UK Muslim lawyers win right to wear veil in court

[sonz]

Muslim female lawyers can wear the full-face veil, or Niqab, in the courtroom as long as it doesn’t prevent them from being heard, the head of a network of British immigration courts ruled on Thursday, according to the Jerusalem Post.

The ruling by Sir Henry Hodge, head of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, comes days after a veiled Muslim lawyer refused to remove her Niqab at the request of an immigration judge at a hearing in Stoke-in-Trent, central England.

Judge George Glossop had asked Muslim lawyer Shabnam Mughal, 27, to remove her veil during an immigration hearing last Monday, claiming that he couldn’t hear properly.

But Mughal, who had appeared at a number of hearings wearing the Niqab, refused to take off her veil, insisting that removing it is against her religious beliefs and that she had the right to wear it during the immigration hearing last Monday.

Judge Glossop then adjourned the hearing until next week and asked Sir Hodge, Britain’s most senior immigration judge, to issue a decision about how to resolve the courtroom stand-off.

On Thursday, Sir Hodge ruled that legal representatives should be allowed to wear the veil because "it is important to be sensitive in such cases".

“The representative in the recent case has appeared veiled previously at hearings without difficulties,” he said.

"The presumption is that if a representative before a tribunal wishes 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,” Sir Hodge added.

Sir Hodge’s ruling is only temporary until a full declaration from the Judicial Studies Board, which issues advice to judges on questions of race and faith equality.

Javid Hussain, the practice manager at Coventry Law Partnership - where Miss Mughal works – said after Thursday’s ruling: "It doesn't appear to be a permanent ruling. It looks like he has left it up to whichever judge is sitting on each case and has left the door open.”

"Mr. Justice Hodge seems to be saying that the tribunal chairman was within his rights to ask for the removal of the veil…In a way, we find that disappointing and would have preferred it to be clearer and more supportive of our employee.” Hussain added.

Mughal’s case fuels a fierce debate in Britain over the right of Muslim women to wear the full-face veil.

Last month, former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw described the Niqab as a "visible statement of separation", and said that he asks veiled women who visit his office to take off their veils.

Shortly afterwards, a Muslim teaching assistant in northern England lost a claim of discrimination and harassment against Kirklees Council, West Yorkshire, which said that she must remove her Niqab in the classroom.

Prime Minister Tony Blair eventually joined the debate by saying that the Niqab is a “mark of separation”, and that veiled women make others feel “uncomfortable”.

Trevor Phillips, the head of Britain's race relations watchdog, the Commission for Racial Equality, warned that the debate was growing ugly and could trigger riots.

He said Britons were becoming increasingly polarized along racial and religious lines, and risk fueling unrest if they don't discuss their differences respectfully.

[Bittersteel]

hmm..okay.However if the Brits find it difficult only the veil maybe asked to be removed.

[Pygoscelis]

Every now and then these veil issues come up. I say let people wear what they wish so long as it doesn't create practical (can they be heard?) or security (can they be identified?) problems.

[Sister Hoddan]

assalaamu 3alaikum.

"Judge George Glossop had asked Muslim lawyer Shabnam Mughal, 27, to remove her veil during an immigration hearing last Monday, claiming that he couldn’t hear properly."



Sub7anAllah, what a lame excuse. It is definately not hard to hear a woman in niqaab speak.

[Trumble]

The thread title is totally misleading.

They didn't "win the right" to wear the veil in Court, they had never been denied that right. What happened here is that the Judge asked her to remove it because he couldn't hear what she was saying (rather a drawback in Court). All this ruling has clarified is that it is permissable to ask the veil to be removed in those circumstances, but not for other reasons.

It's simply common sense. All those present in Court need to hear what the lawyers representing each side are saying. The Judge couldn't hear what Mughal was saying... there is no reason to believe that was an 'excuse' for another motive unless you are as prejudiced as you suggest the Judge was. This case doesn't imply the veil is always a problem, maybe she just has a quiet voice, maybe the Judge was a little deaf, some Courtrooms have better acoustics than others - who knows?

Think about it from the point of view of her client, who may well have been muslim themselves. Would you want to be represented at an immigration hearing by someone the Judge couldn't hear?!

[- Qatada -]

Then it's upto the judge to get a hearing aid she shouldn't have to remove her veil just because the judge has a problem.

[Trumble]

Then it's upto the judge to get a hearing aid she shouldn't have to remove her veil just because the judge has a problem.

So why should judge get an otherwise not-needed hearing aid just because she has a problem? We don't know that was the reason. Even if it was, you are being just as prejudiced as she claimed the Court was.

For those with hearing problems sometimes just "getting a hearing aid" isn't sufficient to restore hearing to 'normal' levels and quality - sometimes even 'loud' phrases may be unclear. Nobody would say that a partially blind person should just "get a pair of glasses" and expect them to have 20/20 vision. That doesn't stop people with hearing, or eyesight, problems doing their jobs, but sometimes others need to show a little consideration. Or is it OK to be prejudiced against the disabled as long as they are not muslim?

[- Qatada -]

Trumble, what i'm saying is that she shouldn't be blameworthy or reliable for what the judge is experiencing. Therefore if the judge has a hearing problem, then the ones who own the courtroom should do more to give the room better 'acoustics' instead of blaming the woman in the veil.


That's my point, i weren't trying to attack the judge at a personal level.



Peace.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Astaghfirullah, its not ok to be prejudice against anyone..

[Pygoscelis]

I'm not sure just how silencing a veil is. I've never worn one and I've never spoken to somebody wearing one. Just how much does it cut down or garble their voice?

Certainly she shouldn't be wearing it if its interfering with her being heard. She should either speak up, remove the veil, or find a new lawyer for her client. Seems mighty weird that she'd keep wanting to wear the veil if she knows she can't be heard with it on. She'd be knowingly screwing her client.

