French woman faces fine for tearing niqab from tourist’s face

Prosecutors have called for a 63-year-old French woman to be given a two-month suspended prison sentence and a fine of €750 (£659) after she admitted tearing a full Islamic veil from the face of a tourist from the United Arab Emirates.

The woman, a retired English teacher identified only as Marlène Ruby, said she was “irritated” by the sight of two women shopping in Paris in their niqabs. She said that, not realising the pair were foreigners, she initially pulled one of their veils while chastising them in French for covering their faces. Minutes later, upon noticing that the woman concerned had replaced her veil, she became further enraged.

“I tore her niqab off and I shouted. I wanted to create a bit of a scandal,” she told Le Parisien. Her anger, she said, sprang from witnessing the treatment of women in the Middle East, where she used to teach. “I think it is unacceptable for the niqab to be worn in the country of human rights. It’s a muzzle,” she said.

Although she admits removing the veil, Ruby denies allegations that she hit and bit the tourist, who claims to have been so distressed by the incident that she had not returned to France since. The victim’s lawyer said her client was on the receiving end of “an attack on religious freedom”.

In a Paris court, the prosecutor, Anne de Fontette, said the behaviour was not something that could be permitted in France. “Living together requires, quite simply, an acceptance of the other, of the way in which [the other] is dressed,” De Fontette said.

She said that although at the time of the attack, in February, the full Islamic veil was legal attire in France, the accused’s actions would be reprehensible even now – a month after the ban on wearing face-covering veils in public became law.

A verdict is expected on 4 November.

Guardian, 15 October 2010

Ontario appeal court rules that Muslim women may be forced to remove veil in criminal trials

The right of a Muslim woman to wear a niqab while testifying in a criminal trial may be determined by judges on a “case-by-case assessment”, Ontario’s highest court has ruled. The court also set up a framework for lower courts to apply in balancing a defendant’s rights with a veiled woman’s religious freedoms.

A lower court had ordered a woman to remove her veil, prompting the appeal. The case involved a 32-year-old Muslim woman who alleged that her cousin and uncle had repeatedly sexually abused her when she was a child. A lower court judge ordered the woman to remove her veil during a preliminary inquiry, sparking controversy in the Canadian Muslim community. The Superior Court then quashed that decision following an appeal.

The Ontario Court of Appeal said on Wednesday that Muslim witnesses should have the chance to explain their religious convictions and demonstrate why removing the niqab would offend those beliefs. But they must remove the traditional head covering to testify if the court decides that the veil jeopardises a fair trial.

“If, in the specific circumstances, the accused’s fair trial right can be honoured only by requiring the witness to remove the niqab, the niqab must be removed if the witness is to testify,” the court said.

BBC News, 14 October 2010

Muslim school denies forcing girls to wear the veil

Jamea Al KautharLancaster school Jamea Al Kauthar is denying national newspaper claims that it forces pupils to wear the veil.

The £2,500-a-year all-girls Muslim boarding school was one of just three institutions to be named in a Sunday Telegraph report on compulsory veil policies in schools in the UK.

The article claimed Jamea Al Kauthar had introduced rules which forced girls to wear the burka or a full headscarf and veil known as the niqab when they were walking to or from school. It said the school’s uniform policy had been heavily criticised by mainstream Muslims who believed enforcement of the veil was a “dangerous precedent” and that children attending such schools were being “brainwashed”.

Jamea Al Kauthar declined to comment directly to the Lancaster Guardian but posted a statement on its website refuting the claims. The school said: “In response to the articles appearing in several newspapers regarding the enforcement of the veil upon our students, we would like to clarify that Jamea Al-Kauthar does not force any student to wear the veil. However, we do encourage students to dress modestly.”

Lancaster Guardian, 8 October 2010


Clearly we misreported this issue. Rather than identifying a mere three schools in the UK that require pupils to wear the niqab, theSunday Telegraph found at most two.

Leicester magistrates ordered victim of domestic violence to remove veil before they would hear her evidence

A Muslim woman was asked to take off her veil in court to give evidence against her former partner in an assault case.

Georgina Richards agreed to remove it after Leicester magistrates warned they might not be able to accept her evidence if she did not. The 36-year-old was a witness at the trial of her former partner Ismail Mangera, later found guilty of punching her in the face and scrawling abuse on her front door.

During the hearing, chairman of the bench Lawrence Faulkner told Miss Richards: “We need to see a person’s facial expressions to assess the evidence they are giving. If you refuse to remove your veil we may not be able to accept your evidence.”

Miss Richards, who is pregnant, told the court her religion states she should not remove her veil in front of men in public. She agreed to remove it when she was allowed to give evidence from behind a screen in the courtroom. Only the male chairman of the bench and two female magistrates could see her.

However, speaking after the case, Miss Richards said it had still made her feel uncomfortable. She said:

“I was a bit unhappy that he told me to take my veil off. They put screens up next to me but I didn’t really want to do it. But I thought the case would be dropped if I didn’t take it off. It just made me feel uncomfortable. They wanted to see the expression on my face but I don’t think it really matters, I think I could have done it with my veil on.”

Miss Richards told the court that Mangera (30) had punched her in the mouth and knocked a tooth out.

