‘Can one woman beat Islam’s hate mongers?’ asks Sun

PD*1006852Another plug for Gina Khan, Britain’s answer to Ayaan Hirsi Ali – this one by Trevor Kavanagh in the Sun. Kavanagh writes:

“Gina Khan, 30, risked her safety by attacking the extreme interpretation of Islam spreading like wildfire through the Pakistani community in Britain. She believes Muslim women and children are paying dearly for a closed, male-dominated society which wants harsh Sharia law to replace the law of the land. Gina Khan is one of many British-born victims of what she describes as a ‘cult’ flourishing under the noses of the government. And she fears it may be too late to stop vulnerable young Muslim men being turned into suicidal killers by a voodoo version of Islam.

“In emails to me over the past year, she has spoken privately about the abuse of women sanctioned by religious leaders – polygamy, beatings, forced marriages and, in extreme cases, honour killings…. Gina is appalled by the reaction of fellow Muslims to the arrest of nine terror suspects near her home in West End, Birmingham…. She wants faith schools abolished, along with the veil. And she wants to stop mosques and madrassas being built on ‘every street corner’ as channels for blood-curdling extremism.

“Gina is scathing about the veiled woman pictured raising a V-sign after the police terror raid. ‘This woman shames moderate liberal Muslim women by sticking two fingers up like louts do in public’, she says. ‘The veil should be banned because people like her prove all is not necessarily pious or dignified under that Seventh Century garment.’

“Most Muslim women are reluctant to anger their menfolk by speaking out. Instead they endure medieval repression that would be utterly unacceptable to non-Muslims – banned from leaving home unless accompanied by a male relative, barred from higher education and forced to accept their husbands’ second wives. They watch dumbly as daughters are removed from school and whisked away for weddings to strangers. Some silently endure their fate. Others join the wild eyed conspiracy frenzy peddled by superstitious men and cunning propagandists….

“Can women turn the tide against deluded men who seem to inhabit an Arabian Nights fantasy? … Gina Khan is one woman with no resources. She needs help from other sensible Muslim women. They can email her at gina-khan@hotmail.co.uk.”

Sun, 12 February 2007

Somehow I can’t imagine there’s going to be a rush by “sensible Muslim women” to finance a campaign by someone who is at best unbalanced and at worst intent on furthering her own career by reinforcing the worst stereotypes about the Muslim community. On the other hand, Gina Khan may well receive some support from the racist Right, for whom she is providing a valuable service.

‘Niqab school is fighting for girls’ equality’, Torygraph claims

In today’s Daily Telegraph, Philip Johnston examines the issues behind the current court case over the right of a young Muslim woman (“X”) to wear the niqab at school. He recounts:

“The head teacher sent X home last autumn when she saw her in a lunch queue dressed in a niqab, which covers the face apart from a slit for the eyes…. She asked the girl to remove the veil before returning to school. But being relatively new, she had not appreciated that X’s three sisters had already passed through the school wearing the niqab. X, therefore, felt aggrieved that she was being treated differently….

“X’s eldest sister – the first to attend – told the court: ‘When I started I was not certain about wearing the niqab. However, having spoken to my parents and religious scholars, I decided that I did want to wear the niqab and began doing so.’ Does that sound to you like a child who arrived at this decision unilaterally through her religious devotions?”

Well, actually, it does. Indeed, Johnston reports that “X’s father said she was not forced to wear the niqab and to do so was her own choice.” But let us allow Johnston to continue:

“The sister started wearing the niqab in 1995. ‘The school and staff were very supportive,’ she said. ‘I was even told I could wear the jilbab as well if I wanted’.”

Good for the school and its staff, I would say, for handling the issue so sensitively. But Johnston lectures us sternly:

“This was the high-point of multiculturalism, that benighted concept now disavowed by its most enthusiastic proponents. Had the school put its foot down then – along with many other public institutions in thrall to a well-intentioned, but ultimately self-defeating, concept – we might not be in the mess we are now. But it was felt to be the right thing to do, even if it exacerbated division and made integration difficult.”

So, did their wearing of the niqab prevent the sisters from integrating? Not according to them. Johnston reports:

“X’s sisters testified that they had never been held back by wearing the niqab. It could be adapted for sports or for science work in the laboratory. It was taken off when there were no male teachers present. They all came through the school with excellent qualifications and all went to university. Two are now working in good jobs, still veiled. They all made friends and felt they had integrated well.”