[lyesh]

Dont blame the niqaab! We all know it not that hard to hear a women in Niqaab talking!
Dont U hear people talking in the next room? Or the Vehicles Driving on the road? And there is a big barrier ...... A Wall! So how can a small piece of clothe just make her sound proof! Think common sense!

peace

[Pygoscelis]

Dont blame the niqaab! We all know it not that hard to hear a women in Niqaab talking!
Dont U hear people talking in the next room? Or the Vehicles Driving on the road? And there is a big barrier ...... A Wall! So how can a small piece of clothe just make her sound proof! Think common sense!

peace

Evidently she wasn't being heard. Maybe it wasn't the veil. Maybe she's just a mute? Either way she shouldn't be speaking for her client if she can't be heard.

[lyesh]

Evidently she wasn't being heard. Maybe it wasn't the veil. Maybe she's just a mute? Either way she shouldn't be speaking for her client if she can't be heard.

so..... whts the use of telling her to remove her veil????? i just cant understand why some ppl have a big problem with us being covered!

[Curious girl2]

Dont blame the niqaab! We all know it not that hard to hear a women in Niqaab talking!
Dont U hear people talking in the next room? Or the Vehicles Driving on the road? And there is a big barrier ...... A Wall! So how can a small piece of clothe just make her sound proof! Think common sense!

peace

You'd be surprised. It wont make her sound proof of course not, but it possibly would make her speech garbled and difficult to decifer, especially if the courtroom acoustics caused an echo effect (even if only a slight effect). The material of her Niqaab will also hinder the soundwaves coming from her mouth. Plenty of people with hearing loss can hear traffic outside when they are indoors but find speech hard to decifer. Its all to do with which frequencies their hearing is deficient in. I am hearing impaired, in my left ear I have about 60% hearing loss and in my right ear I have around 40% loss. I do not need a hearing aid, infact a hearing aid wouldnt benefit me at all as I have enough residual hearing to cope, a hearing aid would distort that. I can hear the traffic outside my home, my husband snoring in bed (so loud I need earplugs!), the children playing at school across the road from my home. However I have real problems hearing speech if there is background noise. If the person is turned away from me, or I cannot see their face i find it very hard to hear what they are saying as I do rely on lip reading to *boost* up my hearing. Many people have my type of hearing loss, its quite common. With many people not even realising that they would be considered hearing impaired.

Personally I agree with her decision to wear Niqaab, if thats what she wants, there is nothing wrong with that. I can see how she would feel more comfortable with it on, however in this case, with it being in an important court of law, where misunderstandings could affect the whole of a persons life, then I think it is best that the lady remove her Niqaab if it is possible that her speech could be misheard or unheard.

Peace
CG

[lyesh]

You'd be surprised. It wont make her sound proof of course not, but it possibly would make her speech garbled and difficult to decifer, especially if the courtroom acoustics caused an echo effect (even if only a slight effect). The material of her Niqaab will also hinder the soundwaves coming from her mouth. Plenty of people with hearing loss can hear traffic outside when they are indoors but find speech hard to decifer.

A courtroom is meant to have silence when one is talking! So I am sure that the speech would be heard very clearly. And the echo which ur talking about wud also be present there when the others talk. And for your information a niqaabi doesnt tightly wrap the clothe around her mouth for the speech to be garbled! The clothe is tied loosely under her eyes to the back of her head so that it is laid down easily. And if the people have hearing loss also, that is no reason for them to blame the niqaab! And may Allah help them in their difficulties. Ameen!

[Curious girl2]

A courtroom is meant to have silence when one is talking! So I am sure that the speech would be heard very clearly. And the echo which ur talking about wud also be present there when the others talk. And for your information a niqaabi doesnt tightly wrap the clothe around her mouth for the speech to be garbled! The clothe is tied loosely under her eyes to the back of her head so that it is laid down easily. And if the people have hearing loss also, that is no reason for them to blame the niqaab! And may Allah help them in their difficulties. Ameen!

I am well aware that the Niqaab isnt tied tightly around the mouth. I have worn one on a couple of occassions.....

However even though the Niqaab doesnt restrict mouth movements, it will restrict soundwaves somewhat. It will also prevent a person who has hearing loss from lipreading. I am sure that a hearing impaired person wouldnt blame the Niqaab for not being able to hear, how ridiculous would that be? But the Niqaab would prevent lipreading, there is no denying that. As to the courtroom acoustics, yes the Niqaab would make a difference, if you consider that soundwaves would be slightly impaired by it. That combined with echos, papers rustling, the stenographer tiptapping away, air conditioning/heating humming and many other quiet noises that a hearing person wouldnt even think twice about, would make things even more difficult for a hearing impaired person to understand the speech especially if they were prevented from lipreading.

This is just one of the few situations when wearing a Niqaab could be considered difficult. Others being passport photographs, in the classroom (the recent news item) etc. The rest of the time there is no problem at all.

Peace
CG

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

I guess you could consider the same during surgery? You still have noise there and they cover their mouth. And they cover it more tightly.

[Curious girl2]

I guess you could consider the same during surgery? You still have noise there and they cover their mouth. And they cover it more tightly.

Well personally I would be a little alarmed if I was the patient and was awake during surgery..................! Though obviously there are instances of surgery under local anaesthetic. The same difficulties would apply though for a hearing impaired person, but I would consider sugical masks to be essential to prevent chances of infection etc...

Peace
CG

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

I wasn't talking just about the patient. I also was referring to the people around helping with the surgery.

[Curious girl2]

I wasn't talking just about the patient. I also was referring to the people around helping with the surgery.

Yes it would be a problem for people working in the operating theatre, just as it would be for the patient, there is no getting away from that.

Peace CG