You seen what they're doing now?

A very good mate of mine (I do have some, honest) has a particular hatred of one common tabloid practice. He doesn't like all the other good stuff either - but this one thing gets on his chuffing nerves.

It's using the word 'now' to kick off a headline. It's the way the word implies 'as if everything that's happened before wasn't enough, here's something ridiculous that'll try the patience of a bloody saint'.

Warming up old food

And why it's important to pick a new name if you're a crackpot organisation

The Daily Mail has a habit of taking old stories and serving them up as fresh, usually when the paper has a bit of its agenda to push. Most often, these are stories that have already appeared in the Mail, but today there's a three week old story from the Telegraph on our plates, and boy does it smell.

In the Telegraph, the story was 'Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'' (2 February). Now that some poor work experience kid has been made to do a 'write this in your own words' exercise, the article has become 'Muslim medics refuse to roll up their sleeves in hygiene crackdown - because it's against their religion' in the Mail. The two are virtually identical, using mostly the same examples in the same order, the same quotes and the same hyperbole to exaggerate the extent of the problem, such as it is.

The hyperbole starts right there in the headlines. Why say 'medic' instead of doctor or surgeon, or both? Because the stories aren't about doctors or surgeons, but medical students. Having medical students raise objections to exposing their forearms during their studies, where they'll have to comply or fail, is rather less worrying than actual doctors or surgeons refusing to expose their forearms and actually risking people's health. As ever, the truth would make a bit of a crap headline and a decidedly tame scare story.

Both use similar techniques to exaggerate the numbers of occurrences. The Telegraph says:

Women training in several hospitals in England have raised objections...

and the Mail says:

Medics in hospitals in at least three major English cities have refused to follow the regulations...

So this has happened in several training hospitals in at least three cities. 'At least three' is tabloid language for 'three'. Apparently, three Universities have mentioned that some of their Muslim students have:

raised objections to removing their arm coverings in theatre and to rolling up their sleeves when washing their hands, because it is regarded as immodest in Islam

if you read the Telegraph, or:

objected to rolling up their sleeves when washing their hands and removing arm coverings in theatre, claiming it is regarded as immodest

if you read the Mail. The work experience kid must have been in a rush when they hit that sentence, eh.

Exactly how many students are we talking about though? Both articles open by talking about Liverpool and then go on to mention Leicester, Sheffield and Birmingham. I know that makes four cities and I said there were three, but there's a reason the paper said 'at least three' and not 'at least four' when they have four examples. See, after opening by talking about Liverpool and then going on to mention the other three cities, the Mail reveals:

A Royal Liverpool hospital spokesman said they had experienced issues of Muslim staff not sanitising their forearms with alcohol gel although this had now been addressed.

And a little later:

"A number of female Muslim students had approached the University of Liverpool to ask if we would provide facilities for them to change their outerwear and Hijab for theatre scrubs.

"We were pleased to accommodate this request and these facilities have now been incorporated."

So, it looks as though there's no problem anymore.

Both articles are vague about how many staff are involved in all four places except Sheffield, in which:

Sheffield University reported a case of a Muslim medic refusing to "scrub" because it left her forearms exposed.

according to the Mail, and:

Sheffield University also reported a case of a Muslim medic who refused to "scrub" as this left her forearms exposed.

according to the Telegraph. It may be the case that both papers have had the work experience kids in, since the Mail has the extra information about Liverpool and the Telegraph doesn't. Possibly because the Telegraph kid ignored that bit of the wire release.

So we have one person in one city and one possibly solved case in another. But what about the other cities? How many students have refused to scrub properly there? The Telegraph has this about Leicester:

Minutes from a medical school committee said that "a number of Muslim females had difficulty in complying with the procedures to roll up sleeves to the elbow for appropriate handwashing".

Having difficulty with something isn't the same as not doing it. If students had point blank refused to roll up their sleeves and actually not done so, don't you think that would have been mentioned in the minutes? Me too. So that's Leicester out.

The Mail also has this:

Some students have said that they would prefer to quit the course rather than expose their arms, but hygiene experts said no exceptions should be made on religious grounds.

Luckily, the Telegraph lets us know that the students who'd rather quit are only from Birmingham. It also has this quote:

Dr Mark Enright, professor of microbiology at Imperial College London, said: "To wash your hands properly, and reduce the risks of MRSA and C.difficile, you have to be able to wash the whole area around the wrist.

"I don't think it would be right to make an exemption for people on any grounds. The policy of bare below the elbows has to be applied universally."

which is clearly the source for the Mail's 'but hygiene experts said no exceptions...' bit from the sentence quoted above. There aren't any direct quotes from any University saying that students had refused to scrub properly and been allowed to carry on, putting patients at risk.

