|
|
||
| FIFA defends hijab ban after Iranian team forfeits match CNN "Despite initial assurances that the Iranian delegation understood this, the players came out wearing the hijab, and the head and neck totally covered, … |
||
| Iran: FIFA’s headscarf ban ‘dictatorial,’ ‘inhumane’ SportingNews.com Zadeh called FIFA’s ban "extremism," similar to Afghanistan’s Taliban restrictions on women in sports. FIFA banned the hijab in 2007 and has extended the … |
|
|
||
| Muslim Women Athletes Banned From Tournaments Get Creative With Hijabs ABC News A FIFA official said that the headscarves violated their rules for dress and … As an athletic Muslim who chooses not to wear a hijab in her daily life, … |
by Libby Zay (RSS feed) on Jun 22nd 2011 at 3:30PM
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is calling on Air France for a formal apology after a Muslim passenger service agent at Washington Dulles International Airport allegedly fell victim to the fashion police and was told she could not wear her head scarf because of an Air France dress code.
After refusing to disregard her religions beliefs and practices by taking off her hijab, a head covering that hides hair and drapes over the neck, the woman was sent home. France enacted a controversial “burqua ban” in April that affected up two 2,000 women who wore head-to-toe veils in public.
“It is clear that a discriminatory dress code implemented in France would not superseded American laws protecting the religious rights of employees. Air France must follow American law and grant reasonable religious accommodations for its employees,” wrote CAIR Staff Attorney Gadeir Abbas in a letter to Patrick Roux, vice president and general manager of Air France, U.S. Operations.
Abbas maintains this case is symptomatic of the rise in anti-Muslim sentiment in American society, and points to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion.
It is unclear how long the woman worked for Air France before the incident took place.
Muslim’s scarf leads to arrest at courthouse
A Douglasville, Ga. woman was jailed Tuesday after a judge found her in contempt of court for refusing to remove her hijab, the head covering worn by Muslim women.
Lisa Valentine, also known by her Islamic name, Miedah, 40, was arrested at the Douglasville Municipal Court for violating a court policy of no headgear, said Chris Womack, deputy chief of operations for the Douglasville police.
Judge Keith Rollins ordered her held in jail for 10 days, but she was released Tuesday evening. The reason for the early release wasn’t immediately clear.
“It was very humiliating, degrading,” Valentine said from her home Tuesday evening. “I wear my hijab faithfully and for no reason I was asked to take it off. It was unreal.”
Other Muslim women said the same judge has ordered them to remove their hijabs.
Sabreen Abdul Rahman, 55, said she was asked to take off her scarf when she went to the municipal court last week with her son. “I can’t. I’m Muslim,” she mouthed silently to the bailiff, who then removed her from the courtroom, Rahman said.
“This is a religious right,” she said
Halimah Abdullah, 43, said she spent 24 hours in jail in November 2007 after Rollins held her in contempt of court for refusing to remove her head covering. Rollins could not be reached for comment.
Many Muslim women cover their heads to comply with Islamic mandates of modesty. The practice has run afoul of policies aimed at maintaining decorum and security in courtrooms and other public places across the country.
Valentine said she was accompanying her 19-year-old nephew to address a citation Tuesday morning when she was stopped at the metal detector and told she would not be allowed to enter the courtroom with a head scarf.
Valentine, an insurance underwriter, told the bailiff that she had been in courtrooms before with a scarf on and that removing it would be a religious violation.
Frustrated, she turned to leave and uttered an expletive. She said the bailiff then told her she could take the matter up in front of the judge. She said she was handcuffed and taken into Rollins’ courtroom.
“They were putting me in there like I was some sort of criminal,” she said.
The judge ordered her to serve 10 days in jail, where she was forced to remove her headscarf.
It was not clear whether Valentine’s language contributed to her arrest.
“I can’t believe someone would do this in America,” said Valentine’s husband, Omar Hall.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, an advocacy group in Washington, denounced Valentine’s arrest as a violation of civil liberties.
Spokesman Ibrahim Hooper called it “troubling.”
“When somebody is denied access to our judicial system based on religiously mandated attire, then what does that say? No Muslim woman can have access to a courtroom in Douglasville, Georgia?” Hooper said.
“A judge does have the right to set decorum in a courtroom, but you can’t use those standards to violate someone’s legal rights.”
