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.

[CrapolaDeVille]

matey....Do you insist on shaking hands, or fit right in? And I fail to appreciate how living in a Muslim country could make you think that Muslims do not discriminate against women.....they do. The touching women thing is to do with temptation and fornication....ffs, because everything about religion seems to want to ensure noone has sex for fun and if they do it's the fault of that evil lust inducing woman.

[CrapolaDeVille]

Notjust....perhaps it should read failing to shake hands with a woman but every other bloke in the room.

[MillyR]

It is being construed as sexist because the student gave a sexist explanation. If the student has another reason why he doesn't want to shake hands, he needs to give the genuine reason, or make up a non-sexist reason why he doesn't shake hands, and apply his behaviour equally to men and women.

It would be acceptable for him to say that he doesn't shake hands with anyone because of his religious beliefs.

[HellAtWork]

Claig As an adult and as a trainee teacher he did not deal appropriately with the situation though, whatever his reasons. I am certainly not arguing he be forced to shake hands with anyone - there are other acceptable (to him) greetings he could have made, or even a polite explanation. It does suggest that he might benefit from some diversity training himself. I don't see anyone poling in here to bash his rights, or force him to shake hands.

MillyR Am a lawyer with experience in Employment law (particularly new Equality Law recently introduced) and your posts make sense to me. You've obviously had to do a lot of reading recently!

OP - Branching Out's advice is very sensible in the circumstances.

HandDivedScallops Have to agree with you on a personal basis - all claims of holiness boil down to the need for complete segregation of the sexes under Islam because of the view of women as Hijabi (translates as Do not touch - objects of sexual temptation) hence the need for ways to circumvent certain sections of the Qu'ran and Hadith by using things like Muta (Shi'ite only - temporary marriage - is like a contract and can drafted to preclude any sexual contact) to allow observant muslim people to flatshare with opposite sex etc.

[CrapolaDeVille]

Islam because of the view of women as Hijabi (translates as Do not touch - objects of sexual temptation)


This is incredibly sad.....

[claig]

I think religions do treat women unequally. In some religions, there are women who want divorce, but can't get divorced because the husband refuses. I don't see anybody challenging the religions on this. Sir Ian may have been allegedly "bloody furious" that a woman police cadet refused to shake his hand, but I don't see it being challenged. I don't think these things can be easily challenged because religion is too emotive. I even think that eventually religions will be able to use the discrimination laws to their favour.

[CrapolaDeVille]

If you choose to teach you cannot be a strict Muslim, Jew or otherwise, unless you want to work in an extreme religious school and do not have the state paying you a bean.

[PatientGriselda]

I think the OP is in a position of responsibility with regards to the man and to his future students, so she needs to do two things. 

She needs to observe the man teaching females, so she can make an informed report on any problems, either to help him become a better teacher, or to stop him becoming one altogether, if that's appropriate. 

She also needs to raise with him the handshaking issue, explaining that the fact it applies only to women would mean that he would be in breach of the Equality Act as a representative of the school eg in the classroom and at parents' evening etc, and that can't happen. He therefore needs to stop shaking hands with either sex, and find a suitable way of showing his respect to members of both sexes alike (eg bowing). And from the sounds of it he needs to practise doing that gracefully and with an immediate explanation. 

[MillyR]

Religious people are able to use the law in their favour. That is why protection from discrimination on the grounds of religion is listed in the equality act. They're just not allowed to use that law as justification for discriminating against others. Another good example is the Jewish school which was told it could not use the gender of the Jewish parent in a mixed family as a reason for school admissions.

There are lots of things that people would like to be able to do on the grounds of religion but can't do because they are actual serious criminal offences - shooting abortion doctors or seriously assaulting children on the grounds that the child is possessed.

Whatever the level of behaviour, whether it be very minor or extremely serious and life threatening, being religious is not in itself a reason for being exempted from the law.

It was obviously going to lead to a level of complexity in decision making when religion was included in the equality act, because it deals with an ideology, and at some point a line has to be drawn between religious freedom and the rights of other people under the law.

Religious people might be allowed to discriminate against others in the future. In the future, women in the UK may not legally be allowed to leave their homes and disabled people may be barred from any sort of employment. We haven't had our current equality laws very long and they could be overturned, but I don't see that as being the direction the Government seems to be heading in.

[HellAtWork]

Crapola It is because it means all female/male interaction as viewed as potentially sexual and men are also characterised as lusty beasts who cannot control themselves so that it is women's responsibility to be 'modest' in order not to provide any form of temptation. So equally sexist to men really, although they are not the ones who are in reality forced to comply. I think Muslim men are also asked to cover their heads in modesty but it is rare that I see a Muslim man with a cap (can't remember its name) with a covered woman. Men generally seem to be in western dress even when women they are with are covered.

By no means restricted to Islam although it is definitely more noticeable (wearing of Hijab) and enforced by both community and in places like SAE the religion police that go around telling people if they are being immodest (mostly women). Christianity has a huge and illustrious past in successfully casting women in a similar role. The Early Church fathers went to a lot of trouble to paint Mary Magdalene as a reformed prostitute (for which the Catholic church apologised in 1967) when no scripture says this. On the gospels alone Jesus actually demonstrates an inclusive and egalitarian regard for women (the story of Mary and Martha - encouraging to cast of shackles of domesticity) and often invites them to step outside their (socially defined) gender. At the resurrection, Jesus first showed himself to the women, he had women disciples etc. but all this is buried beneath two thousand years of the patriarchy stamping it out. The Early Church Fathers 'interpreted' the Gospel in the context of their own misogyny and that of the Greco-Romano society they were living in at the time. Very sad indeed.

