Western Resistance

« UK: Muslims Guilty Of Kriss Donald's Murder | | Sowell: Where Is the West? »

November 8, 2006

UK: Muslim Lawyer In Veil Defies Judge

News from the Telegraph, the Sun, the Express and IC Hounslow report that an immigration tribunal case has been delayed because a Muslim lawyer has refused to remove her veil.

On Monday, judge George Glossop was presiding at a hearing at Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, and found that he had difficulty hearing the words of legal exucutive Shabnam Mughal, who was clad entirely in black with only her eyes visible.

Glossop said to Mughal: "I am not very happy that you are appearing in a veil. Would you kindly remove it to assist with communications? It will allow me to see your face and I cannot hear you as well as I would like."

Mughal (pictured) replied: "Sir, we have been through this issue." She left the hearing shortly after, saying: "Sir, I am taking my leave.' Judge Glossop adjourned the case. When the tribunal reconvened later in the day, he again asked her to remove the veil, and again she refused. The judge asked: "Do you wish to carry on?" and Mughal replied: "No, I just want to listen to what is being said."

The judge informed her: "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?"

Mughal replied: "You are clearly aware of my position on the grounds of my religious beliefs. I won't."

As a result, the judge has adjourned the case until next Monday.

The judge is now consulting with Mr Justice Hodge, president of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal about the issue. For his part, Justice Hodge is expected to consult with the Lord Chief Justice before issuing guidance.

Joshua Rosenburg in the Telegraph notes that head coverings are not forbidden in court - Rabinder Singh QC, a Sikh, wears a white turban in court, and Shaheed Fatima, a young barrister, wears a hijab (Muslim headscarf) in court.

The case which has been adjourned because of Mughal's intransigence concerns an appeal by a Sikh businessman, Jagde Singh, against a decision by the Home Office to deny his nephew entry to Britain.

Mughal works for a law firm, The Law Partnership Solicitors, in Coventry. Her boss, Javed Hussain, has said Mughal has worn the veil at other tribunals around the country, for the past two years. She was the only employee of the law firm to wear the veil. He noted: "She is working as normal and is back in court next week. As things stand at the moment, she will be dressed as she always has been. It is a personal thing at the end of the day."

The Tory MP for Monmouth, David Davies, said: "You have to stick to the rules of the country you are in. The veil is alien to this country and it is certainly a nonsense to think it is appropriate in the context of a courtroom. I would urge the judge's ruling to come down in favour of common sense. A lawyer must surely have to show her face and be able to speak clearly in court."

Another Conservative MP, Philip Davies, representative for Shipley, said that her defiance of the judge was "outrageous", adding: "She should have been charged with contempt of court."

The decision by Mr Justice Hodge, husband of Labour minister Margaret Hodge, will set the conditions for all future immigration hearings, and most likely other cases.

A spokeswoman from the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) said: "The matter has been referred to the AIT President for a decision to be made as to how to proceed. We haven't come across this before, no precedent has been set."

Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at November 8, 2006 12:06 PM

Comments

Posted by: Celsius at November 8, 2006 3:10 PM

Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at November 9, 2006 3:57 PM

Posted by: gordon at March 12, 2008 9:50 AM

Post a comment