So, there's not really that much of a problem here. Since we have no direct quotes from any of the Universities that says that female Muslim students had refused to scrub properly and been allowed to get away with it, it's likely that what's happened is something a whole lot less worrying than either paper is leading us to believe. My money is on some female Muslim students saying they'd rather not scrub in front of men if that could be avoided, but not refusing point blank to do so, with the possible exception of the ones in Birmingham who said they'd rather leave the course.

Presumably there's more than one female Muslim medical student in Sheffield, and definitely plenty from everywhere other than these four cities, so this is clearly something that concerns a small minority. And if Dr Mark Enright is right, no exception will be made for these students.

But - both stories include quotes that suggest this is not a minority concern, from the Islamic Medical Association. Who are they, then? 'Is there a doctor in the mosque?' from the Graun's Comment is Free section gives us an idea. It seems to be made up of a couple of nutjobs whose only web presence is this badly formatted and poorly written word document, which gives no clue of how many members they have, reveals they've only ever produced one book 'Al-Dhabh: Slaying Animals for Food the Islamic Way', which is pretty clearly not medical, and two booklets. On any other subject, would a group like this ever be treated seriously by the Telegraph?

Ah, the usefulness of having an impressive sounding name while spouting what the papers want to hear. Seems to have served the Islamic Medical Association as well as it has MigrationWatch, The Campaign Against Political Correctness and the Taxpayer's Alliance. It got them favourably mentioned in the Mail's 'Muslim and Jews join gay-laws protest', because they like homosexuals about as much as the Daily Mail.

If the Islamic Medical Association are after more coverage, I'd suggest slagging off the Polish.

Why has this story appeared now, and not three weeks ago, when you could make at least a half-hearted attempt to cal it news? So that there's a companion example to go with ''Sharia law will undermine British society,' warns Cameron in attack on multiculturalism'.

It seems that when the paper needs to back up an attack on multiculturalism and scare its audience about Muslims, three week old stories that weren't good enough when they first appeared suddenly acquire urgent importance.

Maybe nobody replied to offers of money for anonymous horror stories about Muslims.

Or maybe the paper couldn't bribe any Muslims into doing anything it could complain about.

Who can say?

The Mail slips toward Express territory

For a while now, the Daily Express has been like a crap parody of the Mail written by somebody who doesn't understand the subtlety of the Mail's articles. Somebody who just zeroes in on the rabid xenophobia and hatred without realising that it's all hidden under a very respectable looking veneer and that a lot of the time, the readers are invited to draw their own conclusions from apparently innocuous things the paper has said. The Express's treatment of Muslims, for instance is a million miles from the Mail's treatment of its own folk devil, the Polish. Compare the subtlety of the Mail's article about eastern Europeans eating swans that didn't mention once that any eastern European or anyone else had eaten a swan, with the Express's coverage of the juror who wore an mp3 player under her veil, which explicitly stated she was wearing a full face veil when she wasn't.

Today, we have a little shuffle toward Express territory in the Mail article 'Revealed: The hijab-wearing 17-year-old Muslim girl hired as a community police officer'. Of course, this is more subtle than the Express - which probably would have included a picture of a woman in a full burqa and said 'the Officer wears a hijab like this one' - but we're still left with an article that paints it as a bad bad thing that the young woman wears a hijab.

As you'd expect from the Mail, the condemnation, such as it is, is very subtle. There are no statements about how it's bad, but the language used signals that the paper thinks it is. Why use the word 'Revealed' to open the headline, as if this is some sort of scandal? The paper has already made us aware of the scandal of very young people being hired as PCSOs, so there must be some new information that's revealed - and it's the 'Muslim girl' stuff.

The article talks about the girl being 'named' and how the information has 'emerged', as if it needed hiding. But there are only two mentions early on of her religion and hijab. The rest is all condemnation of the policy of hiring under 18s, but as the article has opened by framing itself as being about a hijab wearing Muslim specifically, it gives us all the impression that that is something that makes things like being able to seize alcohol despite being underage worse.

The shift towards Express territory comes from the fact that the paper thinks it's newsworthy at all to mention her religion and her hijab. Why does she need a separate story at all? Okay, the Mail isn't exactly the Muslims' best friend or anything, but there's usually at least some kind of reason for mentioning this kind of thing, even if it is spurious, like the misleading coverage of the police officer who asked not to have to guard the Israeli embassy during the attack on Lebanon. There's no connection with anything here. It's just a 'how terrible, a Muslim' article.

Unusually, the comments are mixed. The caveat about people pratting about still applies, but there are actually people asking why it's relevant that she's a Muslim. There are one or two ignorant ones, like:

Apart from her age which is ridiculous, how can this girl "stop and search" any man when she's forbidden to do so by her religion?

- Pat Sweeney, Lanark

Quick answer - she's not, you twat.

Still, I can't help but shudder at the thought of what the Express's coverage might have been like.

