“The burden of liberation rests on the shoulders of the Muslim woman herself. It is she who must define her own direction and chart her own destiny, not those who cry crocodile tears over her.”
Soumaya Ghannoushi at the Guardian Comment is Free, 10 November 2006
Legal advisers and solicitors may wear the Islamic veil in court unless it interferes with the “interests of justice”, judges have been told. The judiciary were told to use their discretion to interpret the temporary guidance, which covers all courts.
The advice was issued by immigration tribunals chief Mr Justice Hodge after a case had to be halted when a legal adviser refused to remove her veil. The Lord Chief Justice said full rules on the veils issue were being drawn up.
Earlier this week it emerged legal adviser Shabnam Mughal had refused to remove her headwear during an immigration tribunal in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire. She had been asked to do so by Judge George Glossop, who said he could not hear her properly.
Eventually Judge Glossop adjourned the hearing to seek advice from president of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) Mr Justice Hodge. It is understood the hearing will now go ahead next week with a different judge presiding.
“A High Court judge sparked outrage last night after he gave lawyers the green light to wear veils in court. The ruling was made after a Muslim solicitor twice refused an immigration judge’s request to reveal her face – despite him explaining that he could not hear her speak.
“Mr Justice Hodge, who was asked to issue guidance over the case, yesterday defended the right of lawyers to wear the niqab and said it was ‘important to be sensitive’. His decision was widely condemned by critics, who claimed he had caved in to Islamic hardliners….
“David Davies, Conservative MP for Monmouth, said the decision caved in to Islamic pressure. He added: ‘British courts are there to determine whether the truth is being told. How can they do that if they cannot hear? Allowing people to hide their faces in a court where all should be laid bare in the search for truth and justice is not good enough. If we were in a Muslim court we would be expected to abide by their rules on dress. So why is it that this lady can work in a British court and wear whatever she likes?'”
Daily Express, 10 November 2006
The Express editorial, headed “Allowing veils in court is a deeply disturbing move”, condemns the decision as “yet another act of multicultural surrender” which has allowed “Islamic pressures to undermine yet another foundation of our society”. It adds: “The very idea of a disembodied voice, steeped in a defiantly alien culture and covered entirely in black, being able to take away the liberty of any Briton is quite disgusting.”
Despite attempts by the foreign media to send a message that hate crimes against Muslims are on the decrease worldwide. Evidence shows that the problem is only worsening.
The hijab has been the subject of much attention last month after mother-of-six Alia Ansari, from Fremont in California, was shot dead at pointblank in a Glenmoor neighborhood. Ansari was wearing hijab when she was slain in front of her three-year-old daughter near her home on Oct. 19. She was on her way to collect her children from elementary school.
Some family members and Muslim leaders have speculated that the only motive anyone would have for killing her was the garment of her faith – her hijab – and that the crime was none other but a hate crime against Muslims and Islam. “Whoever did this did not see Alia Ansari as a mother of six children,” said Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, a well known and respected local Muslim scholar and leader. “The gunman saw a symbol of what people are taught to hate,” he told the media standing outside Ansari’s home.
In response to the tragedy, US Muslim community leaders and the Foundation of Self Reliance are organizing a “Wear a Hijab Day” on Nov. 13 as a symbolic gesture of solidarity in support of Ansari.
An immigration tribunal was halted yesterday after a lawyer twice refused a judge’s request to remove her veil.
Update: See also Daily Telegraph, 8 November 2006 and Times, 8 November 2006
Update 2: See also “Lawyers ‘can wear veils in court'”, BBC News, 10 November 2006
Jack Straw’s comments on veils have been good news for the owner of The Hijab Centre in the MP’s constituency of Blackburn. Nadeem Siddiqui tells me he is selling more veils than he did before his local MP made his controversial remarks.
Mr Siddiqui is the largest seller of veils in the area. “I used to sell two or three a week but now I am selling five to six. They are mainly being bought by young, British-born Muslim women,” he said. “These women are experimenting with the wearing of the niqab. Their mothers often do not cover themselves but they seem to want to do it.”
It is probably not the impact that Mr Straw intended when he wrote in his local newspapers that he felt uncomfortable when dealing face to face with veiled women. The majority of Muslims condemned Mr Straw over his comments. One month later, they are still upset.
“I voted for Mr Straw at the last election” says Mr Siddiqui. “I’m now reconsidering my support for him. Most of the people around here are doing the same because of what he said about the veil”.
British Muslims do not accept the argument that veiled women contribute to segregation or are a barrier to integration. Instead they feel they are being deliberately stigmatised as a problem community and are fearful of the future.
“All the debate about Muslims and the veil has centred around women. What should they wear and how should they wear it? Perhaps it’s time we looked at what the veil tells us about Muslim men.”
Mary Ann Sieghart in the Times, 2 November 2006
A Muslim woman was prevented from getting on a bus in Greater Manchester because she would not remove her veil. The 22-year-old Manchester University student from Oldham says other passengers laughed when the driver refused to let her on because he could not check her identity with her bus pass.
Now the driver’s bosses at First Manchester are to meet with their trade association, the Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT), to seek advice on how to deal with the problem if other passengers with photo passes refuse to lift their veils. They say they have received no complaint from the woman and have been unable to track down the driver concerned.
The student, who didn’t want to be named, tried to board the 59 bus to Oldham. She said: “The driver asked to see my pass, but it has my photo on and he couldn’t see my face. I told him I would not remove my veil and he said I couldn’t get on.” She is now offering to help the company draw up guidance to drivers.
She said: “It is understandable because the driver has his duty, although he said it in quite a rude manner. It wasn’t nice and other passengers were laughing. Bus drivers should be told how to deal with this situation. The veil is my choice and my religious duty. I am willing to go in and help the company so everyone knows what to do.”
“Sun columnist Jon Gaunt has overstepped the mark by linking Muslim veils with paedophiles. Act now and complain to the Press Complaints Commission.”
“… the British government’s fixation with the attire of Muslim women and British Muslims in general has done nothing except to embolden racist and Islamaphobic elements within society.” Ismaeel Nakhuda replies to Jack Straw.