Muslim woman ‘abused’ over dress by Christian hotelier

Free speech for Ben and SharonA Muslim woman was asked by a Christian hotelier if she was a terrorist and a murderer because she was wearing Islamic dress, a court has been told.

Ericka Tazi told Liverpool magistrates she faced a tirade of abuse from Benjamin Vogelenzang and his wife Sharon, at their hotel on Merseyside. She said it was because she was wearing a hijab head covering and gown.

Mr and Mrs Vogelenzang deny using threatening, abusive or insulting words which were religiously aggravated. Members of campaign group The Christian Institute demonstrated in support of the couple outside the court.

Mrs Tazi, who converted to Islam 18 months ago, spent a month at The Bounty House Hotel on Church Avenue, Aintree, Liverpool, while attending a course at Aintree Hospital. Prosecutor Anya Horwood told the court Mr Vogelenzang, 53, called the prophet Mohammed a “warlord” and likened him to Saddam Hussein and Hitler. And his 54-year-old wife told Mrs Tazi her Islamic dress represented “oppression” and was a form of “bondage”, the court heard.

Mrs Tazi had worn European dress during her four-week stay, but the row flared after she came down on her last day in traditional Islamic dress. She said Mr Vogelenzang asked her “Why are you wearing those clothes?” and began laughing at her, the prosecutor told the court.

Ms Horwood said the hotelier then began to discuss his Christian faith but became angry – at which point his wife joined in. Mrs Tazi walked away but was followed by Mr Vogelenzang, who was acting like “a whirling dervish”, repeatedly asking her if she was a “terrorist”.

Giving evidence, Mrs Tazi told the bench that dressing in her hijab seemed to “trigger something” in the hotelier. The 60-year-old, who suffers from fibromyalgia and lives with chronic pain, said: “He just couldn’t accept the way I was dressed. He asked me if I was a murderer, if I was a terrorist. I’m a 60-year-old disabled woman, I couldn’t understand where it was coming from, it was shocking to me.”

Mrs Tazi said Mr Vogelenzang followed her into the dining room “flailing” his arms and “jumping up and down”. She added: “Sharon came running in, she was shouting ‘you started this with your dress’ and she was pointing in my face and I was frightened at this stage. I was absolutely traumatised by it all.”

Guests at the hotel told the court that Mrs Tazi was left distraught by the row. Pauline Tait, 52, a committed Christian, described it as “a very upsetting and volatile exchange”. Another guest, Shirley Tait, said she was in her bedroom when she heard Mr Vogelenzang shouting the words “Nazi” and “warlord”.

BBC news, 8 December 2009

Cf. Christian Institute, 8 December 2009, Daily Mail, 21 September 2009 and BNP news report, 20 September 2009

Citibank asked to apologise for hijab incident

Citigroup To Cut Thousands Of Jobs Amidst Posting Huge LossThe Chicago chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Chicago) today called on Citibank to apologize to a Muslim woman who was allegedly verbally abused by a security guard at a Gresham, Ill., branch because she wears a religious head scarf, or hijab.

According to the Muslim woman, the guard said it was against Citibank’s policy for customers to transact business wearing head coverings. While another Citibank employee did allow the woman to complete her business, that employee insisted on personally escorting her to the counter and watched over her shoulder as she conducted her transactions.

The guard also reportedly objected to the woman receiving service because it would encourage more of “them” to come into the bank. Throughout the process, which the Muslim customer described as “humiliating,” the guard allegedly made anti-Muslim remarks.

CAIR-Chicago is calling for the apology, a review of Citibank policies related to religious head coverings and for diversity training of bank staff.

CAIR-Chicago press release, 8 December 2009

Tariq Ramadan addresses French ‘burqa’ inquiry

Tariq Ramadan 5One of Europe’s leading Muslim scholars, Tariq Ramadan, told French lawmakers Wednesday they were failing to address the real problems facing French Muslims by debating whether to ban the burqa. Swiss-born Ramadan told a parliamentary inquiry holding hearings on the wearing of the full Islamic veil that a law banning the practice would simply force Muslim women who cover themselves to “stay at home”.

“This debate surrounding the burqa bothers me,” Ramadan told the panel. “Because in the end, this is not the question that needs to be raised. The real problem is that when you have a name that is a bit Arab-sounding, or Muslim by affiliation, you are not going to get a job or you are not going to get an apartment.”

The decision to invite Ramadan to testify before the panel had stirred much controversy with some of the lawmakers opposed to his appearance and accusing him of promoting hardline Islam

A professor of Islamic studies at Oxford, Ramadan warned lawmakers that a law banning the burqa would be counter-productive and urged them to instead work with French Muslim leaders for change. “All of this commotion over the burqa does tell ordinary citizens that there is something wrong with Islam and leads to stigmatisation,” he said.

