking about - a handshake would induce sexual fantasies so he cannot trust himself. I know I must be missing something here...I guess if someone is told enough times that handshaking (or any form of social contact with women) will cause them to become lustful they start to believe it? A bit like the fetishisation of Victorian women's ankles? Sorry don't mean to labour the point with you, must be being dense.

[MillyR]

Another element of this is that religion and secular philosophical beliefs (such as Green politics) are equally protected under the Equality Act. I would think under the definition in the act that being a feminist was in itself protected. The definition of a protected belief under the Equality Act is:

1. be genuinely held
   
2. be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint, based on the present state of information available
   
3. be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
   
4. attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance
   
5. be worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
   

It seems to be point 5 that people can't get their heads around on this thread.

[nailak]

and its not about actual physical sex, the imaiinary fantasy type sex exists aswell...

[nailak]

no hell it is not about the women but his own mind, people are always going on about men restrainin themselves and not tryin to make the women compensate for their deficiencies, but here perhaps we have a man who doesnt expect a woman to compensate for his deficincies but who is puttin the responsibility on himself.