The government is facing a rebellion over its anti-terrorism strategy from Muslim groups that claim public funding to tackle social deprivation has been made contingent on security co-operation.
Leaders of Muslim organisations have told the Guardian that the Prevent Violent Extremism (PVE) initiative is stigmatising Muslims and that much-needed money to tackle widespread social problems is only being granted with strings attached.
A Web site, called “Flying While Muslim,” has been launched to seek support for the six American imams (Islamic religious leaders) who say their rights were violated in 2006 when they were removed from a US Airways flight in Minnesota and arrested.
The “Flying While Muslim” site offers background information and updates about the six imams case and about racial and religious profiling of airline travelers. It also seeks donations to support the legal challenge to the airline.
“As this case goes forward, it is important that the six imams have the full support of the community and of all people of conscience who value civil rights and respect the Constitution,” said Omar T. Mohammedi, one of the imams’ attorneys.
In July, a judge in Minnesota sided with the imams on key issues in their lawsuit against those involved in their removal from the plane. U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery cleared the way for a trial by denying several motions to dismiss the case and ruling that a law passed by Congress after the incident does not grant protection from lawsuits to those sued by the imams.
Judge Montgomery also ruled that the actions of the imams prior to their flight did not justify their detention. She noted that the imams were subjected to “extreme fear and humiliation of being falsely identified as dangerous terrorists.”
A controversial proposal fielded by the governing Danish Conservative Party to ban the Muslim burka and niqab in the public space has been dropped after Justice Ministry officials have studied the idea.
“The Justice Ministry officials have said that in their view, the proposal raises important issues in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Constitution,” says Justice Minister Brian Mikkelsen (Cons). “It’s obvious that neither I, nor a party such as the Conservative People’s Party, can support a proposal that raises that sort of legal issue.”
Controversy arose on the issue after the Conservative Party’s new integration spokesman announced in August that the party, which is the junior minority coalition party, wanted to introduce a total ban on Muslim burkas or niqabs in the public space. “We don’t want to see burkas in Denmark. We simply can’t accept that some of our citizens walk around with their faces covered,” MP Naser Khader (Cons) said at the time.
Justice Minister Brian Mikkelsen says that instead, he looks forward to a report from a working group that the government has set up to look into how the use of the burka can be stemmed by other means. “The burka represents an oppressive view of women and humanity which the government does not feel has a place in Denmark. So the government has set up a fast-working burka group to study the issue and I am looking forward to its findings,” says Mikkelsen.
A controversial Dutch lawmaker has urged the country’s parliament to pass a law to fine women who wear Islamic head coverings.
Geert Wilders said women observing the Islamic dress code or Hjiab should be fined 1,000 euros (1,461 dollars) per year. The leader of the liberal-right Freedom Party PVV made his remarks during a parliamentary debate about the government’s budget plans on Wednesday.
“Everyone who wants to wear a headscarf, should first apply for a headscarf license,” DPA quoted Wilders as saying. He added the fine, which he called a “head rags tax,” was meant to “demotivate” people to wear Muslim attire.
France’s hardline immigration minister has launched a fresh demand to ban the burkha – decribed by president Nicolas Sarkozy a sign of “subservience and debasement”. Eric Besson said the Islamic full head and body covers were “unacceptable” and not welcome in France.
His demand for a total ban comes after 58 French MPs called last June for a public inquiry on whether it should be illegal for women to hide their faces in public. Mr Sazkozy backed the move, saying at the time: “This garment makes women prisoners and deprives them of their identity. I say solemnly that they are not welcome on the territory of the French Republic.” Women’s rights groups and Left-wing MPs went even further, describing the item as a “walking coffin” and and a “mobile prison”.
Earlier this year Mr Besson said he though a law banning burkhas and niqabs would only “create tensions”. But he has now said he wants Islamic garments which cover the face – worn by an estimated 2,000 women in France – outlawed everywhere. He said yesterday: “I recognise that my views have now evolved. The burkha is unacceptable and contrary to the principles of national identity, of sexual equality and of the French Republic.”
Left-wing MP Andre Gerin, who is heading the government commission on burkhas and niqabs, added: “We find it intolerable to see images of these imprisoned women when they come from Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. They are totally unacceptable on the territory of the French Republic.”
Yasmeen Ali was attempting to enter Hastings District Court on Tuesday to support her brother Carlos Manuel Brooking, 22, who was appearing for sentencing on a charge of assault.
Ms Ali, a 25-year-old mother-of-three, was asked by a court attendant to remove her headscarf on entering the courthouse. She refused and took a seat. When she tried to re-enter court after the morning break, she was blocked. She complained to the court manager, who told her she could not enter wearing a headscarf because the judge, Geoff Rea, had forbidden it.
Her brother had earlier been put into custody after refusing to remove a hat while sitting in court awaiting his sentencing, despite being requested to do so by Judge Rea.
Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres today called for reassurance for the Muslim community. ”I can’t imagine a nun being told to remove such attire, and the same should apply to others who wear head coverings for religious reasons, such as Muslims, Sikhs and Jews,” he said.
