More veil nonsense

The veil case continues, even though it should be finished and over with for now.

You could forgive Shabnam Mughal for not wanting to rush straight back into the limelight after last week's tabloid bullying and the hateful nonsense from the Express about alien cultures and taking away Britons' liberty. But the papers just can't seem to agree on a reason why she wasn't at the tribunal on Monday. Or rather, one paper can't seem to agree on a reason. With itself.

The Mail goes with 'Veil-row legal adviser taken off case', saying:

A legal adviser who refused an immigration tribunal judge's request to remove a full face veil has been pulled off the case which sparked the controversy.

Which pretty much dovetails with the way the Telegraph has reported the case in 'Lawyer in a veil is taken off case' and the BBC in 'Veil row lawyer is taken off case'. They all more or less quote the senior partner who has taken Ms Mughal's place as saying:

"It is not an issue of us backing down. We represent clients and our duty is to make sure that their interests are at the forefront of our mind. The decision was made in the interests of our client, given all the publicity.

"This doesn't reflect in anyway on her ability or on whether she can or cannot wear a veil in court. Nothing has changed as far as that is concerned. She has worn the veil in courts around the country before without a problem."

(That extended quote is from the Telegraph).

But the Sun gets all confused and goes with a similar theme one day with 'Veil row lawyer taken off case' (although it carefully neglects to quote the bit about Mughal wearing her veil before without a problem), and then contradicts itself the next, with 'Veil row lawyer's no show at court':

VEIL-row lawyer Shabnam Mughal dodged a new court confrontation yesterday — by going sick.

And some selective quoting misses out all the other bits from the Mail, Telegraph, the BBC and its own coverage from the previous day (remember from 'BURN THE WITCH!' that the paper goes as far as printing pictures of the previous day's story when it wants readers to remember). The Sun's second version of events has her being cowardly and skiving off, whereas other sources and its own previous account contradict. Which one is true?

The answer is both. Sort of. The Telegraph, as always, includes the relevant information. I have to say, I sometimes have a kind of grudging respect for the Telegraph. Yes, it puts its own Tory spin on stories and sometimes just makes stuff up, but at least it doesn't always deliberately leave out relevant information like other papers. It says:

Javid Hussain, the practise manager at the Law Partnership, said Miss Mughal had called in sick although it was decided over the weekend to replace her.

It's likely that the Sun missed the quote from Javid Hussain the day before, and then decided to ignore everything else to make Ms Mughal look like a cowardly skiver when it found it out - ignoring the part where Mr Hussain says the decision had been made over the weekend anyway. This is pretty dishonest. Most people would tend to assume that new information trumps old if the two contradict each other. I'd bet most Sun readers who saw this thought, 'Ah, so they were lying yesterday when they said she was pulled off the case,' and if the paper were at all interested in letting them know the truth, it would clarify. But it doesn't.

Still, in amidst a little bit more childish bullying, the paper gives us some idea of why she might have taken a day off sick from work:

There was no answer at British-born Miss Mug-hal’s home in Foleshill.

Note the clever spotting of the fact that the first three letters of her surname spells 'Mug'. Given the poor quality of the wit on display here, it would be customary to mention Oscar Wilde or George Bernard Shaw spinning in their graves at this juncture, but I won't. If they had their choice I'm sure they'd rather forego the grave-spinning and opt for punching this bloke in the belly and calling him a twat.

Anyway - the BBC at least corroborates this aspect of the story in 'Veil row case 'serves justice''. Not the shit joke - you know:

She was not answering her door at her home in Coventry today.

Wonder why.

So, it appears that the law firm decided to replace Ms Mughal over the weekend to avoid publicity and there were journalists camped on her doorstep yesterday so she phoned in sick. Of course, the Mail spins the story a certain way - creating an impression that the decision is somehow punitive before quoting Abdul Khan from the Law Partnership. God knows what the Express said because I missed yesterday's coverage and they don't have a searchable archive. I'm sure they would have gone with something about her draining the blood of Christian boys or something. And the Sun thinks, 'Sod it, that's not good enough. Let's just ignore the things that don't make her look bad and take the piss out of her funny foreign name.'

You know what? I bet they were dying to use that pun all weekend and were gutted that Mughal wasn't at the tribunal.

