“A British Airways plane was delayed after three of Sheikh Badr Bin Khalifa al-Thani’s most valuable wives refused to sit next to male passengers. Which was out of character for the Qatari royals, really. You see, earlier they had graciously consented to make their accommodations with decadent western ways – while shopping in the designer boutiques of Milan. A trivial story, highlighting an un-trivial trend: the move towards Muslim separateness.”
Jasper Gerard in the Observer, 29 July 2007
Tariq Ramadan answers questions on jihad, apostasy and women’s rights.
A Muslim woman explains why she decided to stop wearing the hijab and the role faith plays in her life as an American.
See also the Newsweek poll of US attitudes towards Muslims.
In today’s lead article the Daily Express tells its readers that the burka (they mean the niqab – but, hey, why bother with accuracy when it comes to “foreign” clothing) “is becoming the Islamic equivalent of the mugger’s hooded top or the armed robber’s balaclava. Anyone sincerely wishing to integrate into the British way of life would never wear such an alien and threatening outfit…. Make no mistake, the proliferation of burka-wearing is a direct threat to the British way of life and in all too many instances is intended to be just that”.
The front page is devoted to whipping up panic over the Al Muhajiroun demo outside the Old Bailey: “This was the extraordinary scene on the streets of Britain yesterday as burka-clad protestors demanded the release of four extremists. Swarming outside the Old Bailey, the Muslim hate mob poured scorn on the nation that guarantees their freedoms.”
Judging by the Express‘s own photographs, the “mob” that was “swarming” outside the court would appear to have consisted of about six people. And of course the Express fails to inform its readers that Al Muhajiroun is a tiny and irrelevant group whose supporters these days can probably be numbered in dozens.
Check out the comments following the article for the sort of far-right racists who are encouraged by this disgraceful, irresponsible excuse for journalism.
See also Five Chinese Crackers, 19 July 2007
A judge asked a woman to lift her full Muslim veil, three weeks after a Manchester magistrate walked out of her previous hearing because her face was covered. District Judge Diana Baker allowed Zoobia Hussain, aged 32, to give evidence from behind a screen in her trial at Manchester Magistrates’ Court on a charge of criminal damage.
Judge Baker said: “I understand the importance to a Muslim woman of being able to wear her veil because that is an important part of her cultural and religious identity. But when I make an assessment of people giving evidence I look at their facial expressions and I can only see Mrs Hussain’s eyes. My view is that when giving evidence it is important for me in my judicial decision-making role to be able to see her face.”
She said Hussain could sit behind a screen so that the male prosecutor and clerk could not see her face. Prosecutor Nicholas Vitti said he accepted the need for special measures, but made clear he was “not happy” he could not see Hussain’s face.
A special constable who is the first officer in Cambridgeshire to wear a Muslim hijab on duty is receiving a warm welcome on the beat. Rukshana Begum, 23, who was featured in the News after deciding to wear the headscarf, said the reaction from the public has been “confidence-boosting”.
She said: “I have had so many members of the general public saying it’s really good to see someone doing this and representing their group. People are also saying good luck and I hope it goes well. When I went on duty without the hijab I got ordinary looks, but now people recognise me from the newspaper and have congratulated me. When they say ‘all the best’ and ‘good luck’ it boosts your confidence.”
She said: “I never thought I would get any negative response. Even if I was to think hard, I could not think of why the general public would want to be negative. As I expected, people have been really welcoming and have accepted it. Britain is a multi-racial and multi-religious society now.”
THE HAGUE – A Dutch right-wing anti-Islam politician on Thursday submitted new proposals for a law banning burqas after an earlier attempt stranded.
In letter to parliament Geert Wilders, who heads the Freedom Party which has nine of the 150 seats in the lower house, wrote that “the burqa and the niqab is a symbol of the oppression of women” and is “in defiance of the democratic constitutional state”.
Wilders wants to ban specifically burqas and niqabs in public places including stations, stadiums, shops, restaurants, museums, hospitals, cars driving on the public roads and public transport. He proposes a maximum sentence of 12 days in jail or a fine of 3,350 euros (4,619 dollars).
At Comment is Free Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, defends Jack Straw’s offensive and insensitive statements on the niqab:
“Straw defended women’s right to wear less intrusive headscarves; yet he also argued that something is seriously wrong when, in conversation with another person, one cannot engage in face-to-face interaction. Straw was saying that to wear the nijab is a decision to close yourself off from everyone around you….
“As he pointed out, wearing the nijab is not commanded by the Koran and represents a cultural choice, not a religious duty. So long as other ways are available for Muslim women to cover their heads, agreeing not to wear the nijab is a way of signifying one’s membership in a liberal society at minimal cost to one’s religious commitments.”
So, problem sorted then. Though some of us might note the quite stunning arrogance of Christians like Wolfe lecturing adherents of another faith on the nature of their religious duties.
Interviewed in yesterday’s Daily Mail, the Tories’ new shadow minister for community cohesion, Sayeeda Warsi, answered this sort of arrogance rather well: “… when Jack Straw stood up and said, ‘You should not wear the face veil’ I thought, oh my gosh, we now have white men standing up and telling us what to do. And I really thought that men should just butt out of women’s wardrobes.”
On the July 2 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, discussing the recent terror-related arrests in Britain, radio host Michael Savage said, “When I see a woman walking around with a burqa, I see a Nazi,” adding, “That’s what I see – how do you like that? – a hateful Nazi who would like to cut your throat and kill your children.” Savage also said that when a Muslim woman wears a burqa, “She’s doing it to spit in your face. She’s saying, ‘You white moron, you, I’m going to kill you if I can.'” The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it the third most-listened-to talk radio show in the nation.
A magistrate is facing an inquiry after refusing to deal with a defendant wearing a full Muslim veil, the Judiciary of England and Wales said yesterday.
Ian Murray walked out of the case at Manchester magistrates’ court yesterday because Zoobia Hussain, 32, of Crumpsall, Manchester, was covered by a hijab. Hussain’s lawyer, Judith Hawkins, said her client was “shocked and distressed” and found Mr Murray’s treatment of her “insensitive and unacceptable”.
Miss Hawkins said she would submit a formal written complaint to the court on Monday. When the complaint is received, the judiciary will launch an internal investigation into Mr Murray’s behaviour, a spokesman said.
A spokesman for the Ramadhan Foundation said: “It is despicable that the judiciary is ignoring the guidelines about the wearing of the hijab set out only in February by the Judicial Studies Board. They require that magistrates and judges be ‘sensitive’ to a woman’s religious requirement to wear the hijab and work around it when possible.”
Mr Murray does however receive the support of the BNP who opine: “Those pushy Muslims never let up trying to change the way we have done things in this country for centuries.”
Update: See “Veil row magistrate reprimanded”, BBC News, 8 January 2008