Judges go for the pragmatic, rejected veiled threats of ban

Being Muslim in Europe and wearing clothes and gear that identify one as of the Islamic faith is increasingly becoming an issue.

It is perhaps even more so in Britain following the July 7 terrorist bombings nearly two years ago and the subsequent discovery of alleged plots to cause mayhem in the air and on the ground by Muslims most of them born and bred here.

This concern about the loyalty of Muslims to the country of their birth or adoption and to external symbols of their faith, has even reached the law courts where judges have been compelled to rule on the wearing of the full face veil by Muslim women -- not just witnesses but also by lawyers or others appearing on behalf of defendants.

Late last year this matter came to a head after a legal representative at an immigration tribunal in Staffordshire refused to remove her full face veil - niqab - when asked to do so by the judge.

Later the matter was referred to senior judges for a decision on the course to follow regarding the face veil, particularly if the individual concerned refuses to accede to a judge's request.

It appears that according to new guidelines due to be announced shortly with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, Britain's most senior judge, it will be made clear that the preference is for full face veils not to be worn in courts and tribunals.

This sensitive guideline appears to be a compromise between the opinion of some judges who favoured a ban on the wearing of veils in courts and others who preferred flexibility.

Under the new guidelines to be finalised by the Judicial Studies Board, the final decision will be left to judges and magistrates who may allow full face veil if it does not endanger the "interests of justice".

This guideline would apply to all including judges, magistrates, lawyers, jurors, witnesses and court staff.

Judges could ask that the full face veil not be worn if there is a reasonable objection, for instance, where a defendant or witness is not being heard clearly.

The issue gained prominence and currency last year when an assistant teacher sought legal redress after she was suspended from school for refusing to remove her face veil.

She lost her claim for discrimination before a tribunal which, however, awarded her £1000 for victimisation. She has threatened to appeal the tribunal decision and even hinted that the case may ended up before the European Court of Justice that could open up a Pandora's box, given the growing controversy over the use of Muslim religious symbols in offices and other places of work.

This controversy in several countries in Europe has been exacerbated by the actions of Muslim extremists who have resorted to terrorism as acts of revenge against western societies for real or perceived grievances.

If the assistant teacher Aishah Azmi sought redress in the courts to underline her right to wear the face veil as a Muslim woman, the more recent incident that raised the controversy to a new level happened in court itself later in the year after a legal adviser appearing for a client refused to remove her headwear in court.

Shabnam Mughal refused to obey an instruction from Judge George Glossop at an immigration tribunal in Stoke-on-Trent.

Apparently the judge could not hear Ms Mughal distinctly because of the veil covering her face and mouth.

Twice Judge Glossop had asked her to remove the veil and she twice refused.

The result -- the judge adjourned the hearing until he sought the advice of Sir Henry Hodge, a High Court judge who is also the president of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) over which Judge Glossop was presiding at the time.

The sittings of the tribunal were adjourned until a decision was taken on the sensitive issue.

This is believed to be a unique case here in that the question of a face veil has never figured in a court proceeding before. Nobody has so far mentioned any incidents when Muslim women -- perhaps as witnesses or defendants -- have appeared in a legal proceeding wearing a face veil. If so were they allowed to do so or were they asked to remove it?

Ms Mughal, who works for a legal firm, was acting on behalf of a client who was appealing against the decision of the Home Office not to grant a visitor's visa to Britain for a member of his family.

"There was a hearing at Stoke-on-Trent. The immigration judge was covering the appeal about a visitor's visa and a legal representative appearing on behalf of a sponsor wore a full face veil. The judge asked her to remove her veil, she refused and there was an adjournment," the Tribunal Services was quoted as saying at the time by "The Times" of London.

The spokesman said that later in the day the judge again asked Ms Mughal to remove her veil and she again refused and the proceedings were halted to allow for consultations.

British practice

"In a democracy, a religious person is never asked to forsake their preferred observances. But it would be unreasonable to contend that all religious practices are consistent with all professions," Gary Slapper, the director of the law programme at the Open University then told "The Times"

"The British practice, established over eight centuries, is that justice requires good, clear advocacy and it would be difficult to assert that advocacy can be done equally well with or without a full-face veil," he continued.

It would, of course, be interesting to know whether there are Muslim women doctors who wear a face veil when they examine patients. What about women surgeons? If there are Muslim women surgeons are they permitted to wear face veils or would that be strictly prohibited in the operating theatres as they should be rightly, because of infection and the obvious dangers to patients.

So are there Muslim women who are medical doctors or surgeons who insist on wearing face veils or even full covered dress during their working hours? If so are they permitted to do so when they practice their professions?

One has not heard of such confrontations. If there were surely they would have been reported and would have made news in the wire services and other media.

So what really happens? Does it mean that Muslim women who practise their religion do bend when it comes to practising their profession or vocation? Or is it that wearing the face-veil or other symbols of their religion is not compulsory according to the Islamic holy book, the Quran, which leaves it to the discretion of the individual.

The problem is that there are varying interpretations of what the Quran actually states and therefore for those who are not tutored in the subject it is difficult to reach any conclusion.

One supposes that the interpretation would also depend on the religious school one belongs to or one's own traditions, upbringing and the cultural ethos.

It is interesting to note, for instance, that Turkey, which is a mainly Islamic country, does not permit the wearing of a face veil or a headscarf in any university in that country, be it state-owned or private.

In fact female members of parliament in the country do not cover their heads. Turkish authorities are so conscious of the country's recent secular history and safeguard it so religiously that the president of Turkey left out of his guest list for the independence day celebrations women who do wear a headscarf. That included the wife of the current prime minister's wife who does wear a headscarf.

This insistence on the country's secularism was born with the founding of modern Turkey in 1923 by Mustafa Kemal who later came to be known as Kemal Ataturk, meaning the father of Turks.

The modern republic that emerged from the ashes of the Ottoman empire underwent political and social change as Kemal Ataturk pushed through a programme of westernisation.

Since then presidents of Turkey have come from among those who stand of a secular Turkey, a position strongly supported by the military that has intervened on occasion when Turkey was seen to drift from the path chartered by the republic's founder.

So in mainly Muslim Turkey headscarves, seen by secularists as representing Muslim radicalism, are outlawed in public offices, universities, schools and even at official ceremonies. What chance then would a face veil have in secular Turkey striving to enter the European Union.