Allahu Akbar: September 2013

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Hackney woman told to remove burka by crown court judge

A judge has refused to let a Muslim woman in a full-length burka enter a plea until she reveals her face.

The 21-year-old from Hackney, who is charged with intimidating a witness, said she could not remove the veil in front of men because of her religion.

Judge Peter Murphy said however, she could not stand trial in the veil, which only reveals her eyes, because her identity could not be confirmed.

The woman is due back at Blackfriars Crown Court on 12 September.

Judge Murphy said the principle of open justice overrode the woman's religious beliefs, warning that a different person could go into the dock pretending to be her if she did not show her face.

'Open justice'

He said: "It is necessary for this court to be satisfied that they can recognise the defendant.

"While I obviously respect the right to dress in any way she wishes, certainly while outside the court, the interests of justice are paramount.

"I can't, as a circuit judge, accept a plea from a person whose identity I am unable to ascertain."

The woman's barrister, Claire Burtwistle, told the court the woman was not prepared to lower her veil with men in the room and suggested a female police officer or prison guard could identify the defendant and confirm it to the court.

However, Judge Murphy rejected the proposal and said: "It seems to me to be quite fundamental that the court is sure who it is dealing with.

"In my court room, that's going to come first.

"There is the principle of open justice and it can't be subject to the religion of the defendant whether the principle is observed or not."

Judge Murphy adjourned the case for legal argument over whether the defendant should have to remove her veil.

When the woman returns to court she is expected to enter a not guilty plea.

Debate needed on veils in some public places, says minister

COMMENTS (767)

Jeremy Browne fears girls may feel pressured into wearing the veil

The government should consider banning Muslim girls from wearing veils in public places such as schools, a Lib Dem Home Office minister has said.

Jeremy Browne said he was "uneasy" about restricting freedoms, but urged a national debate on the state's role in stopping veils being imposed on girls.

It comes after Birmingham Metropolitan College dropped a ban on pupils wearing full-face veils, amid protests.

A Muslim group said it was "disgusted" by the minister's call.

'Very cautious'

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, Mr Browne suggested action might be needed to protect the freedom of choice for Muslim girls too young to decide for themselves whether they wanted to wear the veil.

"I 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," he said.

"I am instinctively uneasy about restricting the freedom of individuals to observe the religion of their choice.

Imposing dress codes

• Schools can set their own uniform rules, but must take account of pupils' rights to free expression, equal justice and respect for religion or belief. If rules exclude a pupil from an aspect of school life - without justification, such as safety - that may constitute indirect discrimination

• Employers too can set their own rules, but must make sure they don't discriminate without justification

• Privately-owned public places, for example, shopping malls, can set dress codes - banning hoods or baseball caps, for example

• If a business decides who to serve based on a protected characteristic, such as religion, they risk discriminating. Pubs, clubs and restaurants though regularly use their discretion to impose dress codes, including banning items such as football shirts

• There is no ban on veils in UK courts, but European law says the state can tell you to remove your religious dress if it's necessary to achieve some other public good, such as maintain law and order. The Equal Treatment Bench Book tells judges to focus on whether the specific circumstances of a case require removal in order to achieve justice

• Women wearing face coverings are required to remove them when entering the UK at ports and airports, but can request to be seen by a female border officer in a private room

"But 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."

He added: "We should be very cautious about imposing religious conformity on a society which has always valued freedom of expression."

Speaking on Sunday at the Lib Dem party conference in Glasgow - before the article was published - Mr Browne said the UK had a "proud record" in the country of defending freedom of religious choice and the rights of religious minorities but the state also had a role in protecting peoples' individual liberty.

The minister's comments come after the Birmingham college went back on its policy of telling pupils to remove hoodies, hats, caps and veils so students were easily identifiable.

Instead, it decided to modify its stance to allow individuals to wear "specific items of personal clothing to reflect their cultural values".

Boris Johnson described the debate as a "very difficult issue"

Mr Clegg told the BBC he did not believe in issuing "edicts from Whitehall" and telling people what pieces of clothing they should wear". He said he believed the wearing of full veils was "not appropriate" in the classroom, but would not support a "state ban" on doing so.