Khaleej Times, 2 December 2009

Vote to ban minarets wasn’t necessarily Islamophobic (it says here)

SVP anti-minaret posterJoan Smith offers her profound thoughts on the result of the Swiss referendum:

“I don’t doubt that some people voted for the ban for racist reasons, but damning them all as ‘Islamophobes’ is an attempt to suppress entirely reasonable arguments about the role of religion in secular modern societies. Tariq Ramadan doesn’t use the word in his polemic but he does claim without qualification that ‘voters were drawn to the cause by a manipulative appeal to popular fears and emotions’.

“Corralling a wide range of people, many of whom disagree profoundly with each other, under one great Islamophobic umbrella is a familiar tactic but it’s not conducive to civilised discussion. If the debate about the powers demanded and enjoyed by religion – all of them, not just Islam – pops up in distorted forms in European countries, it is as much the responsibility of religious apologists such as Ramadan as it is the racist right….

“Any notion of universal human rights recognises the right of individuals to practise their religion, but that isn’t incompatible with believing that religion is divisive and seeks to exercise unelected power…. If you take that position, it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that public displays of religious symbols should be kept to a minimum, whether they take the form of crucifixes or hijabs. As Ian Traynor reports in today’s Guardian, the proposed ban on minarets in Switzerland received ‘substantial support on the left and among secularists worried about the status of women in Islamic cultures’.”

Comment is Free, 30 November 2009

Cf. Sholto Byrne’s comments on his New Statesman God Blog. He too notes left-wing and secularist support for the minaret ban, and observes that “it is part of the paradox of Western liberalism that its pluralism only extends so far, and that it is essentially intolerant of anything that does not stem from its own ‘definitive’ culture”.

Feminist support for Swiss minaret ban

SVP campaigns for ban on minaretsA right-wing campaign to outlaw minarets on mosques in a referendum being held in Switzerland today has received an unlikely boost from radical feminists arguing that the tower-like structures are “male power symbols” and reminders of Islam’s oppression of women.

A “stop the minarets” campaign has provoked ferment in the land of Heidi, where women are more likely than men to vote for the ban after warnings from prominent feminists that Islam threatens their rights.

Forget about tranquil Alpine scenery and cowbells: one of the most startling features of the referendum campaign has been a poster showing a menacing woman in a burqa beside minarets rising from the Swiss flag. It seems to have struck a nerve in Langenthal, a small town near Bern where Muslims plan to put up a minaret next to their prayer room in a bleak former paint factory.

“If we give them a minaret, they’ll have us all wearing burqas,” said Julia Werner, a local housewife. “Before you know it, we’ll have sharia law and women being stoned to death in our streets. We won’t be Swiss any more.”

A spoof video game on the internet called Minaret Attack shows minarets popping up all over the idyllic Swiss countryside, after which a message proclaims: “Game over! Switzerland is covered in minarets. Vote to ban them on November 29.”

Socialist politicians have been furious to see icons of the left joining what is regarded as an anti-immigrant campaign by the populist Swiss People’s party, the biggest group in parliament. One of them, Julia Onken, warned that failure to ban minarets would be “a signal of the state’s acceptance of the oppression of women”. She has sent out 4,000 emails attacking Muslims who condone forced marriage, honour killings and beating women.

Sunday Times, 29 November 2009

Muslim students beaten for defending woman wearing hijab

An 18-year-old Muslim student was attacked and beaten even after he lost consciousness by a gang of white youths on November 6. As they attacked him, they shouted “Where is your Allah now” and “Where is He to help you now.”

The first year business and computer undergraduate student had just left De Montfort University, Leicester, library with his friend at around 8.30 pm when they were attacked by around 10 white youths in Great Central Way, near the junction with Briton Street, Bede Island. The two students, Ahmed and Umar, (not their real name as they wish to remain anonymous) saw the gang taunting and abusing a Muslim woman wearing the hijab. She was with two other women who had gone ahead of her.

Ahmed told The Muslim News that he and Umar heard the gang tell the middle aged woman, “How do you like it if I walked in a balaclava. This is England. You should not be wearing a scarf.” They were concerned about what would happen to the Muslim woman and so they waited. One of the white youths turned towards them and asked them why were they were watching them. “I told them, ‘Leave her alone’.”

The woman tried to tell the white youths not to attack the students but they didn’t listen. The white youths assaulted Ahmed and Umar, and began beating them. Ahmed fell down and the gang continued to punch and kick him even after he was unconscious. They “jumped” on his head and kicked his body. He was picked up and thrown on to the ground.

Ahmed said the attack was “Islamophobic as they were talking about her scarf and also when they told me ‘Where is your Allah’ is to do with religion. How did they know we were Muslims? We could have been Sikhs for all they know.” Umar said the attack was both Islamophobic and racist as they had also shouted “Pakis”. He was “very angry” and said he never experienced racism in East London where he was from.

Muslim News, 27 November 2009


See also the comment piece by Kawsar Zaman, vice-chair of the MCB’s Youth Committee, “Can the BBC shirk its responsibility if anti-Muslim attacks increase?”