Judicial communications adviser Neil Billington said the incident was the result of Judge Rea’s “mistaken assumption of what was occurring in the courtroom”.
“The judge required the removal of the woman because of her association with [her brother] who had just been removed. The judge had mistakenly assumed that her headgear was a demonstration of protest at the court.”
Dominion Post, 3 September 2009
See also 3News, 3 September 2009
Michigan’s Supreme Court issued an order Tuesday allowing lower state courts to “exercise reasonable control” over the appearance of witnesses and parties, a rule change proposed after a Muslim woman refused to remove an Islamic garment in a small claims court.
The order allows courts “reasonable control over the appearance of parties and witnesses” so as to “ensure that the demeanor of such persons may be observed and assessed by the fact-finder and ensure the accurate identification of such person.”
The order, which amends a rule of the Michigan Rules of Evidence, is effective September 1.
The amendment was prompted by a 2006 small claims case in Michigan filed by Ginnah Muhammad, who wore a niqab – a garment that covers the entire face and head, except for the eyes – to court, the order said.
See also “Woman sues, claims judge forced her to remove hijab”,CNN, 26 August 2009
Two Somali-American scholars at the University of Minnesota say they’re outraged by what they consider invasive questioning and searches while traveling abroad this summer.
Abdi Samatar chairs the U’s geography department. He’s married to Cawo Abdi, a sociology professor. Since June, the husband and wife say they’ve been pulled aside a total of six times at airports for lengthy interviews that have lasted up to two and a half hours. They believe customs officials targeted them for being Muslim and ethnic Somalis.
Earlier this month, Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan – the “Brad Pitt of India” – made headlines around the globe when he was stopped at a New Jersey airport. Khan said, at the time, that he believed he was questioned because his Muslim name raised red flags in a post-Sept. 11 world.
But countless Somali-Americans who don’t enjoy Khan’s level of celebrity say they’ve been subjected to similar searches, called secondary inspections, upon re-entering the U.S.
Samatar and his wife are both U.S citizens with American passports. In August, they were returning from South Africa on separate flights and were steered into a waiting room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport. “We looked at each other, and we smiled, and we said, ‘OK, let’s see where this takes us,” recalled Cawo Abdi, Samatar’s wife.
But now, Abdi said, she feels indignation. “It’s a very unpleasant experience to be interrogated for two or three hours when you have never committed a crime, when you are doing your job, and you of course care about the security of every American,” she said. “Being a citizen, I expect, and I have a right, for a certain level of protection, and I don’t feel like I’m treated like an American.”
Muslim women have been banned from wearing the body-concealing swimming costume known as a burqini in the northern Italian town of Varallo Sesia, according to a report.
Women wearing the garment, made up of a veil, a tunic and loose leggings, face a fine of €500 (£430) if they are spotted at swimming pools or rivers, the ANSA news agency reported.
The anti-immigration mayor of the northern Piedmont town said: “The sight of a ‘masked woman’ could disturb small children, not to mention problems of hygiene. We don’t have to be tolerant all the time.”
Mr Buonanno belongs to the Northern League, a party allied with the centre-Right People of Freedom party led by Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister.
“We don’t want to see burqas in Denmark. We simply can’t accept that some of our citizens walk around with their faces covered,” Naser Khader, a Danish member of parliament of Syrian-Palestinian extraction who was recently appointed spokesman for integration issues for the Conservative Party, told the newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
In comments published on Sunday, Khader said the burqa is un-Danish and oppressive towards women and should be completely banned. He and his party say that what people do in their own homes is their business, but as soon as they walk into the public domain, one should be able to see their faces.
The Danish People’s Party and the Social Democratic Party have welcomed the proposal, while the Liberal Party, which is the senior partner in Denmark’s coalition government, rejects the idea of legislating about citizens’ clothing, provided they are not employed in a public function.
“It’s going too far if we start legislating on what sort of clothes people can and cannot wear. The burqa and covered faces should not be allowed if you work with people in the public sector — but that is where we draw the line,” says Liberal Party political spokesman Peter Christensen, who adds that it is important that politicians know where to draw the line in introducing policy.
Khader, however, says a ban is the only solution. “My view is that (the burqa) is not Islamic at all,” Khader says. “The modern burqa was introduced by the Taliban when the movement came to power. So I associate the burqa with the Taliban.”
The burqa ban is part of an integration initiative that the Conservatives’ parliamentary group approved on Friday, although the party has not decided what punishment should be meted out to those who break the ban.
“Initially we’re sending out a signal by saying that it should be banned. Then it’s up to the lawyers to find out what sanctions should be introduced,” Khader told the Jyllands-Posten.
Denmark is not the only European country where politicians have proposed a ban on burqas. French President Nicolas Sarkozy recently said that the burqa was “not welcome” in France, while France’s urban regeneration minister, Fadela Amara, told the Saturday edition of the Financial Times that she was in favor of the burqa “not existing in my country.” The Netherlands has also considered a ban on burqas.