[WriterofDreams]

Crappola, do you believe people should automatically be denied certain jobs on the basis of their religion?

[megapixels]

Doesn't this happen in different forms already though? Like when women request to be seen by a female doctor only. I don't think it's seen as sexism then, rather an accomodation of the sensitivities of the patient. Why should this be any different? In both cases it's a question of restricting physical contact with the opposite sex.

[claig]

I think they will be able to use the law to their favour. It is a bit like the case where some insurance companies will charge women the same as men for car insurance (on the basis of equality and not being discriminatory) even though women drivers present a much lower risk to the insurance companies. We are seeing similar changes in pension law, as women's pensionable age is being increased and it is justified as being anti-discriminatory. The current course may be changed and the direction of travel may not be as intended.

[HandDivedScallopsrgreat]

NotJustKangaskhan - I meant in this case where the man has already said it is due to religious regions.
The examples you give with OCD and medical issues or even general cultural differences do not suggest that any discrimination woukd take place between the sexes. There would just be no hand shaking full stop. Unlike this case where the man will shake another man's hand.

[CrapolaDeVille]

Writer....absolutely I do. If a person's religion is sexist and their behaviour is compliant to that religion. This man is going to teach children ffs, not sweep the road. You cannot have teachers that behave in a prejudiced manner whatever their excuse. If a Catholic was homophobic,and I've met a fair few, I don't think they should be allowed to teach either. However if those prejudices are hidden then who would know?

Writer....Do believe religion is an excuse to be and act with prejudice?

Because above everything the person is key, not religion, not some made up rules of life, just people.

[MillyR]

MP, no it is not the same. Somebody asking to see a female doctor is not a representative of an organisation; they are responsible for their own behaviour. The OP is responsible for the students behaviour because she is in a managerial situation. Asides from which, some jobs are exempt from the sex discrimination act. So you can employ people based on gender if they are going to be working, for example, in a women's refuge. You can have jobs that are exempt from laws around race if the job was in an Asian women's refuge. I have previously been employed in a job where both genders were employed and my role was exempt from the sex discrimination act. This was done specifically because some women would have been uncomfortable with having a male worker and were given the option to request a woman instead.

Claig, your argument seems to rest on the idea that in the future society will be different. Yes, it will be, but your claims that this will give further rights to people based on their religious beliefs doesn't seem to be based on any evidence, and seems particularly unlikely when European countries in general are moving in the opposite direction. Your analogy with gender and insurance doesn't seem to have a parallel to any cases involving religion.

Even if your prediction is right, it has bearing on the OP's situation, because she has to act within current UK laws. As a public sector employee in a managerial role she has a positive duty to promote gender equality. She only has a negative duty to prevent discrimination based on religious belief.

[SpringchickenGoldBrass]

It's a lot more about this particular student's manners than his superstitions, though. The key thing he needs to learn is ways of politely avoiding shaking hands without making other people, who are unware of his daft taboos or who don't share them, feel awkward that their friendly gesture of greeting is being rebuffed. Not wanting to shake hands is fairly unusual behaviour in British culture, so the onus is on the person with the unusual behavioural quirk to explain it and work round it.

[claig]

I don't think it matters what direction countries are currently moving in, because the law is the law. There are many things that Cameron can't do, such as deporting certain people, because they are protected by European Human Rights Law.

I am not a lawyer, but I am worried that the OP may be exposing herself to discrimination complaints in not treating this student equally, and I doubt that the law would say that his religious custom was in violation of discrimination law, or that the woman police cadet who refused to shake Sir Ian's hand was in violation. I think he would be protected under religious freedom. But I am not sure as I am not a lawyer.

[claig]

Agree with SGB. He needs to learn how to handle this better. He may be young, inexperienced and unconfident, which is why he may not have acted very well.

[CrapolaDeVille]

How can religious freedom, an oxymoron, out trump discrimination?

This is why religion is shit.

[claig]

Crapola, I'm not sure it does. Only lawyers can tell us what the law is. But I am guessing that not shaking hands would not be classed as discrimination. But I don't know.

[firemansamantha]

Crapola - it's hard though.

Discriminating against someone to prevent them from sharing the same rights as others - preventing them from voting, applying for a job or whatever, yes.

BUT does someone have a basic right to have their hand shaken, regardless as to whether the other person is a willing participant? It's HIS body, isn't it down to HIM to decide who touches it?

Now I'm not defending a religion that preaches this kind of behaviour, not at all. But does the OP have a RIGHT to that handshake?

[CrapolaDeVille]

Yes she does, she has the right to be treated the same as her male colleagues.

[firemansamantha]

I do actually agree with you crapola, Im just thinking about how the law should see it.

Surely this guy should just not shake hands with anyone, male or female? That would cause less offence wouldn't it?

[GrimmaTheNome]

Shaking hands is not going to prevent anyone from doing a job - as we've said, the guy needs to learn how to manage the situation.

Is it legal to discriminate against someone due to their religious beliefs
Yes, in the case of faith schools, they can reject applicants based on their religious belief (or lack thereof).