Last year, CAIR officials met with city and court officials in Valdosta to discuss religious attire in courtrooms after Aniisa Karim, a 20-year-old Muslim woman, was barred from entering a courtroom to settle a traffic ticket because of her hijab.
Hooper said he contacted the U.S. attorney general’s office regarding the latest incident. He said Eric Treene, special counsel for religious discrimination, said his office would look into it.
In a letter sent today to Attorney General Baker, CAIR National Legal Counsel Nadhira F. Al-Khalili wrote in part:
“We assert that Judge Rollins’ actions violate the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct…It is also our contention that a courtroom is a ‘public facility’ under Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and denial of access to the courtroom based on religious beliefs or practices is therefore discriminatory.
“In addition, we believe Judge Rollins’ actions are in violation of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of religion and equal protection under the law. The United States Supreme Court has held that a state may not infringe upon the free exercise of a citizen’s religious observance absent a compelling state interest.We believe that no such compelling interest exists in these cases.
“Judge Rollins’ policy of exclusion would prohibit court entry to all Sikh men wearing turbans, all orthodox Jewish men and women wearing yarmulkes or head scarves, all Christian women wearing religious head coverings, and all Muslim men and women who wear skullcaps or scarves…
“I would therefore respectfully request that you take appropriate action to ensure that the legal, religious and civil rights of Georgians of all faiths be maintained. I would also request a formal investigation into this matter, sanctions where appropriate, and an assurance that all those wearing religious attire be allowed in state courtrooms.”
A copy of the letter was sent to the Judicial District Professionalism Program of the State Bar of Georgia.
CAIR also contacted the U.S. Department of Justice, which now says it is looking into the case.
CAIR, America’s largest Islamic civil liberties group, has 35 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.
03
Feb
09
The Take: On niqab and the law
Like the hijab , its more liberal cousin, the niqab arouses controversy at every turn in modern democratic states – especially when it jars cherished institutions such as Parliament, the courts, or schools.
In Toronto, in a case currently before the courts, a judge has ordered a woman testifying in a sexual assault case to do so without her niqab.
She protested, saying it was an issue of modesty and comfort – of Islam.
But Ontario Court Justice Norris Weisman ruled that it was more an issue of comfort than religious freedom, and that she must show her face.
THE REALIST
Saira Zuberi
Toronto-based minority rights activist
“This is one of those contentious things, because most people don’t actually believe it’s a requirement and there are those who actually believe that they have to do it.
“It’s like the case in the election (with voters having to unveil).
“It really ends up being a little bit of a tempest in a teacup. You’ve got this tiny percentage of people that it applies to; it’s minuscule. You’re talking about Muslim women voters who happen to also wear niqab who would actually refuse to identify themselves. This tiny percentage.
“And they’re not actually contravening the law, because there are thousands of people who vote by mail, who are not required to show ID.
“It just ends up being a lightning rod for those people who get angry because, `Oh, we’re making too many concessions for all these people …’ You know?
“I don’t think it’s a huge number of people who are asking for this.”
THE PRAGMATIST
Shahina Siddiqui
President of the Islamic Social Services Association
“There’s a law of necessity in Islam, where you can relax what your understanding of the requirements are.” If there are reasons of security or law, exceptions can be made, “and that’s why they (unveil) for driver’s licence, for passports and for crossing borders.”
“I’ve travelled with women who wear niqab and at airports they do remove it. And some will say, `Oh, can I do it in front of a woman attendant?’ And some don’t bother with that either … It can be done, even in Muslim countries. When they’re required to, they do it.”
Since the case on trial was a sexual assault, “For her, it’s her security blanket … I would say the judge should take that into account. And I don’t know if she’s an immigrant or a new refugee … As a social worker I always try to look at all the variables.
“I mean, it is a religious obligation, but in this case it’s also an added question of how secure she feels. But generally speaking, exceptions can be made. The issue is, is this that case?”
THE ETHICIST
Alia Hogben
Executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women”It is not a religious requirement to cover your face. That’s put very simply. Some women do this because they think it’s more modest.
“It’s about modesty for both women and men – don’t flaunt yourself, dress modestly, etc.
“But the emphasis seems to have shifted, to focus on women rather than men. And a lot of women are interpreting it, or are having it interpreted for them, that modesty means covering yourself. That’s a personal choice a Muslim woman makes. It is not a religious directive.
