As UK politician discuss a nationwide ban on wearing the veil theBritish health service are now discussing the issue

As British politicians discuss whether to introduce a nationwide state ban on wearing a veil there is to be a review into whether NHS staff in England should be allowed to wear full face veils, according to the Department of Health.

Ministers have asked doctors' regulator the General Medical Council to ensure there is "appropriate" face-to-face contact with patients.

The actual number of women wearing the niqab in the NHS is thought to be "extremely low".

There is no national guidance on the issue.

Some hospitals say the veil can be worn for religious reasons. Others - including some in West Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and east London - rule the clothing is not permitted in order to ensure effective communication.

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt told the BBC: "I think it is very important that patients do get proper contact with the doctors and nurses who are looking after them.

"Certainly if I was a patient myself, I'd want to be able to see the face of the doctor or nurse who was treating me."

However, he said hospitals should be able to come up with policies "in a way that is right in their area" and that national guidelines were a "matter for the professional standards bodies" rather than politicians.

Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust introduced rules banning the full face veil in 2009.

It said the move was to give clear rules to staff and that wearing the full veil was not an issue in the trust, either before or after the ban.

The organisation's chief nurse, Juliette Greenwood, said: "Patients consistently tell us how important good, two-way communication is for them and this is particularly vital for those people with additional needs who rely on visual cues to assist understanding.

"We believe that seeing someone's face when communicating information to patients is therefore an effective and important part of healthcare."

'Low numbers'

There is no clear data on the number of women wearing the full veil in hospitals or for how many would wear the niqab if their hospital had not banned it.

"I think that's because the numbers are extremely low," said Mussurut Zia from the Muslim Women's Network.

She told the BBC: "Nobody's had to think about this until it's reared its head in recent days.

"I think the time is right. We need to have the debate and I do think we need, maybe not something in law, but we do need some guidelines."

A newly qualified nurse, Umm Sufyaan, 21, wants to be able to wear her niqab at work. She said she always felt "a bit uncomfortable on shift" when she was not wearing the full veil.

"If you're giving someone some medication, as long as they can hear you and understand you, there's no need for them to see your face."

She argued that the patient and the staff had the right to be feel comfortable in hospital.

Health minister Dr Dan Poulter told the Daily Telegraph: "Being unable to see a health care professional's face can be a barrier to good and empathetic communication with patients and their families.

"That is why I am writing to all health care regulators to ask them to look into this matter and to review their professional regulations, to ensure that there is always appropriate face-to-face contact between health care professionals and their patients."

The shadow health minister, Andrew Gwynne, said the issue was "very sensitive" and that he hoped patients' wishes would be "taken on board by individual hospital trusts".

Prof Carol Baxter, from the organisation NHS Employers, said: "Our staff come from all backgrounds as do our patients, however, to ensure the highest level of care is delivered, it is paramount that there are no barriers to effective communication between staff and patients.

"NHS organisations have a duty to determine appropriate dress for staff, depending on their role and the tasks they perform. This must be done in close collaboration with patients, staff, faith groups and community representatives."

Pro-Palestinian ads misrepresent apartheid

By: Rev. Dr. Kenneth Meshoe
Special to The S.F. Examiner

On my recent trip to San Francisco, I was deeply disturbed to learn about the posters in The City accusing Israel of apartheid. As a black South African who lived under apartheid, this system was implemented in South Africa to subjugate people of color and deny them a variety of their rights. In my view, Israel cannot be compared to apartheid in South Africa. Those who make the accusation expose their ignorance of what apartheid really is.

These new Muni ads compare
 Israel's treatment of
Palestine to apartheid.

Apartheid was a legal system of segregation and oppression based on skin color, with a very small white minority dominating over the vast majority of people of color.

As a black South African under apartheid, I, among other things, could not vote, nor could I freely travel the landscape of South Africa. No person of color could hold high government office. The races were strictly segregated at sports arenas, public restrooms, schools and on public transportation. People of color had inferior hospitals, medical care and education. If a white doctor was willing to take a black patient, he had to examine him or her in a back room or some other hidden place.

In my numerous visits to Israel, I did not see any of the above. My understanding of the Israeli legal system is that equal rights are enshrined in law. Black, brown and white Jews and the Arab minority mingle freely in all public places, universities, restaurants, voting stations and public transportation. All people have the right to vote. The Arab minority has political parties, serves in the Israeli parliament (Knesset) and holds positions in government ministries, the police force and the security services. In hospitals, Palestinian patients lie in beds next to Israeli Jews, and doctors and nurses are as likely to be Israeli Arabs as Jews. I also understand that an Israeli Arab judge presided over the trial of former Israeli President Moshe Katsav, who was convicted of misconduct. An Ethiopian Jew recently won the title of Miss Israel. None of the above was legally permissible in apartheid South Africa!

I believe that it is slanderous and deceptive for Israel’s self-defense measures against the terrorists’ campaign of suicide bombing, rocket attacks and other acts of terrorism that have occurred, and continue to occur, to be labeled as apartheid. I am shocked by the claim that the free, diverse, democratic state of Israel practices apartheid. This ridiculous accusation trivializes the word apartheid, minimizing and belittling the magnitude of the racism and suffering endured by South Africans of color.

I urge all people, young people in particular, to visit Israel and learn the facts for themselves so that they can confidently refute these false allegations against Israel. The misapplication of the term apartheid makes a mockery of a grievous injustice and threatens to undermine the true meaning of the term.

In my view, Israel is a model of democracy, inclusion and pluralism that can be emulated by many nations, particularly in the Middle East.

The Rev. Dr. Kenneth Meshoe is a member of the South African Parliament, the president of the African Christian Democratic Party and the chairman of the South African Israel Allies Caucus.
-----------


related: 

New Muni ads claim Israeli ‘apartheid’ against Palestinians

By: Chris Roberts
S.F. Examiner Staff Writer 

Yet another salvo has been launched in the ongoing, polarizing and divisive Israel-Palestine debate — and it’s on Muni.

Several San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency buses bearing a pro-Palestine, anti-Israel advertisement are currently ferrying The City’s commuters.

The ads, paid for by American Muslims for Palestine, feature a quote from Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu comparing the situation in the Holy Land to apartheid in South Africa, along with a reminder that Israel receives about $3 billion in foreign aid from the U.S.

Zahra Billoo of the Council on American-Islamic Relations speaks
at an event Tuesday announcing
The new ads by the Americans Muslims for Palestine.

“End Apartheid Now!” the ads proclaim. “Stop U.S. Aid to Israel.”

The “apartheid” campaign is the latest in a series of messages on Muni vehicles related to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

Ads that used the term “savages” and urged the “defeat” of “jihad,” paid for by a New York-based pro-Israel lobby called American Freedom Defense Initiative, first appeared on buses last year.

City officials slammed the inflammatory ads as “Islamophobic,” and Muni donated the proceeds from the sales to The City’s Human Rights Commission. There are no plans to transfer the $5,030 that paid for the current “apartheid” campaign, Muni spokesman Paul Rose said.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations Ads then put ads using “jihad” in a nonmilitarized, religious context on the transit system, before “jihad” ads featuring Osama bin Laden and other faces of terror — also paid for by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, which the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as an “anti-Muslim” group — were bought in response this year.

These latest “apartheid” ads will run on Muni buses until June 6.


 San Francisco Examiner