{"id":325,"date":"2013-09-27T21:26:10","date_gmt":"2013-09-27T21:26:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/english.thesunrisetoday.com\/?p=325"},"modified":"2013-09-27T21:26:10","modified_gmt":"2013-09-27T21:26:10","slug":"the-niqab-veil-debate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/english.thesunrisetoday.com\/index.php\/the-niqab-veil-debate\/","title":{"rendered":"The Niqab \/ Veil debate"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Face-covering<\/a>Dr. Mozammel Haque<\/strong>
\nThe British Home Office Minister called for a debate on wearing a face-veil. Jeremy Browne, the first senior Liberal Democrat, called for a national debate. Mr Browne told The Telegraph: \u201cI think this is a good topic for national debate. People of liberal instincts will have competing notions of how to protect and promote freedom of choice.\u201d He added: \u201cI am instinctively uneasy about restricting the freedom of individuals to observe the religion of their choice. That would apply to Christian minorities in the Middle East just as much as religious minorities here in Britain.\u201d
\n\u201cBut there is genuine debate about whether girls should feel a compulsion to wear a veil when society deems children to be unable to express personal choices about other areas like buying alcohol, smoking or getting married,\u201d said Mr. Browne.
\n\u201cDo you feel we simply don’t have enough discussion about how women dress? Do you worry that every conceivable angle of what might be considered too modest or immodest has yet to be thoroughly interrogated, even regulated?\u201d enquired Ms. Kira Cochrane, while writing in The Guardian, on 16 September, 2013. She also wrote, \u201cWell, you’re in luck. In the last few days it has become abundantly clear that we are back in the middle of the seething debates over full-face veiling so roundly explored in 2006, when the then leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw, declared veils made him “uncomfortable”. If possible, it seems the arguments might be even more heated this time.\u201d
\nLondon\u2019s Blackfriars Crown Court ruling
\nThis issue has never really gone away. Back in August, a trial started at Blackfriars crown court, in which a Muslim woman was accused of intimidating a witness. The accused woman wears a niqab \u2013 a full-face veil that leaves only a slit for the eyes. Last Monday, the 16th of September, Judge Peter Murphy, sitting at London\u2019s Blackfriars Crown Court, ruled a Muslim woman standing trial could wear a full-face veil but would have to remove it when she gives evidence.
\nLiberty, which campaigns on civil liberties and human rights issues, said it welcomed the ruling. Director Shami Chakrabarti said: “Credit to Judge Murphy for seeking to balance the freedom of conscience of the defendant with the effective administration of justice. He has shown a sensitivity and clarity that can only further build confidence in our courts in Britain’s diverse communities and around the world.\u201d
\nBirmingham Metropolitan College decision
\nThe above ruling came just a few days after the reversal of the decision to ban Muslim women from wearing veils on the grounds of \u201csecurity risk\u201d. The college, Birmingham Metropolitan College, one of Britain\u2019s largest institutes of higher education, had originally said students must remove all hoodies, hats, caps and veils to ensure individuals were \u2018easily identifiable\u2019 as part of keeping a \u2018safe and welcoming learning environment.\u2019 The ban had come to light when a teenager tried to enrol for an A-level course, to be told she could not wear her niqab, because of security concerns. This decision prompted a huge social media campaign, including a petition signed by 9,000 students and a plan for protest demonstration. The multi-campus college, which teaches more than 9,000 16- to 19-year-olds as well as thousands of adult learners, decided to reverse its decision. Shabana Mahmood, MP has described the college\u2019s decision to reverse its ban on the Muslim face veil as \u2018enormously welcome.
\nShabana Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Ladywood, said: \u201cThis change in policy is enormously welcome. The college has made a wise decision to rethink its policy on banning veils for a group of women who would have potentially been excluded from education and skills training at the college had the ban been enforced.\u201d
\nAaron Kiely, national black students\u2019 officer for the NUS, said: \u201cI’m delighted that the petition attracted so many signatures in such a short amount of time, which affirms just how outrageous the decision to enact this policy was.\u201d
\nShaista Gohir, chair of the Muslim Women’s Network UK, said: “The complete ban of the face veil on campus by the Birmingham Metropolitan College was a disproportionate response because female students who wear the veil are not only very small in number but were also willing to show their face when required so their identity could be verified.\u201d This was reported by James Meikle in The Guardian, 13 September, 2013.
