This is a cross-post from John Sargeant at homo economicus
Many stories during Ramadan have come to media attention – the serving of pork actually occurred some months ago, but the story broke in the last few days. Bigger issues of children fasting seem to be in the background.
When the dinner lady story broke in the Sun regarding Alison Waldock serving gammon to a child of Muslim parents, consumption of which was prevented by beady eyed headmistress Caroline Peet, some questions occurred.
Did the child choose the gammon?
Or was the child offered the gammon?
Did the dinner lady Alison Waldock have a history of breaking dietary conditions?
At any point did the child know that gammon comes from a pig – thus making it non-halal?
Should a child be allowed to choose to eat food which did not go against health needs (e.g. a fatal nut allergy) but went against the wishes of parents for their religious (Islam) or ethical reasons (vegetarian)?
In The Huffington Post Mehdi Hasan has answered that Alison Waldock is said to have on several occasions broken the dietary restrictions imposed on children. She has said to the best of her knowledge this is not the case, and the child requested the meat. The father of the child responds that Khadija Darr had a packed lunch, in addition to knowing what is halal and what is non-halal.
Trivia, a storm in a tea cup compared to other things happening in the world some say. We will come on to the impact fasting may have on children later.
Yet should a school support restrictions on dietary intake if a pupil chose to go against them? That is what stands out for me, more so than a dinner lady who has lost her disciplinary and appeals procedure to keep her job – assuming it was a fair and just process.
The picture being painted is someone wilfully breaking dietary restrictions on children on numerous occasions – which led to the private contractor failing in the service they were contracted by the school to do, and failing to meet the expectations of parents who were allowed by school policy to impose such restrictions on their children.
The issue that may be being lost in discussions is to what extent a school policy should reflect the faith of parents, or should parents accept school policy if it goes against their faith?
Ramadan
Other stories to take with a pinch of salt are those where all children are denied water during class, and whether schools should be at liberty to make a best interest decision to break a child’s fast during Ramadan against parents’ wishes.
Islamic theologian Usama Hasan makes clear on this here these points I summarise:
Children are not supposed to be subject to the Ramadan fast, only adults
At all times the health and well being of a person comes first.
School policy and social service policy acting in a child’s best interest by safeguarding take precedence over the religious belief of parents.
Schools are an authority to be respected in this regard as are social services.
Are scare stories being paraded to appeal to our prejudices or distract us, or are schools acting out of ignorance or best intentions which actually fail children? An example of failing children is the photo above where primary school children of non Muslim parents are eating in the restroom during Ramadan in Sungai Buloh, Malaysia.
The thought process that denies water to children for 18 hours, or segregates in a demeaning way, is contemptible and should not be encouraged. Clearly children should be exempt from fasting, their welfare should trump restrictions parents place even when claimed to be for religious reasons.
Do not lose sight of this with “Gammongate.” (Yes I know not my idea).
Sarah adds My initial response when hearing that Nigel Farage had asked whether the dinner lady would have lost her job had the child been vegetarian was to wonder whether the Daily Mail would have devoted so many column inches to the story if that had been the case.
I had thought the tabloids were getting a bit better in this regard, but the DM then did a rather gratuitous follow up story about the girl’s family. What I am not clear about is whether the parents asked that the dinner lady be sacked, or just complained in a more general way. If they did say she should lose her job – that was very harsh, but it must be noted that several Muslim groups said she should not be fired over an innocent mistake. If they did not demand she lose her job – then the Daily Mail seems to have reported the story extremely irresponsibly. Note what Mrs Darr says, as quoted in Mehdi Hasan’s post:
The Darrs say they never made a specific complaint about the dinner lady, nor did they ask for her to be sacked. “We just wanted to make sure that it didn’t happen again,” said Mrs Darr. “I told the school: ‘We don’t expect you to serve halal to our children, we’re happy with the vegetarian option, but if you do serve halal, we want to make sure it is done right.'”
Sounds pretty reasonable.