Swallowed by the Daily Express

Apolgoies for the absence from blogging. After insisting I'd had enough of the Express and the goons in its 'Have Your Say' section, I seem to have become taken over by the urge to bang out replies to some of the articles, like a nutter on a bus - which is entirely in keeping with the reason for this blog's existence. It's meant I haven't been able to post here much, but to be honest, the fun was going out of taking tabloid stories apart anyway. Maybe I'll rediscover my enthusiam later.

Still, I have to admit to finding the whole experience of trying to engage the people there incredibly strange. I've read lots of debate with right-wing loons, and I've engaged in the odd real life discussion, but never to any great depth. I'm not a veteran of getting into tussles with people in their blogs' comments. The closest I've come is in the sometimes surreal discussion it's possible to have with evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. The same deliberate ignoring of arguments is there. The same insistence on arguing against what the person would like to have been said rather than what actually has been said is there. A similar number of logical fallacies are thrown around too, especially the trusty ad-hominem and strawman. (Sounds like the makings of a decent Comic-Book, that). The creation of a weird fantasy world pops up as well.

I can't help but be interested by this. Especially since I started this blog as a kind of space for me to say what I would to tabloid readers if I had the chance.

Of course, I don't actually think I'll change any of the regular posters' minds. Maybe the odd person who stumbles across an article who hasn't made their mind up, but more likely nobody at all. That's not really the point though. It's interesting to see the reaction of people to being told that a story they've just posted an outraged comment about is distorted, or even a lie. Or, at least I thought it would be before I found out that it normally amounts to calling someone a PC idiot and refusing to engage with anything they say, or even read what they've written at all. Exactly like your fundamentalist who wants to know why you're so angry at god.

There have been a couple of highlights though. Steveg has been particularly good value in introducing the techniques of the playground to discussions, refusing first to actually address any of my points because 'they bored him', through calling me names and pointing out how sad and lonely I am to finally telling people not to agree with me because I hadn't addressed the point they'd made once. When in fact I had. Takes you back, eh?

Beyond that, I (among others) managed to get the Online Editor to chip into the discussion on 'Is Islam taking over Europe' after pointing out the shonky propaganda technique of illustrating so many articles on a similar theme with a veiled woman - and using one lit from the bottom like a scary horror film monster in this one.

Bizarrely, he argued that he had originally thought using that picture might:

fuel hatred, distrust and narrow-minded suspicion of Muslims.

He was then won over by the contrary argument that:

that within the context of Georg Gaenswein's warning of "European identity" being at risk from Islam, we needed a strong image - immediately recognisable as Muslim and associated with the loss of identity - to illustrate his, admittedly controversial, point.

So, he decided that it was okay to use the picture even though it might fuel hatred and stuff because it also illustrated European identity being at risk from Islam. Get your head around that one. The reason why the picture might cause hatred and mistrust is the argument that shows why using it is okay. Brainaches!

Of course, this is just the Online Editor showing that he's used a picture that conveys the negative view on purpose. But we knew that anyway.

Another great bit from that discussion is Maggie asking if her comment wasn't PC enough to be printed in a discussion thread where people have called Muslims 'vermin', 'terrorists and scrounging scumbags', say 'Definitely NO NO NO it is not taking over Europe.
IT IS TAKING OVER THE WHOLE WORLD AND FAST' and argue that 'When they walk down our streets they should be shown they are not welcome even if it means us showing our feelings of revulsion'.

Makes you wonder what Maggie must have said if it really wasn't PC enough.

Finally, probably the most bizarre thing is the sight of steveg (again) using the familiar old Islamophibic construct of resisting Muslims being the same as resisting the Nazis:

An example of this scenario happened in Germany before the war. The majority of Germans were decent ordinary people, just like the British at the time. The problem was, when Hitler and the Nazis rose to power and carried out many atrocities to get there, most of the German public remained silent.
[...]
The fact is, these so called silent majority, are repeating how the German population reacted before the war when the Nazi extremist carried out their reign of terror.
Surprisingly, we now have a so called Muslim extremist reign of terror, yet the majority of Muslims remain silent!

This is in a thread on an article using similar propaganda techniques to demonise Muslims that the Nazi press used to demonise Jews (although the Nazi press were far more up front and less subtle, it must be said). Oh the irony!

Anyway, that's where I've been. My last post there is on an article about a poll that shows the majority of British Asians feel British, which uses the headline 'We don't feel British, say Asians'. I realised after posting that that it's the sort of thing I'd usually post here, and the blog is languishing with only my last not-half-as-good-as-I-intended-it-to-be post up top, so I'll endeavour to look at the other papers now.

Cheers!

Daily Express being dishonest? Surely not!

I really am fed up with this sodding paper and it's 'Have Your Say' goons. But there's still an inaccurate caption under the picture in the 'Muslim juror 'wore MP3 player' under hijab', although it's been a while since I was assured that people were looking into removing it.

At first, I thought it was because the editors were waiting until the story disappeared from the links on the front page, so that few peope would see the corrected version and their job would be done. There might be another explanation though.