Update to 'No wonder their readers are ignorant tossers'

I missed the editorial in today's Express because it isn't available online and I'm not effing paying for it. But there's this from Islamophobia Watch:

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."

[Shudder]. This is really nasty. How has anybody undermined anything? Nobody cared for over two years. How can a lawyer take away anyone's liberty? That's a judge's job to decide - and it's hardly likely in a bloody immigration tribunal anyway. And Shabna Mughal is a bloody Briton.That last sentence makes my skin crawl. If I wasn't bothered about violating Godwin's Law, I'd be referring to the Express as 'Der Sturmer' from now on.

I was quite happy about this this morning.

No wonder their readers are ignorant tossers

Immigration tribunal lawyers are now allowed to wear the veil in courts. The Express is apopleptic. They have 'Fury as top judges gives in to Muslim hardliners on veils'. Who's furious? The Express, mainly. And racists generally, presumably.

There isn't really much in the way of logical arguments here, which is interesting. Just outrage. I'll get to the one argument that maybe approaches reason in a bit. I want to go through this pisspoor article in order.

First:

His decision was widely condemned by critics, who claimed he had caved in to Islamic hardliners.

Caved in to Islamic hardliners? What Islamic hardliners? The woman who had worn a veil without any problems for years until one day, a judge decided to try to force her to have to remove it? Why does she warrant being referred to in plural? Are these critics mainly Daily Express hacks? Probably - and ooh look, there are some angry Tory MPs as well. So unlike the tories to be intolerant about other cultures. Anyway:

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.

David Davies is a twat. Didn't he notice the bit about making sure the lawyer can be heard? Clearly not. When I said in my last post that there's nothing to hang outrage on, I forgot that it's possible to just ignore what Hodge actually said and pretend there's another problem.

The second bit is the only argument that approaches a logical one. Of course, I say approaches - but I really mean 'doesn't approach'. The thing about using glittering generalities is that people normally only do that when they haven't got a proper argument.

If it's vital that judges see lawyers' faces, does that mean blind people are prohibited from becoming judges?

He follows this up with the classic tu quoque fallacy, which I think must be said at least once whenever anyone says the word 'Muslim' by law:

“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?”

Yeah, and if we were in a Martian court, we might be expected to balance a sandwich on our face or something. We're not in a bloody Muslim court. We're in a British court - and you know what - the British court rules on dress say that you're allowed to wear a veil if you like. She is following the British rules on dress in courts.

Phillip Davies MP repeats the 'how can you be open if a lawyer will not show her face?' line. How can she be open? I'll tell you - by saying words with her mouth that you can listen to. See above.

The paper then does a classic out of context quote to make it look like there's some balance from a Labour MP. And a Muslim one at that:

But Labour MP Shahid Malik, one of Westminster’s four Muslim MPs, said: “Where a veil inhibits you from carrying out your job or your role in life, then your right to wear it is compromised.”

But as Hodge already states - if someone's role is inhibited, other arrangements will be made. Remember - if a ruling says something you don't like, you can always ignore it if you're the Express.

What this shows is that all the supposedly logical arguments applied to similar cases are so much window dressing for some people. Much concern was expressed for the poor children in the Aisha Azmi case. There are no children here, and there is no major need for a judge to see a lawyer's face like children learning English. If there were, there'd be a bar on blind judges. The argument that judges might not be able to hear is repeated even though it's taken care of in the ruling, because there really isn't another practical reason anyone can think of. And if there really were a practical reason for stopping lawyers in these cases from wearing a veil - it would have been raised ages ago. This particular woman has worn a veil to immigration tribunals for at least two years. How many other women have done the same, and how far in the past?

In fact, the whole idea that this is all about being able to see someone's face is a bit of a stretch. The Shabina Begum case shows that there will be objections to Islamic dress even when the face is visible. Why isn't the Express more honest and just admit that they object any visible indicators that a person is a Muslim?

*UPDATE* I removed an argument about Lady Justice atop the Old Bailey being blind - because she isn't, apparently.

A quick one

Only seen this reported in two places, but this from the Jerusalem Post article 'British Muslim wins right to wear veil in court':

The head of a network of British immigration courts ruled Thursday that lawyers should be allowed to wear full-face veils in the courtroom unless it prevents them being heard.

[...]