‘Just say no to Sharia law’ urges Tatchell

Tatchell No Islamic StatePeter Tatchell is given space at Comment is Free to promote the “Universal Children’s Day and International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women” demonstration on Saturday – which, despite its grandiose title, is just another stupid stunt by One Law for All, a front organisation for Mariam Namazie and the Worker Communist Party of Iran.

Tatchell writes plaintively that “the turn out in Hyde Park will probably be quite small” – which, based on previous experience, is a realistic prediction. The explanation is that anyone with a shred of political judgement baulks at stirring up Islamophobia in co-operation with a bunch of sectarian cranks like the WPI. For Tatchell, however, the problem is that leftists and liberals “get squeamish when it comes to challenging human rights abuses committed in the name of Islam”.

The WPI appeals to its supporters to “Show your opposition to Sharia law and all religious-based tribunals in Britain, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and elsewhere” (emphasis added), and Tatchell himself claims that he and other supporters of Saturday’s demonstration “reject all religious laws and courts, including those inspired by Judaist and Christian fundamentalism”. Why, then, do Tatchell and the WPI concentrate exclusively on attacking Islamic religious tribunals? We never hear a peep from them about the Beth Din courts that operate within the Orthodox Jewish community, even though their rules on divorce are considerably more discriminatory against women than those of Sharia tribunals.

The reason of course is that Tatchell is less interested in women’s rights than in generating some publicity for himself by stoking the fires of anti-Muslim bigotry.

Family’s anger as attackers go free

Muslim student's injuriesThe family of a student left with a pendant embedded in her face after a sickening racist assault have expressed their anger after her attackers escaped jail.

The two girls and one boy, all aged 16, were given referral orders or community sentences at Rochdale Magistrates Court on Monday morning, following the incident, which took place in June in the children’s playground in Springfield Park.

The uncle of the victim, who has asked not to be named, said his family would be disappointed with the sentences. He added: “This was an horrific attack so it is disappointing that the perpetrators have escaped custodial sentences. It sends the wrong message that if you launch a racist attack, you won’t be jailed.”

The victim had gone to the park with her three young sisters, aged between five and 11 and her sister in law, who was with her 18 month old baby. The pair took the younger children to play on the baby swings, but they were confronted by one of the 16 year old girls and Kirsty Leigh Hood, 19, who began verbally abusing them, including a chant of “BNP”.

The 16-year-old boy and the other girl later approached the victim and her sister in law and also became confrontational. When the boy mumbled something at the victim, she told him to speak English, to which he responded “I’m more British than you”. The boy then suggested to one of the girls that she should pull the victim’s headscarf off, and it was at this point that the girl punched the victim in the face, which such force that the pendant from her bracelet became embedded in her eye.

Manchester Evening News, 18 November 2009

Sarkozy repeats call for ban on veil

Nicolas_SarkozyPresident Nicolas Sarkozy has reiterated his belief that the burqa, the head-to-toe veil worn by some Muslim women, has no place in secular France.

“France is a country where there is no place for the burqa, where there is no place for the subservience of women,” he said in a speech on French national identity. He was speaking on Thursday in the Alpine town of La Chapelle en Vercors in his first intervention in a country-wide debate begun last month on what it means to be French.

Public meetings are due to take place in some 450 government offices around the country, involving campaigners, students, parents and teachers, unions, business leaders and French and European lawmakers. The debate will end with a conference early next year on the twin questions of “what it means to be French today” and “what immigration contributes to our national identity.”

The Socialist opposition has accused the government of pandering to anti-immigrant sentiment to shore up support on the Right ahead of regional elections in March. It has said the debate risks alienating France’s large immigrant communities. But Mr Sarkozy on Thursday defended the “noble debate” and said: “Those who do not want this debate are afraid of it.”

Daily Telegraph, 13 November 2009


Update:  See “France will oppose but not ban burqas”, Reuters, 13 November 2009

Further update:  See also Tom Heneghan’s piece, “France retreats from burqa ban plan amid burst of hot air”, at FaithWorld, 13 November 2009

Muslim lawyer ordered not to wear headscarf at Spanish court

A Spanish female lawyer has filed a complaint against a judge who ordered her to leave the courtroom because she was wearing the Muslim headscarf, press reports said Wednesday.

Moroccan-born Zoubida Barik Edidi, 39, was assisting a colleague at a trial related to Islamist terrorism at the National Court on October 29, when judge Javier Gomez Bermudez told her she could not stay in the room because of the headscarf she was wearing with her gown. Barik replied she had been to other trials with her scarf on. “I am the one who gives orders here,” Gomez Bermudez answered.

Barik has filed a complaint at the judges’ organ CGPJ, accusing Gomez Bermudez of discrimination and abuse of power, and arguing that Spanish law did not prohibit lawyers from covering their heads.

Earth Times, 11 November 2009