'Should we ban the veil?' asks the paper today. Again. Ooh, the Daily Express asking its readers whether the veil should be banned - wonder what the answer might be? Just to make sure it remains neutral and doesn't influence its readers, it uses this picture to illustrate the story:

What could be more British than sticking two fingers up at someone who pisses you off?

The thing is, the story leading to the question is the one about the MP3 player in court. Anyone searching for more on the story will find the previous article, with the dodgy picture and caption. Handy.

If you're annoyed about the idea of a juror listening to am MP3 player in court, surely the more sensible question would be 'Should we ban MP3 players from being taken into courtrooms?'. That the Express doesn't ask this question shows where the paper's priorities lie.

To be fair to the paper though, the text of this article is more accurate, using the word 'headscarf' to describe it. Oh, and 'headdress'. Who wears headdresses? That'll be savages, won't it?

Although it doesn't outright say the juror was wearing a hijab like the ones in the picture this time, the connection is still created. Just not as blatantly and dishonestly. The caption is 'OBSTINATE: But is the veil out of control?'. How can a piece of cloth be out of control? Are we talking about something out of a Stephen King story here? Jesus wept. And that's not pushing the reader toward one side of the argument is it?

The cavalcade of dribbling goons has started - although one or two from the discussion with me haven't turned up yet. It would be great if it was because they realised their arguments were rubbish - but it's probably because they haven't got around to it yet.

I'm going to be Mystic Crackers now - and predict the outcome of the whole 'looking into changing the picture' thing. One of two things will happen:

• Nothing. The picture and caption will stay as they are.
• The caption will change to remove the 'like this one' bit. There will still be a picture of a niqab.

I will be very surprised indeed if the picture is changed to something more accurate. Mind you, I'm surprised that the paper's left the discussion up showing me handing some of its' readers' arses to them and pointing out that the paper's lying. So you never know.

*UPDATE* Over six months later and the picture's still there. Surprised?

Outright lying in the Daily Express UPDATED AGAIN

Okay, okay - I know I said my next post would be about something other than the Express and the goons in its comments section, but I can't ignore this.

The story is 'Muslim juror 'wore MP3 player' under hijab'. Can't argue with the tabloids for running with this story. It's a breathtaking example of contempt of court. Although it seems her behaviour is connected more with being an immature idiot than being a Muslim.

What you can argue with is bald faced lying. Pun definitely intended. Shut up. Here's the picture and caption used to illustrate the story:



First of all, the veil in the picture is not a hijab. *Clarification - the veil in the picture is a form of hijab - but not what people commonly refer to when they use the term 'hijab'. My bad.* Secondly, the juror did not wear a full faced veil at all. Again, here's another right wing paper's version of the story, the Mail's 'Facing jail, juror whose hijab hid an MP3 player'. Look at the picture:



See the hijab? See the juror's face?

I really don't know how the paper would try to get out of this one, but you can bet your arse it will try, and probably succeed. Only thing I can think of is that it says this:

The woman, who was wearing a hijab, a figure-hugging black-and-white dress and jeans, was then led into court to be told the decision.

But given it actually shows a picture of a niqab and explicitly states that the juror wore a veil like the full-faced one in the picture, it can't use the old 'Withdrawn!' technique. I'm guessing the defence will be that it's a mistake. Which is bollocks, frankly. This is clearly an attempt to slot this story into the paper's campaign to ban the niqab, with shameless, shameless lying.

See it work on the goons in the comments. Except me, obviously.

*UPDATE* Managed to get to the shop to have a look at the paper edition, and the niqab picture isn't there. That means it's more likely to be a mistake, but since I first posted on the comments section about it hours ago and someone must have approved the comment, and the picture is still there, I'm not so sure. Just about to fire off a comment to the online editor, so we'll see what happens.

*ANOTHER UPDATE* Didn't hear a dickie bird from the online editor and the picture's still there as of 11pm on 10 July. There's been a bit of a tear up in the comments if you're interested. Nothing I can't handle. You'll have to wade through nastiness like 'Get these muslim slags out of my country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!', but you might be interested.

*YET ANOTHER UPDATE* Got a reply from the online editor yesterday but missed it. Apparently, the editorial staff are 'looking into removing it'. Whether that's out of the kindness of their hearts or because I've banged on about it over and over again in the comments we'll never know. Photo and caption are still there though, as of 12pm on 12 July. The 'debate' with the cavalcade of screaming goons goes on.

Funny how I get an assurance that the photo might be removed after the link from the front page disappeared too.

*PROBABLY THE FINAL UPDATE* Picture and caption still there as of 10pm on 12 July. 'Debate' seems to have finished now, but I feel a bit like I just cracked a nut with a steamroller. Still, it was a frothing, BNP supporting bigot of a nut, so fuck it.

*DEFINITELY THE FINAL UPDATE* It's now over six months later, and despite assurances that the editorial team would look into removing the lying picture, it's still there.