So, no problem there, then.

All in all, you might think, a pretty good argument in favour of allowing X to continue wearing her niqab at school? Not according to Johnston, who comments that X’s decision was “hardly surprising given her age and the fact that her three sisters had all worn the garment. Yet we now know that the eldest sibling did so only after consulting a religious scholar. And not only did the school do nothing 12 years ago to help her reach a different decision, it actively conspired in an extraordinary piece of gender apartheid carried out in the name of ‘cultural inclusion’.”

Johnston concludes: “this is a case about rights. Not of Muslims to pursue their religion, for they have that freedom already. It is about the right of a 12-year-old girl, living in Britain, to grow up in a world that treats men and women equally.”

Johnston’s arrogance and condescension defy description. His argument is both sexist and racist. In his view, a young Muslim women is incapable of making up her own mind over whether or not to wear the veil, and if she does decide to wear it she must have been pressurised by her family and by older Muslim men. Her decision can therefore be discounted and she must be forced to remove her niqab – all in the interests of imposing upon her Johnston’s narrow, dogmatic, culturally-determined conception of what constitutes “equality”.

School veils ‘could allow a new Dunblane’

Allowing Muslim girls to wear full-face veils to school could make Dunblane-style massacres more common, a judge suggested.

Judge Stephen Silber was hearing a case brought by a 12-year-old Muslim girl against her headmistress’s ban on her veil. The judge suggested veils would make it hard to identify intruders in schools, making murderous attacks more likely.

In the 1996 Dunblane massacre, Thomas Hamilton, 43, burst into a Scottish primary school and shot dead 16 children and their teacher.

The current case began when a Buckinghamshire headmistress spotted the 12-year-old girl in the lunch queue wearing the ‘niqab’ veil – which leaves only the eyes visible – and sent her home when she refused to remove it. The pupil was told “school security” was one reason for the ban.

The girl, who can be named only as Pupil X, has been educated at home since, and is now claiming the veil ban infringes her human rights.

At the High Court Judge Silber said: “Everybody knows these days how conscious head teachers have to be about security at schools. Was it in Dunblane where somebody went in and attacked schoolchildren? Therefore it is vital at all schools for the head teacher to be able to glance around and recognise exactly who is there.”

Daily Mail, 9 February 2007

Another plug for Taj Hargey

“The legal efforts by a Muslim father to force a Buckinghamshire school to permit his 12-year old daughter to wear the niqab should be resisted by sensible integrated British Muslims. This misguided judicial action, if successful, will not only set a deplorable precedent for Muslim exceptionalism, but will also exacerbate frayed tensions between a (largely) self-segregating Muslim community and an antagonistic general public. This legal test case is so critical as to serve as a defining moment in the battle for the hearts and mind of Muslims in this country.

“The disputed decision by a father to protect the ‘human rights’ of his daughter by insisting that she wears the full-face mask in school should not be seen in isolation. It is at the root of a frightening theological convulsion that is underway in the Islamic world. Driven by a toxic combination of Wahhabi-Salafi-Ikhwani-Deobandi religious extremists, this militant movement seeks to resurrect the caliphate not only in the heartlands of Islam itself, but elsewhere as well.”

Taj Hargey (for background details see here) writes in the Daily Telegraph, 6 February 2007

And who exactly are these people who want to “resurrect the caliphate not only in the heartlands of Islam itself, but elsewhere as well”? Not even Hizb ut-Tahrir holds that position. Whatever your view on the niqab issue, to portray this as part of a campaign to impose an Islamic state in the UK plays to all the worst paranoid stereotypes about the “Muslim threat”. It’s no wonder Taj Hargey is enthusiastically promoted by the Torygraph and the likes of John Ware.

Unfortunately, Cristina Odone seems to have fallen for Hargey’s spurious claims to represent “moderate Muslims”:

Daily Telegraph, 6 February 2007

Meanwhile in an article entitled “School at centre of veil row gets overseas backing“, the Guardian reports that Hargey is boasting that he has the support and financial backing of a group calling itself the Muslim Canadian Congress. This is an organisation that participated in the hysterical “No sharia law in Canada” campaign against the proposal to extend state-sponsored faith-based family arbitration to Muslims in Ontario. In August last year a section of the MCC split away to form a rival organisation, the Canadian Muslim Union, accusing the MCC of aligning itself with the enemies of the Muslim community. The breakaway faction were denounced by the MCC leadership as “Canadian supporters of Hezbollah” – because they had joined a demonstration against Israel’s attack on Lebanon!