\nThose individual negotiations and decisions could have been the end of it, but some MPs are clearly keen for the arguments to continue, wrote Ms Kira Cochrane in The Guardian. Liberal Democrat Jeremy Browne, the Home Office minister, has called for a national debate. Sarah Wollaston, the MP for Totnes, has suggested that the niqab should be banned in schools and colleges, saying the veils are \u201cdeeply offensive\u201d \u201cIn my opinion it is time for politicians to stop delegating this to individual institutions as a minor matter of dress code and instead set clear national guidance,\u201dshe wrote in The Daily Telegraph, on 15 September, 2013.
\nBBC conducted several interviews on this issue and below are some of the viewpoints on this issue:
\nShaista Gohir, chair of Muslim Women’s Network UK.
\nShaista Gohir, chair of Muslim Women\u2019s Network, UK and also member of International Advisory Group of Musawah, a movement for equality in Muslim families, said, \u201cWomen and girls should not be pressured to conform – it’s important they make autonomous choices about their lives and their bodies including what to wear and not wear. For this reason I oppose a complete ban of the face veil.\u201d
\n\u201cThe vast majority of the 1.4 million Muslim women in Britain do not even wear the face veil, as it is not considered a religious obligation. The tiny minority that do are probably happy to remove the veil when required,\u201d she added.
\nMs. Gohir said, \u201cEverybody should be free how to dress and how to practise their faith\u201d
\nMohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation
\nMohammed Shafiq, Chief Executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a UK Muslim organisation working to build better understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims, said, \u201cIn a liberal democracy, as we claim we are, everybody should be free how to dress and how to practise their faith. And if there are a small number of women who choose to wear the veil, then they should not be discriminated against and parliament should not pass laws to restrict Muslim dress. That’s very clear if you believe in a liberal democracy and individual freedom.\u201d
\n\u201cThis is political opportunism of its worst kind. These are politicians who don’t really talk to Muslim women. Jeremy Browne, for example, I don’t know how many Muslim women he spoke to that wear the veil and have been forced to [do so]. I’ve not seen any evidence of that – this is politicians trying to look tough on the back of Muslim women,\u201d Mr. Shafiq told BBC.
\nStephen Evans, of the National Secular Society
\nStephen Evans of the National Secular Society, said, \u201cThere are however compelling reasons, both practical and on principle, to oppose attempts to introduce a general ban on the veil – not least a woman’s right to choose what she wears and her right to religious freedom. Forcing a woman not to wear a burka or niqab contravenes a woman’s right to choose in the same way that forcing her to wear one does; both cases represent an attempt to control the woman and dictate how she should express herself.
\nAre women who wear the niqab really a threat to national security any more than a nun?\u201d
\nAmeena Blake, vice president of the Muslim Association of Britain
\nAmeena Blake, Vice-President of the Muslim Association of Britain, said, \u201cTo allow the face veil or not to allow the face veil? That is the question on media minds at the moment; and indeed the Muslim community. However, the question seems to hide a more hidden: \u201cTo have freedom of rights or to not have freedom of rights?\u201d
\nShe added, \u201cWhat we, the folk of Britain – a hub of diversity – need to consider, in [deciding] whether we agree with the principle of covering the face or not, is: \u201cIs it ok to remove the right to dress how we please from any individual?\u201d Are women who wear the niqab, or face veil, really a threat to national security any more than a nun or any other individual who chooses to dress in a way that is maybe not the same as the majority of people?\u201d
\n\u201cThere’s no reason spectators in court or dinner ladies in schools shouldn’t cover their faces,\u201d Ms. Blake said.