But, but . . . the veil is bad.

This post has been updated since I posted it on 12 June.

Remember this?



I spoke about it in 'Should the guilty go free, or should we stop women wearing cloth in front of their face? You decide' and 'Should the guilty go free *UPDATE*'

In the Express today and yesterday, we have a couple of articles about the conviction of Mahmod Mahmod for killing his own daughter. We have 'Father guilty over "honour killing"', 'Father found guilty of his daughter's "honour killing"' and, presumably because the two other titles weren't clear enough about the father's religion, 'Guilty: the Muslim father who ordered '"honour killing"'.

Of the three, only the last mentions this:

During the trial, her elder sister Bekhal, 22, said Banaz was beaten as she was growing up when she made herself “westernised” by using hairspray or gel. Bekhal still fears for her life and when later asked about the killers, she said: “They don’t deserve to be on this Earth.”

Which is curious, since her testimony paints a rather nasty picture of the family life and the characters of the victim's father and uncle that is actually quite relevant to the story. But even that's more than the Sun, which doesn't even mention the sister's existence in either of the articles, 'Murdered for falling in love' and '"Honour killing" dad found guilty'.

*UPDATE* The god of leaving newspapers on bus seats has been kind to me today (13 June) and left a copy of today's Sun on the seat next to me this morning. It's where I first saw this, 'They can't have same life here' - an entire article devoted to thve testimony of Bekhal Mahmod, published a day after my original post.

The BBC has this, in 'Lover "heartbroken" over killing':

Banaz's older sister Bekhal, 22, said she paid the ultimate price of finding happiness with a man who did not meet with the approval of her Kurdish family.

"She just wanted to get out of it and live her life. That's all she wanted - she didn't want the world," said Bekhal.

Four years before her sister's death, Bekhal fled the family home in Mitcham, south-west London, after being beaten and threatened by her father for "bringing shame on his name" by adopting Western ways.

[...]

Bekhal said: "To do this to their own flesh and blood was unforgivable. Forgiveness isn't even a question. They don't deserve to be on this earth.

"How can somebody think that kind of thing and actually do it to your own flesh and blood? It's disgusting."

There's quite a bit of meat in that quote, so it's a bit odd that the Express only mentions it in passing - and the Sun not at all *See updated sections*. There's a clue as to why it might have been left out, in a picture also in the BBC report of Bekhal Mahmod:


Oh.

Even the Mail gives rather a lot of space to covering Bekhal's testimony, mentioning her wearing the veil and her reasons for it in 'The tragic story of Banaz Mahmod: she fell in love at 19, so her family killed her'.

There's also this, in the BBC report, which I snipped out:

Now living in fear of her own life, Bekhal refuses to reveal where she lives and never ventures outside without wearing a full veil, showing only her eyes.

So, there are other reasons for wearing a veil than just as a mark of separation. Who knew?

There's also this, from a set of notes on the trial:

The jury asked Bekhal why she was wearing a full veil. She composed a short statement to say that she was covered not from religious conviction but because she feared reprisals from her family and did not wish her current appearance to be seen.

And:

Today Bekhal Mahmod told a very different story. She arrived in court wearing a full-face veil which she was only happy to remove once she had been screened from the view of her father and uncle.

If the Express had its way, this woman's testimony would not have been possible without her showing her face to her sister's murderers. Given her distress, there's a possibility that she would have chosen not to testify rather than do that, and who knows how different the trial's outcome might have been?

Since the Express wants a full ban on veils everywhere, and railed against the decision to make it up to the judge to decide whether or not a defendant can wear a veil, it's safe to assume that the paper would even object to her being allowed to have a screen hiding her from the view of the defendants.

Here's the thing. It's impossible to make blanket statements about the reasons people do things like wear a veil. I have to admit the possibility of a woman wanting to wear a veil to hide herself from her father who had murdered her sister hadn't occurred to me when I first looked at the Express' rantings about banning veils in courts - but it perfectly illustrates why this sort of thing is impossible to make blanket judgements that are devoid of nuance about. A blanket ban would have almost certainly affected the process of this trial, and some quite damning testimony might have been lost.

That said, you'd have thought the idea of a woman wearing a veil to hide her face from her father - who murdered her sister in an honour killing - would be perfect ammunition for the Express to lay into Muslims with - but they curiously choose not to. This is, I think, because it wouldn't support the Express's line that veils=mark of separation=Bad Bad Thing in any and all circumstances, and we couldn't have that. Eliminating nuance is a priority for papers like the Express and the Sun. So something pretty darn relevant to the story gets nicely airbrushed from existence.

*UPDATE* I removed a couple of references to the Sun from the above paragraph, since the Sun now does have coverage in today's edition.

If I could quote my other half again, "that's not reporting the news, that's just propaganda."