The prime minister's spokesman said he supported schools setting their own uniform guidelines.

'Disgusted'

Sarah Wollaston, the Conservative MP for Totnes, said full-length burkas had "nothing to do with freedom" and prevented some women from "participating fully & equally in society" while the niqab veil - which almost entirely covers the face - made its wearers "invisible".

In a series of messages on Twitter, she denied "pandering" to anyone on the issue and suggested politicians who were afraid to talk about the matter risked "selling out women's rights".

"Feminists should be allowed to say that they find the niqab deeply offensive without being accused of being bigoted or islamophobic."

But Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation - a group that works with young Muslims in the UK and tries to foster better relations with non-Muslims - said he was "disgusted" by Mr Browne's call.

"This is another example of the double standards that are applied to Muslims in our country by some politicians.

"Whatever one's religion they should be free to practise it according to their own choices and any attempt by the government to ban Muslim women will be strongly resisted by the Muslim community."

Mohammed Khaliel, founder of Islamix, a group that aims to build understanding between communities, said: "A small section of the Muslim community do believe that the face veil is mandatory...

"Now, why should I go and rip that off their face saying 'I don't think you should believe that'?"

Muslim woman must remove veil to give trial evidence

Woman arrives at Blackfriars Crown Court

The defendant, who cannot be identified, was present for the hearing

A Muslim woman can stand trial wearing a full-face veil but must remove it to give evidence, a judge has ruled.

Judge Peter Murphy made the ruling at Blackfriars Crown Court in London where the woman is due to stand trial accused of intimidating a witness.

The 22-year-old woman, from Hackney, has refused to remove her niqab and reveal her face in front of any man.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, pleaded not guilty at an earlier hearing.

The judge's ruling means that if the woman, who started wearing a veil in May 2012, refuses to comply during her trial she could be jailed for contempt of court.

The only part of a niqab-wearer's face that is visible is a narrow section across the eyes.

The judge said he would offer the woman a screen to shield her from public view while giving evidence but that she had to be seen by him, the jury and lawyers.

At other times during the trial the woman will be allowed to keep her face covered while sitting in the dock.

'Elephant in courtroom'

In the ruling Judge Murphy said: "The ability of the jury to see the defendant for the purposes of evaluating her evidence is crucial."

Referring to the woman as "D", he said he had "no reason to doubt the sincerity of her belief" and his decision would have been the same if she had worn the niqab for years.

Analysis

Clive ColemanLegal correspondent, BBC News

It is an important element of adversarial trial by jury in England and Wales that the facial expressions of a witness or defendant are part of the evidence in the case.

The jury is entitled to rely on their observations of the defendant both when he or she gives evidence, and also throughout the trial, as they see how the defendant reacts when evidence is given by others.

None of that is possible if the accused's face is covered.

That is why, in Judge Murphy's words, the niqab has become the 'elephant in the courtroom'.

It is in order to try and deal with that 'elephant' that he has tried to give guidance which respects the defendant's right to manifest her religious beliefs, whilst also allowing a centuries-old way of conducting trial by jury to continue.

It is a not an easy balance to strike.

He said that "the niqab has become the elephant in the courtroom" and there was widespread anxiety among judges over how to tackle the issue.

He added he hoped "Parliament or a higher court will provide a definite answer to the issue soon".

Judge Murphy said: "If judges in different cases in different places took differing approaches [to the niqab] the result would be judicial anarchy."

The woman's defence barrister Susan Meek had argued the woman's human right to express her faith through her attire would be breached if she was ordered to remove her veil.

When asked if there would be an appeal against the decision, the woman's lawyer said she and her client would "consider our options".

At a previous hearing, the issue of her identity was resolved when the woman removed her veil in private for a female police officer.

Judge Murphy's ruling comes as Liberal Democrat Home Office minister Jeremy Browne said he was "uneasy" about restricting freedoms and called for a national debate on the state's role in stopping veils being imposed on girls.

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said he believed it was "vital" defendants' faces were visible at "all times" and said he "regretted" the judge's decision.

He added: "We will be complaining to the Office of Judicial Complaints and also be asking senior legal officers to make visibility throughout court hearings mandatory, and not subject to judges' discretion."

