Court ruling fires British debate on Muslim veils

LONDON Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:54pm EDT

LONDON (Reuters) - A British judge ruled on Monday that a Muslim woman could not give evidence at her trial wearing a full-face veil, sparking debate about whether Britain should follow other European countries and ban Islamic veils in schools and public places.

Senior politicians played down the likelihood of a ban after one minister said the coalition government should consider forbidding full-face veils, or niqabs, in schools, a measure that is gaining support from some members of parliament.

"My own view, very strongly held, is that we shouldn't end up like other countries issuing edicts or laws from parliament telling people what they should or should not wear," said Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, leader of the coalition's junior centrist party, the Liberal Democrats.

"This is a free country and people going about their own business should be free to wear what they wish."

The case comes as the government considers how to better integrate Britain's 2.7 million Muslims without restricting the right to freedom of religious expression.

The conundrum took on added significance after four British Islamists carried out deadly suicide bombings in London in 2005.

Prime Minister David Cameron has previously said state multiculturalism has failed, but Britain has steered clear of following the examples of France and Belgium, where it is illegal for women to wear full-face veils in public.

But in a significant ruling on Monday, a Muslim woman, who argued that removing her veil in court breached her human rights, was told she could not wear it when giving evidence.

"ELEPHANT IN THE COURTROOM"

"The niqab has become the elephant in the courtroom," said Judge Peter Murphy, who also made the compromise that she could wear her veil at all other times during a trial later this year over accusations she had intimidated a witness in another case.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons and who only started wearing a niqab in May 2012, had argued it was against her beliefs to uncover her face in front of men who were not members of her close family.

But Murphy said it would "drive a coach and horses through the way in which justice has been administered in the courts of England and Wales for centuries" if jurors could not observe her reactions.

"No tradition or practice, whether religious or otherwise, can claim to occupy such a privileged position that the rule of law, open justice and the adversarial trial process are sacrificed to accommodate it," he said.

"That is not a discrimination against religion. It is a matter of upholding the rule of law in a democratic society."

Murphy, whose ruling will serve as a precedent, said he hoped parliament or a higher court would provide a definitive verdict "sooner rather than later", while the woman's lawyer said it was too early to say whether she would appeal.

There have been growing calls from some British lawmakers for a ban on veils in schools.

Last week, Birmingham Metropolitan College, a higher education institution in central England, said it would ban staff and students wearing veils, but days later reversed the decision after criticism and protests.

Home Office (interior ministry) minister Jeremy Browne said the government should contemplate a ban to protect some young Muslims who he said might be compelled to wear a veil.

"I think this is a good topic for national debate," Browne, a Liberal Democrat, told the Daily Telegraph newspaper.

However, women wearing headscarves and veils on the streets of east London, home to a large Muslim community, said the government should not get involved in religious matters.

"It didn't get in the way of my education at all. People's mindset needs to change. I don't see why I should have to change, I can't accept that," said student Nasreen Jabber, 19.

Sarah Daniela, 29, self-employed sales trader and a recent convert to Islam, said it was her choice to wear a veil.

"It's 2013, we want to go forward, not backwards. To ban it (the niqab) is very stupid, there's no reason," said Daniela, who was wearing a headscarf.

(Additional reporting by Luisa Porritt; editing by Mike Collett-White)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
euro-yank wrote:
I believe the UK court ruling is very fair. While religious freedom and freedom of expression are important to society at large, I agree that being able to confirm the identity of the individual giving a statement in court is more important.

Sep 18, 2013 1:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
paintcan wrote:
In some Islamic countries she might not even have the right to appear by herself in court at all.

This seems like a minor controversy and one that should disappear considering that a Muslim cannot practice plural marriage in the western countries. The law is able to decide that easily enough and the question of obstructing religious beliefs isn’t raised.

In the Canadian series “Little Mosque” the Doctor always wore a scarf to cover her hair but allowed her face to show. I remember women in Catholic Churches decades ago who still wore veils and scarfs in Mass to cover their face or hair. But people used to be so much more formal in the old days.

Sep 21, 2013 8:32am EDT  --  Report as abuse
CountryPride wrote:
Ban the veil? No, ban Islam completely from all Western society. There is not one good positive thing Islam has brought to any country it has entered, not one! All it brings is hate, death, and destruction. But I guess that is what the corrupt government needs in order to collapse their countries to gain complete control and form dictatorships.

Sep 21, 2013 12:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.