‘Hijab’ should be woman’s personal choice

“We have a bad habit in Western secular society of thinking that we know best. And Western feminism often has an equally bad habit of thinking that its ideals are the right ideals for women of all cultures.

“In our society, the veils and scarves worn by Muslim women are commonly seen as symbols and tools of an oppressive Islamic patriarchy. This sort of establishment thinking makes feminism inaccessible for women of different beliefs, which robs the movement of its global power. Women who would like to be identified as feminists but choose to wear a headscarf don’t always seem to have a place.

“Western stereotypes surrounding the hijab – the scarf that covers the neck and hair of Muslim women – include the assumption that women are wearing it because of subjugation and religious indoctrination. Some argue that such coverage is used to make women subservient and invisible. But what really makes them invisible is assuming that the women who choose to wear the hijab, the abaya or anything else did not make the choice themselves.”

Amanda Teuscher in The Post, 6 May 2008

See also “Front Page news: Islamophobia makes you an expert on niqab” at Muslimah Media Watch.

Agreeing with the BNP …

“Well, even a stopped clock is right two times a day and so it is that I find myself rather agreeing with the BNP’s recently elected to the London Assembly Richard Barnbrook who says that he will press for the Union Flag to be flown permanently over City Hall, for burkas to be banned from public buildings and for official celebrations to mark St George’s Day. He will resist the planned construction of a huge new mosque, the biggest place of worship in Britain, in Newham, East London.

“This seems fair enough to me – after all London IS British and not merely an overseas branch of Islamabad. I think the Burqa SHOULD be banned, and feel that the huge new mega mosque planned for East London should also be banned until such times as existing mosques prove they are not little more than recruiting offices for Jihad, and surely the flying of the Union Flag over City Hall is non-controversial?”

A Tangled Web, 6 May 2008

Barnbrook calls for flying of Union Jack and a ban on burkas

The mainstream party candidates walked off the stage when Richard Barnbrook stepped up to speak after becoming, early on Saturday morning, the first member of the British National Party to win a seat on the London Assembly. Mr Barnbrook was unpeturbed. He expects to be treated as a pariah for the next four years, but insists that he will not be cowed. “If I have to be a lone wolf I will be one,” he told The Times.

Mr Barnbrook, 47, said that he intends to become the voice of “true Londoners”, fighting against political correctness and preferential treatment for racial minorities. He will press for the Union Jack to be flown permanently over City Hall, for burkas to be banned from public buildings and for official celebrations to mark St George’s Day. He will resist the planned construction of a huge new mosque, the biggest place of worship in Britain, in Newham, East London.

The Times, 4 May 2008

Muslim women redefine feminism

“They speak in a heavily accented version of English, suffocating beneath tent-like cloaks. Voiceless and enslaved, these Muslim women wrap themselves up in head scarves in public. While the rest of American women take the slightest sunray as a signal for baring flesh and flaunting assets, these fully covered women stand out as more than unfashionable but as victims of oppression.

“Such are the tragic misconceptions of American Muslim women-barbaric, veiled housewives victimized by an Islamic lifestyle. To about 10 million Muslim women, that lifestyle includes the female head covering, an Islamic dress code called Hijab and a symbol of modesty and freedom.”

Hanan Salem in The Connection, 1 May 2008

Judge in veil case to issue written ruling

A Muslim woman who lost a small-claims suit in Hamtramck district court in 2006 after she refused to remove her religious veil during testimony took her case before a federal judge today, hoping to overturn the district judge’s decision and establish precedent in eastern Michigan courtrooms.

But after 30 minutes of legal arguments, U.S. District Judge John Feikens said that he would issue a written decision in the case. He gave no indication of when he might rule, but hinted through questions to lawyers that he may take no action at all, which lawyers conceded he could do under Supreme Court decisions.

To get into the courthouse today, Ginnah Muhammad had to remove her veil and show a photo ID. She had to remove her veil in a private area in the presence of a female court security officer and show her Michigan license, which contains her photo. After court, Muhammad and her attorney, Nahib Ayad, said she routinely is required to remove her veil in the presence of female security officers when she goes to airports, and is accommodated by female officers.

“If the judge rules in our favor, it would preclude other judges from doing the same thing to others,” Ayad, of Plymouth, said Monday. “It is one of those cases that probably will go to the U.S. Supreme Court.” Ayad said he would appeal if the decision goes against his client.

Detroit Free press, 29 April 2008

Muslim woman receives damages for headscarf slight

A 20-year-old Malmö woman has been awarded damages after she was asked to leave a bus for wearing a veil. The woman has received 25,000 kronor ($4,203) from public bus service operator Arriva after an agreement was reached with the Ombudsman against ethnic discrimination (DO), according to local newspaper Sydsvenskan.

The woman was instructed to leave the bus in the southern Swedish city when she refused to remove the niqab veil that she was wearing as part of her sartorial hijab headdress. The bus driver had asked the woman to remove her niqab so that he could identify her, however the woman was using a bus pass that did not require identification.

“The bus driver has not acted according to Arriva’s values. There is no doubt where the fault lies and this is most regrettable. We are happy to pay out the money to make up for it,” said Jan Wildau at Arriva. As a result of the incident the bus driver, who was employed on an hourly basis, no longer works for Arriva.

The Local, 12 April 2008

Columnist challenges women to wear hijab for a day

Writing in the Louisiana State University newspaper The Daily Reveille, Shirien Elmasraya proposes to her fellow students that they should share her experience of wearing Islamic clothing:

“Ever wonder what it’s like for women that wear hijab – or the head scarf? I certainly get some crazy questions sometimes. ‘Do you take a shower with that on?’ is pretty common. And so is, ‘Do you wear that because you’re bald?’ That one’s my favorite. I certainly don’t mind the questions, and I am happy to answer them whenever I get them. But, now it’s your turn. I challenge the women on this campus to walk a day in my shoes. I challenge women to wear hijab for a whole day on April 25, 2008 and then talk about the experience afterward.”

Muslim hairdresser accuses salon owner of ‘blatant’ religious discrimination

Wedge logoThe opening shots in a £34,000 employment battle between a pink-haired salon owner and a headscarf-wearing Muslim stylist were fired yesterday with an accusation of “blatant” religious discrimination.

Bushra Noah, 19, is claiming that amount in compensation after being turned down for a job at the Wedge salon, which specialises in “urban, edgy and funky” cuts. Owner Sarah Desrosiers, 32, says it is an “absolutely basic” job requirement that stylists should have their hair on show if they are to cut other people’s.

But Miss Noah argued: “I know my punk from my funk and my urban from my trendy. The fact that I wear a headscarf does not mean that I cannot assist in an alternative form of hairdressing. It is essential to my religion and is non-negotiable. I have been wearing it from the age of 13 and I had never suffered from such blatant discrimination until I visited Miss Desrosiers.”

She told a tribunal in central London how her interview at Wedge, at King’s Cross, left her devastated. She said: “Miss Desrosiers looked at me in shock. She asked me if I wore my headscarf all the time and I explained that I did. She asked me if I ever took it off and I said that I only took it off at home. She said as this is a hair salon it was essential that I did not wear a headscarf. Miss Desrosiers then said how uncomfortable she felt with me being around.”

Daily Mail, 1 April 2008