Should the guilty go free *UPDATE*

If you haven't read my last post, read that one first. Go on.

Now, the Daily Express used to not bother including their editorials on their website, but they do now. Via Islamophobia Watch, we can also see the headline above.

Of course, the front page is another illustration of painting Muslims as 'not us'. Presumably, this means that Muslims' taxes pay for special Muslim courts that 'we' have to go to sometimes, which is why these courts are ours. Except it doesn't.

It's also an illustration of another common tabloid cheat. The infuritaing use of the word 'now'. It's not just like a pub drunk saying it as if everything else weren't bad enough, like, 'they used to just give away council houses to black people. Now they've only gone and started givin' 'em gold plated BMWs as well!' although it is like that too. And there's something about that word 'now' that sends a clear signal that what follows it is utter, utter shite.

The other thing it does is give the impression that something new is happening. But you know what? It isn't. Not really. The guidance says:

A number of judges have provided helpful accounts as to how they have dealt with such situations themselves, and to which we have had regard in formulating the following guidance.

See, the whole guidance is based on what the JSB considers good practice based on things that that have taken place in the past. Muslims always could wear veils in 'our' courts. There was never a rule saying they couldn't.

The editorial 'Disgraceful veil rule will fuel further anger' pushes the false impression further, by saying:

In this country we have always believed that justice must be seen to be done and that jurors should be able to see the reaction of defendants and witnesses to allegations that are put to them.

Equally, defendants should be able to gaze upon a jury of their peers summoned to decide upon their guilt or innocence. For the legal establishment to abandon these principles in the face of pressure from a tiny minority of extreme, politically motivated Muslims is a disgrace.

That's just utter nonsense. There is no principle that is being abandoned. Muslim women could always wear a veil if the judge thought it was appropriate, just as these guidelines reccommend. Remember, the original case that sparked this resulted from a reactionary judge telling a lawyer to remove her veil after she'd been wearing it in tribunals for years without any trouble. It's the Express that is calling for the abandonment of principles.

Nothing has changed. If you're an Express reader - now this might come as a shock to you, if nobody else - your paper isn't exactly telling you the truth.

I'll be referring to the Express as Der Sturmer from now on. Sod Godwin's Law. This is why:

On Monday the Treasury announced it will set up sharia-approved financial products especially for Muslims. Yesterday the legal establishment took the first step towards allowing British Muslims to regulate their interactions with the courts according to sharia law.

The British people will not put up with these crazy acts of cultural surrender for much longer.

A misdirection and exaggeration about a minority group followed by a call to arms that could incredibly easily be interpreted as an incitement to violence.

Where have wee seen that sort of thing before?

In answer to the editorial's headline: only if you're successful in making it happen, you bunch of fucking goons.

Should the guilty go free, or should we stop women wearing cloth in front of their face? You decide

Months ago, the tabloids decided to bully lawyer Shabnam Mughal for wearing a niqab in an immigration tribunal. Der Sturmer The Express was especially fascistic, including some particularly hateful bile in an eye-poppingly nazified editorial, and it's the Express that bothers to follow up on the final guidance issued on wearing niqabs in court by the Judicial Studies Board.

The guidance is pretty uncontroversial. It basically says it's up to the judge. If the judge thinks wearing a veil will cause problems, there are measures they can take, and exactly what they do is up to them. This includes asking to remove the veil. As we'd expect from the Express though, it doesn't get reported like that. Its coverage 'Muslims standing trial to hide their faces', the headline of which is a lie to start with, opens with:

MUSLIM women were yesterday given the full backing of the law to wear veils in court – even if they are standing trial for crimes.

Now, this will be a lengthy quote, but I think it's necessary to reproduce the full section on how niqab wearing women appearing as defendants or witnesses from the board's guidance to show exactly how false the Express's claim is. Here goes:

As a witness or defendant. For a witness or defendant, similarly, a sensitive request to remove a veil, with no sense of obligation or pressure, maybe appropriate, but careful thought must be given to such a request. The very fact of appearing in a court or tribunal will be quite traumatic for many, and additional pressure may well have an adverse impact on the quality of evidence given. Any request to remove a veil should be accompanied by an explanation by the judge of their concern that, where there are crucial issues of credit, the woman might be at a disadvantage if the judge or jury is not able to assess her demeanour or facial expressions when responding to questions. The witness or party may wish to discuss the matter with her legal representative or witness support worker.

It is worth emphasising that while it may be more difficult in some cases to assess the evidence of a woman wearing a niqab, the experiences of judges in other cases have shown that it is often possible to do so, depending on all the circumstances - hence the need to give careful thought to whether the veil presents a true obstacle to the judicial task. Can it be said, in the circumstances of the particular case, that the assessment will be different where the judge is able to see the witness’s face? In a criminal case, the position should be explained in the absence of the jury and the possibility considered of offering the use of permitted special measures, for example a TV link.