“The judge sounds like he carefully considered it all and felt that it was important that her face be seen in court.
“When there’s been some sensitivity … they have done (testimony) in other rooms, particularly for children, instead of having to face the whole court….
“If this woman is frightened … then that’s another question … And that should be addressed, absolutely. But covering her face in an open court is not necessary.”
OTHER CASES
In the U.K., one magistrate stormed out of a Manchester court when faced with a veiled defendant and another judge adjourned because he said he could not hear a veiled Muslim lawyer’s muffled voice.
Soon after, in 2007, a judges’ advisory panel said judges should use discretion, and could choose other options – such as a live link or clearing the public gallery – instead of forcing a woman to unveil.
In Canada, without any veiled Muslim woman contesting election regulations, the niqab became an issue in 2007 among politicians, election officials and the media.
It surfaced again briefly in the election of 2008, when Canada’s chief electoral officer said a veiled voter would have to swear a special oath if she didn’t remove her veil.
take off niqab
A judge has ordered a Toronto woman to testify without her niqab at a sexual assault trial – raising the thorny issue of whether Muslim women should be allowed to appear as witnesses wearing a veil that covers everything but the eyes.
The issue is a collision of two rights, pitting religious freedom against the right of a defendant to face an accuser in open court.
The case could be precedent setting because it doesn’t appear there is any Canadian case law addressing the question of Muslim women in the courtroom. In Canada, home to about 580,000 Muslims, the case will be closely watched, amid fears about Muslim women coming forward in criminal cases.
In October, Ontario Court Justice Norris Weisman reached his “admittedly difficult decision” to force the complainant to testify with her face bared after finding her “religious belief is not that strong … and that it is, as she says, a matter of comfort,” he wrote in his ruling.
Lawyer David Butt is representing the woman and next month in Superior Court will argue that the Oct. 16 ruling should be overturned.
“For complainants in sexual assault cases, courtroom testimony is extremely difficult and often traumatic,” he said last week. “During such times of great anxiety the courts should respect religious rights and practices that bring comfort and sustenance, particularly when they do not undermine the fairness of the proceedings.”
When the complainant indicated last fall she wanted to wear her veil while testifying at the preliminary hearing, defence counsel told the judge that assessing her demeanour was of “critical importance” when tailoring questioning.
Weisman asked the woman to explain her objections.
“It’s a respect issue, one of modesty and one of … in Islam, we call honour,” she replied. “It’s also about the religious reason is to not show your face to men that you are able to marry. … I would feel a lot more comfortable if I didn’t have to, you know, reveal my face.”
The woman also said only her family sees her without the veil.
Butt, who was granted standing at the hearing last fall, argued the judge must consider the Charter which protects religious freedom when making his decision. Butt argued the accused can hear her voice and inflection, see the expression in her eyes and body language.
In his judgment, Weisman wrote “at the 11th hour we learned … she has a driver’s licence with her unveiled facial impression upon it.” She told court she took comfort the picture was taken by a female and there was a screen between her and potential male onlookers.But Weisman wrote the “driver’s licence can be required to be produced by all sorts of males,” such as police officers and border guards.
“In investigating just how important a belief this was, it came down to her candid admissions that it was a matter of her being `more comfortable’ and to me that really is not strong enough to fetter the accused’s rights to make full answer and defence,” the judge added.
Thanks to a publication ban and the nature of the charges, the names of the complainant and the two accused cannot be published.
Debate about Muslim women and head coverings has surfaced in recent years over girls wearing the hijab to play sports and whether voters must show their faces.
While Justice Weisman was asked to rule at the outset of the preliminary hearing, which is now on hold, the matter was put over and arguments in Superior Court are now scheduled for March 2. Defence lawyer Hilary Dudding will appear on behalf of one of the accused men. She declined to comment.
A relative of the woman said it’s distressing the judge has exceeded his “jurisdiction and ventured into the interpretation of religious laws concerning the veil, not to mention the fact that … (she) has observed the veil for many years in accordance with her” beliefs.
“This is primarily an issue of protection the court offers to victims of sexual assault – especially those from minority communities, who experience the added stigma of bringing these deeply personal issues into open court.
Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, said, in court “the laws of the country should be acceptable,” and although it is important that “sensitivity be shown … showing the face is acceptable.”