So this is where Hargey is getting his international support from – an organisation whose politics are evidently barely distinguishable from those of Harry’s Place.

Torygraph finds a Muslim it likes

A Muslim group has offered to help fund a school’s legal battle over its refusal to let a pupil wear the niqab in class. In an unprecedented move, the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford (Meco) has written to the head teacher to say it is prepared to contribute to a fighting fund. Taj Hargey, Meco’s chairman, said he was also willing to organise a campaign among Muslims nationally to resist “this largely Saudi-driven campaign to make the niqab a compulsory requirement for Muslim women”.

Daily Telegraph, 5 February 2007

‘We find Muslim “handshake” cop’, boasts Sun

“This is the Muslim WPC who sparked a row by refusing to shake top cop Sir Ian Blair’s hand. Natalie Smart, 26, wears the Metropolitan Police’s regulation hijab on the beat. And our exclusive photos show she takes breaks to pray towards Mecca. Met Commissioner Sir Ian was said to be ‘bloody furious’ when the WPC asked not to shake his hand at a passing-out parade of 200 recruits in December. The devout Muslim convert said she could not touch a man who was not her husband – and also declined a photo with Sir Ian to avoid ‘propaganda’. She now patrols on foot and on mountain bike in an affluent London suburb, part of a ‘safer neighbourhood team’ intended to build trust with locals.”

Sun, 5 February 2007

More irresponsible gibberish from Joan Smith

Joan Smith displays her ignorance about the meaning of political Islam, and fingers veil-wearing Muslim women as terrorist pawns. Political Islam in all its variants is “an authoritarian political ideology based on a literal reading of the Koran”. What Islamists “want to replace is liberal secular democracy”. In furtherance of that aim, they are “trying to create as much dissension as possible, training young British men in foreign terror camps, facilitating terrorist attacks in the UK and hoping the wider Muslim community feels victimised when the police claim to have uncovered another terror cell. They’ve had some success in persuading Muslim women to adopt the niqab and jilbab…”

Independent on Sunday, 4 February 2007

Muslims – ‘Disaffected, raging, and hungry for the harsh finality of Sharia law’

V sign“Three Muslim women wearing the traditional burqa and niqab were walking along a Birmingham street this week when they were approached by a photographer. They had been confronted by the enemy – an outsider – and their response was instant and instinctive. One covered her eyes with her hand, while another fixed a defiant stare at the camera. The third’s response was the most striking of all. She lifted her hand and gave that most British of gestures – the V sign. This yobbish image – made even more shocking by the seeming reticence of the veils – captured absolutely the growing polarisation between some sections of Britain’s Muslim community and the mainstream.”

Natalie Clarke in the Daily Mail, 3 February 2007

What the gesture more likely captured was entirely understandable irritation at a press photographer taking a picture without even bothering to ask the permission of those being photographed, and with the predictable intention of using the photo to illustrate yet another scaremongering article depicting Muslims as an alien presence whose barbaric culture poses a threat to western civilisation.

Canadian town tells migrants: you can’t kill women

HerouxvilleImmigrants wishing to live in the small Canadian town of Herouxville, Quebec, must not stone women to death in public, burn them alive or throw acid on them, according to an extraordinary set of rules released by the local council.

The declaration, published on the town’s Web site, has deepened tensions in the predominantly French-speaking province over how tolerant Quebecers should be toward the customs and traditions of immigrants.

“We wish to inform these new arrivals that the way of life which they abandoned when they left their countries of origin cannot be recreated here,” said the declaration. “Therefore we consider it completely outside these norms to … kill women by stoning them in public, burning them alive, burning them with acid, circumcising them etc.”

Salam Elmenyawi, president of the Muslim Council of Montreal, said the declaration had “set the clock back for decades” as far as race relations were concerned. “I was shocked and insulted to see these kinds of false stereotypes and ignorance about Islam and our religion … in a public document written by people in authority who discriminate openly,” he told Reuters.

Reuters, 30 January 2007

See also BBC News, 31 January 2007