Leicester Mercury, 8 October 2010

Update:  The Daily Express also covers the story, complete with a quote from Tory MP Philip Hollobone, the go-to guy for the right-wing press when they run a piece on Muslims:

“It seems to me entirely inappropriate for anyone to appear in court with their face covered, be they judge, witness or suspect. Everyone should be able to see everyone else’s face. There is no justification for her being allowed to give evidence from behind a screen, either. Would they have let a man in a motorcycle helmet give evidence in court? I doubt it.”

France: constitutional court approves veil ban

France’s constitutional court has approved the law set to ban wearing the Islamic full veil in public. It approved it almost in its entirety, making one small change: the law will not apply to public places of worship where it may violate religious freedom.

The proposed measure had already been passed by parliament. It is due to come into force next spring.

The law makes it illegal to wear garments such as the niqab or burka, which incorporate a full-face veil, anywhere in public. Under the ban, persons found wearing a full veil in public will face a fine of 150 euros (£130) and/or a citizenship course.

A last challenge is possible at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, where decisions are binding.

BBC News, 7 October 2010

Swiss canton rejects veil ban

The government of Solothurn does not want a cantonal initiative against the burqa or niqab. It has rejected the request by a member of the right-wing Swiss People’s Party, saying the phenomenon is too insignificant in Switzerland and in the canton. The canton of Aargau has already filed an initiative with Bern for a cantonal intiative to prohibit the Islamic veil.

WRS, 6 October 2010

Torygraph discovers three – yes, three – schools in which pupils wear the niqab

“Hundreds of girls are bring forced by British schools to wear the Islamic veil in a move which has been heavily criticised by mainstream Muslims”, the Sunday Telegraph reports.

And who are these “mainstream Muslims”? Yes, as you might expect, the two men asked for their opinions on the subject are Ed Husain and Taj Hargey.

Husain is quoted as saying: “It is absurd that schools are enforcing this outdated ritual – one that which sends out a damaging message that Muslims do not want to fully partake in British society. Although it is not the government’s job to dictate how its citizens dress, it should nonetheless ensure that such schools are not bankrolled or subsidised by the British taxpayer.”

Hargey says: “This is very disturbing and sets a dangerous precedent. It means that Muslim children are being brainwashed into thinking they must segregate and separate themselves from mainstream society. The use of taxpayers’ money for such institutions should be absolutely opposed.”

But the three schools the Telegraph identifies are all fee-paying private schools, none of which receives state funding. The accusation about the use of taxpayers’ money hinges exclusively on Tower Hamlets council having sold one of the named schools its premises in 2008 at below the property’s then market value. As the Telegraph admits, this was because the price had been agreed in 2004 when the market value was lower.

As for causing divisions between non-Muslims and Muslims, scaremongering articles like this – and irresponsible comments by malicious and unrepresentative attention-seekers like Ed Husain and Taj Hargey – have a far more damaging impact than the sight of veil-wearing pupils entering the gates of a few socially and religiously conservative Muslim schools.

Update:  Predictably, the story has been picked up by the Daily Express (“British girls forced to wear burkhas as part of school uniform”) and the Daily Mail (“The British Muslim schools where EVERY pupil is forced to to wear the veil – and Ofsted inspectors have approved them”). The Mail chips in with an editorial that accuses the schools of being “committed to secrecy and complete isolation from the rest of society” and opines that the situation “should be deeply disturbing to anyone concerned about racial harmony and social cohesion”.

Israel: Kadima MK proposes ‘banning the burqa’

A member of the current Knesset is proposing a law that would prohibit the wearing of any garment that obscures the face and prevents identification, in any government office, at any entertainment venue, and on any means of public transportation. According to the legislator proposing the law, Kadima MK Marina Solodkin, its primary purpose is to liberate women from irrational religious restrictions. The bill mainly targets devout Muslims.

Solodkin explained, “This past Passover vacation I was in southern France. And in this French province, I saw for myself, women in full burqa. I said, enough! For me, as a former Soviet citizen and believing Jew, I will never allow it in Israel.”

Solodkin continued, “When I followed the campaign in France, I started asking questions. But not questions about why the ban on the burqa was being proposed. Rather, I asked why it was not proposed beforehand! So late… Where were the Western liberals when they saw what was going on in their own countries, to their own citizens?”

Two days after France’s lower house of parliament banned the burqa, Solodkin proposed her own anti-burqa bill to the Israeli Knesset.

Haaretz, 2 October 2010

What does Wilders get from the coalition deal? A ban on the veil and a crackdown on immigration

Netherlands coalition deal announced2

The Netherlands will ban the burqa, anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders said Thursday following the announcement of a pact to form a minority coalition government backed by his party.

“There will also be a burqa ban,” Wilders told journalists in The Hague, announcing measures agreed on by three parties negotiating to form a new government.

The measures, which seek to cut government spending by 18 billion euros by 2015, should also halve the number of immigrants who enter the Netherlands, the politician said.

“A new wind will blow in the Netherlands,” Wilders said, standing alongside presumed prime minister in waiting Mark Rutte, who leads the pro-business VVD party, and Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) leader Maxime Verhagen – the two parties set to be in government.

Continue reading