In the United Kingdom, a panel of judges drafted guidelines in 2007 that said Muslim women should be permitted to wear the niqab, as long as it does not interfere with the administration of justice, according to the Equal Treatment Advisory Committee of Britain’s Judicial Studies Board. “Such decisions, however, should be made on a case-by-case basis,” the committee said.
Forcing a woman to choose between taking part in a court case or removing her veil could affect her sense of dignity, exclude and marginalize her, the guidelines said.
Muslim Denied Service at Bank over Hijab
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 2/2/2009) – A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today called on the U.S. Department of Justice to determine whether a California bank violated a Muslim woman’s civil rights when it denied her service because she was wearing a religiously-mandated head scarf, or hijab.
According to the woman, she was denied service Saturday at a Navy Federal Credit Union in San Diego, Calif., despite telling bank officials that she wears her head scarf for religious reasons.
In a statement, the bank said:
“’In the interest of Security and Safety for our members and employees – hats, hoods and sunglasses must be removed when entering the branch office.’ Special consideration for cultural and religious garments is under the discretion of the branch management. Navy Federal is making inquiries into the recent incident.”
“Under this bizarre and discriminatory policy, no Muslim woman wearing a head scarf, no Sikh man wearing a turban, no Jewish man wearing a yarmulke, no Catholic nun wearing a habit, no cancer survivor wearing a scarf, no Amish woman wearing a bonnet, and no blind person wearing sunglasses may enter a Navy Federal Credit Union branch nationwide,” said CAIR-San Diego Public Relations Director Edgar Hopida. “We call on the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate this disturbing case and Navy Federal’s apparently unconstitutional policy and to ensure that the religious rights of all customers are maintained.”
Hopida said CAIR offers a booklet called “An Employer’s Guide to Islamic Religious Practices” to help corporate managers gain a better understanding of Islam and Muslims.
CAIR, America’s largest Islamic civil liberties and advocacy group has 35 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.
29
Jan
09
probes lives of Muslim women
probes lives of Muslim women
“I will be the Muslim,” she deadpans, aware that her hijab and long dark skirt make her stand out
She’s okay with that.
It’s the assumptions made about her because of the thin piece of material covering her head that are an issue, and something she hopes a symposium Thursday at 6 p.m. at the University of Toronto will help remedy.
“The first thing people see is my hijab,” says Osman, a third-year public health student at U of T.
“I have people coming up to me asking if my father makes me wear the hijab, or my brother does. Or they assume I don’t speak English.”
Osman, who grew up in Toronto, says tonight’s event is meant to dispel assumptions and help non-Muslims understand why some women choose to wear the hijab.
It’s an expression of faith, she says, adding no one forces her to wear it. It’s a choice she makes every morning as she prepares to leave the house.
The fact that it is not part of the wider Toronto culture to wear the hijab only makes it a much more personal decision, she says. When every woman wears the hijab, as is the case in many Muslim countries, Osman says there is little debate about whether to go along.
But in Western society, the hijab is not the norm, so wearing one has less to do with conformity and more to do with expressing one’s faith.
Tonight’s event is part of Islam Awareness Month at the university, organized by the Muslim Students’ Association. The symposium – Women Living Islam: a Glimpse into the Lives of Muslim Women – runs from 6 to 9 p.m. at the Leslie Dan Pharmacy building at 144 College St.
It will feature talks by three women with unique perspectives on wearing traditional Muslim attire in Canada.
Calla Evans will talk about a documentary she made by following the lives of five Muslim women.
Sandra Noe, a recent convert to Islam, will discuss how friends and co-workers reacted to the change.
And Heba al-Shareet will describe what it was like to grow up as part of Winnipeg’s small Muslim community.
In a feature dubbed Rent-a- Muslim, non-Muslims can be paired with a Muslim student who can answer their questions.
There will be a public question and answer period, Osman says, but Rent-a-Muslim recognizes that people might be shy about asking questions, for fear of appearing ignorant or rude. In that case, they can ask their questions in private, without fear of others hearing.
“The idea is that they will learn something, and take it back to their friends and family,” says Osman. “With knowledge comes understanding.”
Islamic Schools in the Spotlight
Islamic schools are coming under increased official scrutiny since the harsh response to a religious disturbance in southern Kyrgyzstan last autumn. The authorities say madrasas flout the law, while some Islamic educators charge that public schools are not meeting the growing demand for religious education.