Hodge said Thursday that if a lawyer wishing to wear a veil "has the agreement of his or her client and can be heard reasonably clearly by all parties to the proceedings, then the representative should be allowed to do so."

It's also here at NDTV.com, which includes this:

If the judge could not hear the lawyer clearly, "then the interests of justice are not served, and other arrangements will need to be made," Hodge said in a statement.

In other words, if a judge can't hear a veiled lawyer who doesn't want to remove her veil, arrangements can be made for another lawyer to take the case - rather than just having the judge bully the lawyer, adjourn the case, come back from recess to bully the lawyer some more, and then cancel the hearing to take things further, like a spoiled kid.

Well done that man. Of course, those judges who are less enlightened are free to pretend they can't hear a veiled woman, but good on Hodge for not rolling over at the bidding of the tabloids.

The tabloids have been uncharacteristically silent - which is unsurprising as there's nothing they can hang their outrage on. The case won't cost loads of money, there's a get out for the 'I can't hear you,' excuse, and the excuse that the client should come first is taken care of. Job done.

See, it's not all bad.

*UPDATE* Whoops! Spoke too soon. Google didn't pick it up, but the tabloids do have it covered. (Jesus, I must be reading too many tabloids to come up with a pun like that). The Mail can't help but have a small dig at political correctness gone mad
though. Bless. In 'Head of immigration tribunals gives legal staff OK to wear veil in court', it says:

Yesterday's ruling is only temporary, ahead of a full declaration from the Judicial Studies Board, which issues advice to judges on questions of race and faith equality.

The Board is notorious for publishing a list of banned words and phrases which it told judges to avoid in the interests of equality.

Banned terms included 'immigrant','Asian', 'postman' and 'man and wife'. England's most senior judge, Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips, was consulted by Mr Justice Hodge before he made his decision.

True to form for Daily Mail anti-PC outrage, the stuff about the banned words is complete arse. I remember the story as one of the very first times I realised how much the Mail are given to distorting and exaggerating in an article. All that happened is that the Board produced a set of guidelines about what people might find offensive. The irony of the Mail's outrage is that only a few days after its fury about banning judges from saying words, the paper reported about a judge being reprimanded for referring to a black defendant as, 'the nigger in the woodpile'. Hmmm . . . I wonder what might prevent judges from making that sort of mistake in future . . . a set of guidelines, perhaps.

The outraged comments are worth a look for the sheer bloody-minded fun of it. I'll just quote the one:

I have lost all respect for the law of this land. I don't give a damn about this country any more now.
- John, Sevenoaks, UK

Good. Fuck off.

The Express has 'Fury as top judge gives way to Muslim hardliners on veils'. It's nasty enough to warrant it's own posting, so see you on the flipside. (Whatever that means).

BURN THE WITCH!

There's another fake tabloid outrage brewing about the niqab. I missed the build up to the last one, but we can have a bit of a look at how these things develop from their beginnings with this one.

The Mail doesn't have much to say on the subject this time - and nothing that's any different from the standard tabloid line. They're too busy being racist about Polish people right now (more about that in the next post, you lucky people). Plus, I think even Mail readers had had enough after their false accusations of terrorist connections last time. The Sun is following it more closely, so I'll have a look at the Sun coverage since it kind of illustrates what I was banging on about.

Incidentally, there's more about that blatant propaganda piece in yesterday's 'The Sun Says' column over at Obsolete with 'Scum watch: Stay scared', which is worth a read. (I have to say, if I remembered some people actually read this and might want to link here, I'd think of cleverer headlines than yesterday's, but there you go).

The Sun has two stories so far, one from yesterday, and one from today. The most obvious thing about the first, 'Trial halted over lawyer's veil', is how the Sun uses pictures to tell the readers what to think. It's almost as annoying as the 'posh' Wayne Rooney picture yesterday. The photo is of someone in a veil, but just look at how it's lit from the bottom so it casts massive shadows behind and above like a horror film monster. Scary. Remember this is from the same day that the paper tells us to stay on guard against a Muslim threat and has a headline about a Muslim terrorist.