\nDolan Cummings, of the Manifesto Club
\nDolan Cummings, Co-founder of the Manifesto Club, which campaigns against over-regulation, said, \u201cIn principle people should be allowed to wear whatever they want, and it’s not the business of the authorities to dictate what is and is not acceptable.What we should certainly object to is any blanket ban on face coverings, in particular places regardless of context: for example, there’s no reason spectators in court or dinner ladies in schools shouldn’t cover their faces if that’s what they want to do.\u201d
\nAlso one of the organisers of the annual Battle of Ideas festival in London, said, \u201cIn a free society, the state must allow citizens to do as they please as long as it doesn’t harm others, and to resolve any problems that arise through negotiation and informal give and take, rather than legislating on the minutiae of everyday life.\u201d
\nRichard Freeth, education lawyer at Browne Jacobson
\nRichard Freeth, education lawyer at Browne Jacobson, said, \u201cThe recent decision about wearing the veil in the court when giving evidence provides a clear example of the need to balance competing considerations and find a suitable compromise. The same applies in the school context where individual needs must be balanced against other important factors such as the school community, the ethos of the school and the impact on the wider community. This is not a case where one-size-fits-all will produce the right response.\u201d
\nSalma Yaqoob on Niqab debate
\nMs. Kira Cochrane said in her write-up in the Guardian mentioned above, \u201cSalma Yaqoob, formerly a Birmingham city councillor, sounds weary at the idea of another national debate on the issue. \u201cHow many national debates have we already had on this?\u201d she says. \u201cIt just seems an easy distraction for our politicians. I mean, really? Is this the biggest issue we face in the UK right now? I’m a bit cynical when politicians call for a national debate that has already happened many times over.\u201d
\n\u201cSuch debates have a detrimental effect on Muslim women in general, she says. \u201cThe women who do wear the face veils are a tiny minority within a minority, so the thought that they’re any kind of threat to British society as a whole is beyond laughable. But at the same time, [these debates] do, of course, increase the vulnerability of Muslim women as a whole. Time and again, verbal and physical attacks on Muslim women increase when we have these so-called national debates. In emotional and psychological terms, I think it does a huge amount of damage.”
\nWomen who wear the veil “are trying to observe what they feel are their religious convictions”, she says, “but are made to feel that they are somehow imposing on the whole of society and that they are the biggest problem. And, of course, that isn’t conducive to integration, belonging and a positive atmosphere. It doesn’t foster cohesion, I think it does the very opposite, and ironically it actually stifles healthy discussion and debate.\u201d
\nMrs. Talat Ahmed of Muslim Council of Britain
\nMrs. Talat Ahmed, chair of the Muslim Council of Britain\u2019s Social and Family Affairs Committee, said: \u201cThere are few people who wear the niqab, and they should be allowed to wear this veil if they freely decide to do so. All Islamic junctions make provision for necessity and exceptional circumstances.\u201d
\nShe also added, \u201cNevertheless, this is a personal choice. In Britain, we cherish our right to freedom of religion. I would like to remind those who call for a ban to heed the warning of minister Damian Green who said that introducing such a ban would be \u2018un-British\u2019. To do so, would involve embarking on a slippery slope where the freedom to wear religious attire of all faiths would be at risk.\u201d
\nMuslim Council of Britain on The Niqab in Hospitals
\nMuslim Council of Britain (MCB) has issued a press release on 19th September 2013 on \u201cThe Niqab in Hospitals \u2013 Let Pragmatism and the Needs of the Patient Prevail\u201d. The press release runs as follows:
\nThe Muslim Council of Britain has been inundated today with media enquiries concerning the veil, this time in hospitals. In response, Dr Shuja Shafi, Deputy Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain and a senior health professional for many years issued the following statement:
\n“In the latest twist to the \u2018moral panic\u2019 about the niqab, or face veil, many are now getting quite exercised by the possibility of a health professional wearing this in our hospitals. That this has become an issue is a surprise to all of us. Having worked closely with hospitals and hospital chaplains, we have never been made aware of any concerns or complaints raised about doctors, nurses or healthcare professionals wearing the niqab. That is primarily because there are few, if any, who do adopt the face veil in hospitals. It is our understanding that Muslim women who do wear the veil are prepared to be pragmatic and take off the veil when required. For example, a basic security requirement for all hospital workers, without exception is to wear photographic ID. This would be a requirement for people who wear the face veil as well.”
\nDr Shuja added: \u201cWe are puzzled why the face veil is being made more of an issue than it really is. Surely there are greater concerns we should worry about, such as the quality and provision of care we give to all our patients.”<\/p>\n

<\/div>\r\n