On 28 November, the Osh regional court sent 32 people to jail for up to 20 years for crimes connected with a riot in Nookat, a town in Osh Province. On 1 October a crowd that authorities said numbered more than 1,000 attacked the state administration building after the local authorities turned down residents’ request to celebrate the Orozo-Ait Islamic holiday on the main square. Furious protestors broke windows and beat police officers.
Following the disturbance in Nookat, the authorities stepped up checks on madrasas and ordered the municipal education department to compile a list of children not attending public schools. Inspectors said they found bad conditions, poor teaching standards, and improper curricula in some madrasas.
Within a week after the rioters were sentenced, four madrasas in Osh Province said they were temporarily closing their doors. A month later, they remain closed.
A Fair Trial?
The 32 defendants were convicted of various offenses including infringement on the constitutional system, involving minors in the riots, and affiliation with Hizb ut-Tahrir, a religious-political movement banned in Kyrgyzstan. One of the defendants was a 16-year-old boy sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. Appeals filed by the defendants are expected to be heard by mid-January.
Rights activists questioned the length of the sentences and the trial’s fairness.
“We do not agree with the verdicts,” said Sadykjan Makhmudov, a lawyer who heads the human-rights pressure group Luch Solomona. “We are going to appeal to the Kyrgyz president, because not all those convicted are really guilty and because the punishment was much too severe and unacceptable.”
20
Jan
09
Burqa ban call row continues
Burqa ban call row continues
IT wasn’t a Muslim woman with just her eyes showing through her burqa who last month robbed the small community bank two blocks from us.
In fact, I haven’t yet heard of a single bank anywhere in this country that’s yet been stuck up by a Muslim woman who walked in hiding a pistol beneath her veil.
Have you?
But somehow a Queensland retail lobby group has developed such a fear of pistol-packin’ Muslim mommas that it’s now demanding a ban on full-face burqas, as well as hoodies, in banks and shops.
And even more surprising was that almost 9000 of the 10,000 responses to the Herald Sun’s online and telephone poll backed the burqa ban.
Has there been an epidemic of hold-ups by women in burqas that everyone but me has noticed?
Or are people just seizing on any excuse to ban a kind of clothing they don’t like for other reasons entirely?
OK, the full-blown burqa can be confronting for many people for all sorts of reasons.
I certainly don’t like them and am glad I’ve only seen a few on the streets of Melbourne.
Most Muslim women here wear the simple hijab, a head scarf and loose clothing but with their face in full view.
I hardly even notice a woman in a hijab head scarf any more, but the sight of a woman covering her whole body and face in a burqa still makes me shudder.
Yes, I know it’s supposed to be the women’s choice and it’s seen as an act of worship and all that.
But I just can’t see it as anything other than oppressive.
Can people seriously think women’s bodies are so powerful that they have to be shielded from weak-minded men?
And that not even their eyes can be seen?
The sight of a burqa also conjures up everything else I dislike about the more archaic aspects of the Muslim religion, like honour killings, genital mutilation and girls’ schools being closed, as they have been again this month in Pakistan.
The sight of a woman in a burqa takes me straight back inside the pages of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s wonderful autobiography Infidel, where women were the lowest form of life with no rights at all.
Still, I want to live in a society where people can be free to wear what they want and where people’s different religious beliefs are respected.
And if that means I have to put up with the sight of the occasional burqa, then that’s a small price to pay.
It’s a hard thing to stomach but I actually agree for once with acquitted terror suspect Jack Thomas, who said forcing Muslim women to remove at least the veil of their burqas in shops would be discriminatory and unfair.
Although I do understand why retailers want to see their customers walk in with faces uncovered
Even now, the tellers of our local bank sure are jumpy.
As you walk in, all the staff, including the boss sitting way at the back, looks up sharply to check whether they’ve got business or trouble.
Of course, once they see it’s just me they relax.
But if I were draped head to foot in metres of black cotton, with just my eyes on show, I’d forgive them for nervously wondering what I might be hiding.
It’s such a shame what some stuff-you thug with a gun has done to the trust we like to show each other.
And even more shameful is that such thugs are now making us distrustful of even the guiltless.
But can’t we wait until armed robbers start dressing in burqas before we decide to ban them?
Until then, we’re all freaking out about a danger that exists purely in our imagination.
Recent Comments