The woman's trial over alleged witness intimidation is due to begin at Blackfriars Crown Court on 4 November.

Al-Qaeda link to mass shooting in Kenyan mall

Al-Qaeda-linked militants stormed an upscale shopping mall in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, and killed at least 39 people in the country's worst terrorist attack in 15 years.

More than 150 people were injured, Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta said in a statement broadcast on national television, as he vowed to hunt down those responsible.

Kenyan police search the Westgate mall in Nairobi for the gunmen.

Kenya's police and army were still engaged in a standoff with the gunmen more than 11 hours after the attack began. An unspecified number of people are being held hostage, the Kenya Red Cross said.

"Our security forces are conducting a multi-agency response to this attack as we speak and are in the process of neutralising the attackers and securing the mall," Mr Kenyatta said.

"We shall hunt down the perpetrators wherever they run to. We shall get them. We shall punish them for this heinous crime."

An injured woman is helped out of the Westgate Shopping Centre in Nairobi.

Click for more photos

WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES

An injured woman is helped out of the Westgate Shopping Centre in Nairobi. Photo: Reuters

View all 15 photos

Yesterday's incident was the deadliest attack in Kenya since the 1998 bombing of the US Embassy in central Nairobi that killed 213 people.

The al-Shabab Islamist militant group in neighbouring Somalia threatened to carry out attacks in Kenya after the country deployed its army to southern Somalia in October 2011 to fight the group.

"Al-Shabab confirms it's behind the Westgate spectacle," the group said on its Twitter feed.

"The mujahideen entered Westgate Mall today at around noon and are still inside the mall, fighting the Kenyan Kuffar inside their own turf."

The Twitter account has since been suspended.

The attack at the Westgate Mall in Westlands, three kilometres north-west of Nairobi's city centre, started at about 12.30pm local time on Saturday.

Middle-class Kenyans and expatriates frequent the shopping centre which has more than 80 shops including bank, a movie theatre, restaurants and a children's play area.

The raid began with several blasts and was followed by shooting, causing panicked shoppers to flee the building or try to hide.

The attackers, who threw grenades, told Muslims they could go free and that non-Muslims were the target.

Marco Lui, a Bloomberg correspondent who was on the second floor of the mall when the attack started, said he heard two explosions within about five minutes.

"We heard a noise from the ground floor and people started running to the parking area on the rooftop," Lui said.

"They were panicking and then the second blast went off and people were even more panicked."

The gunmen entered through the main door of the mall and went on a shooting rampage, moving from the ground level to upper floors, according to staff ArtCaffe, a restaurant in the mall.

"On hearing the gunfire, patrons and staff in the mall ran for cover at every level," they said.

Lui and a friend who were visiting the mall escaped by jumping over a fence on the roof and onto the first floor of an adjoining building. Both were unharmed.

Local broadcasters, including Nation TV, showed images of people fleeing the building under the protection of armed security officers, while some clutched children and broke down in tears. Some of the injured were carried out by other survivors or pushed in shopping carts to waiting ambulances and dead bodies were loaded onto a pick-up truck.

Kenyan soldiers wounded one gunman and have "several others pinned down," Police Inspector-General David Kimaiyo said on his Twitter account about eight hours after the raid started.

An unknown number of hostages were being held in the Nakumatt supermarket at the mall, Abbas Gullet, secretary- general of the Kenya Red Cross, said.

"All the other floors have been cleared, apart from the Nakumatt, which is the biggest shopping complex," Mr Gullet said.

Gunmen or shoppers "could be in stair wells, we don't know, and other places, we don't know."

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon spoke to Mr Kenyatta and expressed his concern and offered his solidarity as the Kenyan authorities dealt with the incident.

"The secretary-general is following closely and with alarm the attack on a shopping mall in Nairobi," according to a statement published on the organisation's website.

An unspecified number of US citizens were injured in the attack, State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf said in a statement.

"The US Embassy is actively reaching out to provide assistance," Ms Harf said.

"Due to privacy considerations, we have no further comment on American citizens at this time."

The British government is keeping "in close touch with Kenyan authorities about the attack," British Foreign Secretary William Hague said on his official Twitter account.

"Appalled by the attack and my thoughts are with everyone affected by it," he said.