Where identification is an issue, then it must be dealt with appropriately, and may require the witness to make a choice between giving evidence in the case whilst showing her face, and not being able to be a witness.

Whilst not exact analogies, there are, of course, other circumstances in which a judge will take evidence without being able to see the face of the witness – for example, where evidence is taken on the phone, or where the judge is visually-impaired. [Emphasis (in bold) mine].

Did you see what the paper did there? It took the bits that probably mainly apply to witnesses from a section that talks about witnesses and defendants and pretended they applied just to defendants. What the report is basically saying is that if a defendant refuses to remove the veil, they forfeit their right to defend themselves. The paper also took something that was contingent on the decision of a judge and made it sound as though it was an absolute. But adding the words, 'unless a judge tells them to take it off,' would ruin the whole point of the article.

Back to Der Sturmer:

Senior judges ruled that religious dress – including the full niqab which leaves only the eyes exposed – should be allowed for anyone involved in a court case unless justice is threatened.

Just let that sink in for a minute. Now think about what that means the paper's stance is. That's right - women should not be allowed to wear a niqab in court even when it has no negative effect on the case or the outcome of the trial if they do.

In a nice illustration of yesterday's post "'This is outrageous', said Tarquin FitzTory", we have a quote to beef up the Express's position and false impression from a Tory MP. And wouldn't you just know it, it's from Philip Davies, of yesterday's post fame. Good old Phil. He says:

“People are entitled to see what is going on. All this pussy-footing around, judges have no comprehension of the damage there doing for community cohesion by coming out with this barmy stuff.

“I do not have a problem with someone wearing a veil where there is no issue. But if a judge tells someone to take off their veil, then they should take it off and we should not be kicking everyone else out.”

Here we have some clear proof that either Philip Davies hasn't read the report or hasn't understood it, because, "if a judge tells someone to take off their veil, then they should take it off" as he says, is pretty much a paraphrase of what the report says. You'd think that someone who has been stung giving weight to a lame tabloid story like Philip Davies would be wary of being caught out a second time. But that's only if you're gullible enough to believe he's more interested in giving a considered opinion on actual events than making a cheap political point in a crap newspaper.

There's then some nice obfuscation, with the paper reporting:

If the wearer of a veil is the defendant, the judge must “give careful thought to whether the veil presents a true obstacle to the judicial task”.

It reminds judges that should the veil be an issue when the defendant is giving evidence there are “special measures” available, including TV links or clearing the court of those not directly involved.

I don't see what the problem is with this advice, but that's because I've read the bit before that in the report, that says:

The very fact of appearing in a court or tribunal will be quite traumatic for many, and additional pressure may well have an adverse impact on the quality of evidence given.

You know, the section of the report that points out that forcing a witness or defendant to remove a veil might actually have a negative impact on the trial. It might actually be worse than allowing them to wear the veil or implement other measures. Does this mean that the Express cares more about forcing Muslims to dress how non-Muslims would prefer in court than ensuring a fair trial? Given that the paper doesn't think this sentence is important, I rather think it does.

Phillip Davies is backed up by none other than David Davies, also of yesterday's post fame. Not being shy of hyperbole and red-faced histrionics, he says:

“This is another nail in the coffin for this country.

“We have reached the point where we are bending over backwards to pander and forget the culture and laws that made this country what it is."

Now, Dave. Dave. Part of the culture and laws that make this country what it is is the freedom to practice any religion you like, and to express those beliefs in any way you see fit (as long as it doesn't cause practical problems). The principle of not forcing people to conform because, you know, they might not want to. His next sentence is great:

“The veil is not something that is part of the Muslim culture and is even banned in some Muslim countries.”

If you want to know what is and what isn't part of Muslim culture, don't listen to the arguments form Muslims on both sides, don't allow Muslims to decide for themselves. Have a non-Muslim Tory MP decide for them instead.

Because banning pieces of cloth is what matters. The question of whether or not innocent people get punished or guilty people get set free is piffling nonsense. The Express likes to think of itself as a paper tough on criminals - more concerned with banging up criminals than with their [spit] human rights. But it's prepared to sacrifice that principle to stop some people wearing a bit of cloth in front of their face.

Nice to know it has its priorities straight.*

*I might have employed a bit of tabloid style hyperbole in coming to this conclusion.

Magic cloth

The dogs in uniforms thing may have clouded my brain and made me jaded, but I'm finding the the whole propaganda explosion around this story a bit overwhelming at the moment.

There are plenty of places you can go for better coverage of it all than I can provide, but since this fits in with this blog's theme, I'd just like to ask why 'forced to wear the hijab'is on the list of horrific treatment at all, let alone above 'made to praise her Iranian kidnappers'.

Of all the things you could choose to say to condemn the Iranians, why would you choose that? Why would you choose to say she was forced?

And you'd think the evil baddies would force her to wear the thing properly. Her hair's showing.