The picture ensures that we already know what to think before we read any of the article, but story helpfully elaborates on the scary Muslim line. The headline itself does a good job of this - see how it makes the whole thing the lawyer's fault. It could just as easily said 'Trial halted over judge's intolerance' but it doesn't. It's the lawyer's fault when she says no to the judge's repeated requests to remove her veil, not the judge's for demanding it in the first place. Let's remember that it's the judge who has the power here, not Ms Mughal, and it's the judge who exercised his power to take the case further.

There's a big difference between this and Jack Straw's comments that started the anti-veil ball rolling. Jack Straw, numpty though he might be, said he only requested that women remove the veil, not that he demanded it, and that he carried on if they refused. This guy halted a court hearing because of it. Is this the inevitable consequence of Straw's comments?

An important thing here is being missed - probably deliberately - both in this version of the story and the other tabloids'. The judge requested that Ms Mughal remove her veil, she refused, and he adjourned until the afternoon. When the judge reconvened, he already knew that Ms Mughal would not remove her veil. He'd already asked her. The important thing being left out is what was said before the adjournement. We do know that Ms Mughal later said, "Sir, we have been through this issue," which implies a far more involved discussion than a request and a refusal.

And it might be just me, but when I read that the judge asked her to repeat herself when she spelled her name I can't help thinking of the Fat Fighters sketches in Little Britain, where Marjorie Dawes constantly pretends not to understand an Indian woman's accent. Does it sound likely that she was difficult to hear, given that we have some quite clear quotations of what she said dotted around this article?

There's probably quite a lot more left out here in this exchange. The article makes it look as though it went:

Kindly, reasonable judge: 'Could you kindly remove your veil please?'
Scary Muslim: 'No'
Adjourned until afternoon
Kindly, reasonable judge: 'Go on, pretty please. I can't understand you.'
Scary Muslim: 'No. I'm off.'

Does that sound likely to you? Plus, the judge's further comments are nothing more than passive-aggressive bullying. He says, "If you remove your veil, which happens in other cases, we can proceed, otherwise I am going to have consultations with the President of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. Will you remove it?" That sentence could just as easily been, "If I stop demanding that you remove your veil, we can proceed . . ." It's worth repeating - it's the judge who has the power here.

He knows she won't remove the veil. He's asked her at least twice, so he makes a threat to take things further. If there was really no way the tribunal could have gone ahead, the judge wouldn't have just adjourned until the afternoon after he asked the first time. He could have made it clear he wouldn't proceed then - and Ms Mughal might have been able to make alternative arrangements for her client. Instead, he waits until after the recess, when making alternative arrangements is impossible. And what 'other cases' do veils routinely get removed in? Ones in different courts with different rules on dress codes?

The second article, 'Heading off to the Old Veily' is more worrying. The main picture accompanying it and the headline are examples of the 'let's all have a laugh together' technique I talked about yesterday. The picture is of Mughal with her veil covering her eyes (ha ha, does the silly girl not realise she can't see?) and the headline is a dodgy pun.

There are two reasons this article exists. To bully Ms Mughal, and to make sure the paper's readers don't forget the story. It even helpfully includes a picture of yesterday's article to make sure its readers remember, because it clearly thinks they're too stupid to without it.

I'm suspicious about the paper's claim that she covered her eyes and wonder whether the photo's just been photoshopped - but I could well be wrong. I wouldn't blame her, anyway.

The bullying is done in a couple of ways. Childish mickey taking, with the headline and the 'she even pulled the veil over her eyes' comments, which remind me of singing 'Hey Fatty Boom Boom' at school around fat kids (to my shame) and catcalls about them trying to disguise their size.

The other way is the very idea of ambushing her on the way to work. The article says she:

repeatedly refused to explain why she had forced Monday’s hearing to be adjourned

Which further compounds the bullying. She didn't force the case to be adjourned. The judge did. And the paper already knows why she refused to remove her veil. Not only is it blindingly fucking obvious, but the article even quotes her own words from the day before:

You are clearly aware of my position on the grounds of my religious beliefs. I won’t.

Why do you need to harrass someone in the street to answer a question you already know the answer to? So you can frame it as a loaded question so that if she answers, she's admitting to forcing the case to be adjourned. Which she didn't. The loaded question is a bullying tactic in itself. 'Oy, fatty, have you stopped eating cream cakes out of your mums knickers so you can stop being so fat?' That kind of thing.

And what's the betting that this is an out of context quote:

Javid Hussain, practice manager at the Coventry Law Partnership where she has worked for four years, said: “This was an unfortunate and unprecedented incident.

“She will continue to dress as she always has done.”

See, this gives the impression that the 'unfortunate and unprecedented incident' is Ms Mughal refusing to take off her veil.

But look! The Telegraph covers this in the article, 'Lawyer refuses to take off veil', and says:

Javid Hussain, practice manager at the Law Partnership in Coventry, where Miss Mughal works, said she had worn her veil while appearing before tribunals in different parts of the country for at least the past two years.

This whole story is about a woman who normally wears a veil in her work, and it hasn't been an issue until this one judge has made it an issue.

This story looks more and more like an intolerant judge trying to bully a woman who wants to wear a veil and has never had a problem with doing so in the past. He's now being helped by the tabloids, which is great.

There is one final way this article is bullying. With its:

'DO you know Shabnam Mughal? Call us on . . .'

Yeah, call us and share the gossip on this weirdo.

The Express frames this with the triumphant headline, 'The veil banned by judge'. Which you'd think was a step in the right direction, until you remember their numerous front page calls to ban the veil. They think they've won. And if this woman is forced to remove her veil, they have. In a way, this article is even less subtle than the Sun's, since it explicitly states:

Last night, after the case was halted because of her defiance [...]

We know from John Reid's spineless capitulating over Eastern European immigration that the tabloids can influence major decisions. We can see from these articles that they do it by shady misrepresentations and blatant bullying. It's got to be why they're attacking Aisha Azmi even after she lost her tribunal - they know they have less influence over European courts.

How long before she's accused of having terrorist connections?

*UPDATE* Read the comments about the story at the Sun. If you want to feel sick.

Some nice, totally non-racist quotes:

From 'Bryan':

Because of our enforced PC society we cannot actually say what we mean.Let us be honest, it is not the Mormons, or the seventh day adventists, or the Quakers, or the Hindus,or the Sikhs or the etc etc who are disrupting our society with their demands IT IS THE MUSLIMS.let me repeat that--IT IS THE MUSLIMS. [...]

No Bryan, of course they haven't. Sikhs have never asked to wear religious clothing. Or Christians.

This is not a question of racism, it is a question of reality and facing up to the truth.Of course 99.99999% of these Muslims are innocent of any terrorist related crime, but equally so are 100% of British whites.

If it's not a question of racism, why do you talk about Muslims and whites, and not Muslims and non-Muslims. You realise that some Muslims are white people, right? You realise that the Northern Ireland terrorists on both sides were white British people? Twat.

From 'mumof3':

What's the betting that in her own country (that which her 'religion' comes from), she wouldn't even be allowed to become a lawyer, based on her sex?

Is that a cross round your neck in that picture? Does that mean I can tell you to get back to your own country and you'll go to Nazareth? Or do you think 'Church of England' means Jesus was English? (Thanks to Jeremy Hardy for that last gag, which I mercilessly stole).

From 'HIBYE':

why do they wanna live in a country believe in freedom of showing the face … equiality between man and woman ... why don't they stay in their country if they don't like that

It looks like Ms Mughal is from Bradford. Why doesn't she go back to whatever backward country Bradford is in?

From 'diamond-simon':

IF YOU COME TO LIVE IN ENGLAND DO AS WE DO OR GET THE HELL OUT OF IT. [...] THE ENGLISH PEAPLE WILL STAND SO MUCH TILL WE CANT STAND NO MORE KEEP TAKING THE THE MICK SEE WHERE IT LEADS

Cunt.

From 'nedjac':

No one is forced to wear something that they have been ordered to by force or intimidation.If the Muslims involved insist that this is to be their dress code then I suggest they return to wherever their dress code is acceptable.

Jesus, these 'fuck off back to where they wear these things' are so common that if I quoted them all I might as well cut and paste the whole comments section. And yes, they are forced to wear something that they have been ordered to. Clothes that don't include a veil. You prat.

From 'Th0masjw':

I also heard that they wear them so no other male can look upon their beauty after they are married, or something like that! Ha thats a joke! When was the last time you saw a good looking muslim? Show me a good looking muslim man or woman, and ill show you my backside in trafalgar square on christmas day!

Racist cunt.

Looks like the Sun is right about where it places the intelligence level of its readers.