Why would you presume someone had to be forced to wear a fucking scarf? Why would you assume it even needed resisting?

The Express has its own, characteristically wierd take. Naturally, it agrees that she's been forced - but in the Express, it's a Muslim scarf. What is a Muslim scarf? How can an inanimate object have a religion? Well, aside from my Wiccan screwdriver.

What kind of crazy science fiction dystopia has this country become if we have to assume people need to be forced to wear a scarf because it's from the wrong religion? I thought it was these arseholes that banged on about 'enlightenment values'.

Plus - what kind of crazy, dystopian world is it where the one of the worst examples of treatment of captives our press can come up with to attack Iran with is that they made someone wear a scarf, when our side's treatment of captives includes buggery with lightsticks, attacking with angry dogs and stabbing with knives and the people responsible get away scot-free?

*UPDATE* Beaten to the punch by Obsolete. As usual, his post is better.

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).

Funny looking whistle

Here's an image for you:

A man walks into a room and sees a whistle on a table. 'That's a funny looking
whistle,' he thinks, 'I wonder what it sounds like.' He picks up the whistle and
blows, but no sound comes out. 'Hello,' he thinks, 'that's wierd,' and calls
over his mate to have a look. His mate has a go on the whistle and neither can
make any sound come out. 'That's a funny whistle,' he says, 'lets go and let all
our friends have a go.'

Meanwhile, all the dogs in the neighbourhood are waiting in a pack outside the door.

Back when the tories used their 'Are you thinking what we're thinking?' campaign, they were rightly attacked for engaging in dog whistle politics. Say something innoccuous sounding on the face of it, but a certain section of the population hears something else.

Reading the Sun comments section about the new made up veil issue made me realise incredibly late that Tony Blair has done that himself this year. When he said that Muslims had a 'false sense of grievance', he may have thought he was doing so in the context of Iraq and Middle-East politics. But do you think that's what people like 'diamond-simon' thought? This is the guy responsible for the comment:

WITH THE POPPY APPEAL IN FULL SWING IT MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL TO THINK OF ALL THOSE BRAVE BRITS WHO GAVE THERE LIVES TO PROTECT THESE SHORES FROM FOREIGN INVADERS
AND NOW NOT ONLY HAVE THEY GOT HERE THERE TRYING TO TAKE THE P***, BY LAUGHING AT OUR TRADITIONS BY TRYING TO INSTALL THERE OWN AND JUST TRYING IT ON WITH EVERY LITTLE THING ONE INCH AT A TIME IF SOMEONE DOESNT PUT A STOP TO THESE LITTLE ITCHES NOW IT WILL BE A BIG SCRATCH BEFORE WE NO IT
AS FOR BATMANS WIFE PUT UP SHUT UP OR GET OUT

I think probably not. Anybody who regularly reads only the right wing press will have seen hundreds of stories about Muslims making unreasonable demands, most of them false.

Some are entirely invented. Like Natwest and Halifax banning piggy banks so as not to offend Muslims. Or hot cross buns being banned in Tower Hamlets schools so as not to offend Muslims (and others). Or Muslims hounding out our brave lads from their new house.

Still others are not invented from whole cloth, but Muslims are blamed for things that they're not responsible for. Like stopping people from flying England flags during the World Cup. Or banning German operas (although the opera was stopped for fear of protest by Muslims, there was never any actual threat that led this to happen). A police officer being excused from duties because of family connections becomes reported as a police officer being excused from duties because he is a Muslim. Melanie Phillips talks every other bloody week about how you can't criticsise Islam in her columns that criticsise Islam, saying ridiculous pantomime-villain nonsense about radical Islamists banning Christmas and pulling down churches.

Other things, like the Aisha Azmi case are framed in such a way that, again, Muslims are blamed for making unreasonable demands. The papers' focusing on the cost of the case have won in shifting the debate away from whether or not people should be allowed to wear what they like to focus on Muslims making expensive demands and taking taxpayers' money. So you get 'KWUK's' comment:

I was wondering if this case was funded by Legal Aid or not [...] My
thoughts today also went to the Muslim Police Officer who is sueing for
Racial and Religious Discrimination after being removed from Diplomatic Armed
Protection Duites

Stories about Christians making demands to wear Christian symbols are not treated in the same way. They're framed by saying, 'well Muslims can wear headscarves' - shifting the focus towards things Muslims are allowed to do, even when they're not relevant to the case.

Whenever these goons hear anything about Muslims, they're automatically going to link it in with everything else they've heard about Muslims. So when they hear the Prime Minister saying Muslims have a false sense of grievance, they probably don't think of Middle-East politics at all, they think of banning Christmas, deliberately initiating a situation where they can sue people, or banning red blooded patriots from flying their own flag in their own bloody country.

Now think back to the image I opened with:

A man walks into a room and sees a whistle on a table. 'Oy, Jack!' he
shouts, 'come and try out my new dog whislte!'

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.