February 21, 200719 yr Girl loses court battle to wear veil in school Last updated at 13:38pm on 21st February 2007 The veil covers all of the face except the eyes (file photo) A 12-year-old Muslim girl today lost her High Court challenge to her school's ban on wearing the niqab full-face veil. Lawyers for the girl and her father had argued that the ban was "irrational" and a breach of her human rights. More here: • Warning of 'backlash' against school Ramadan demands • The veil is harming us, says Muslim peer • Schools accused of ignoring Muslim pupils' wishes • Veils thrown out of court But Mr Justice Silber rejected their plea for a judicial review. The girl's lawyers said after the judgment that she and her family were "bitterly disappointed" and were considering an appeal. The judge was told at a recent hearing that the girl's three elder sisters all attended the same school - two of them under the present headteacher - and all wore the niqab. The girl, referred to as X - she is protected by an anonymity order, as is her Buckinghamshire school - argued that the ban thwarted her "legitimate expectation" that she would be allowed to wear the niqab and breached her right to freedom of "thought, conscience and religion" under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The school told X last September, when she started wearing the niqab on reaching puberty, that it was not acceptable because teachers believed it would make communication and learning difficult. The veil covers all of the face except the eyes. About 120 of the school's 1,300-plus pupils are Muslims, and up to 60 of them wear the hijab headscarf. It is thought that X is the only pupil demanding the right to wear the full-face veil when being taught by male teachers or when in the presence of other male staff. The girl is currently receiving tuition at home and has been offered a place at a different, mixed school which permits the niqab, but she wants to go back to her original school. The school which contested the case won the backing of The Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford, which stresses that not all Muslims agree with the wearing of the niqab. The girl's solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said after the ruling: "This is a case about religious tolerance and the freedom to practice your religion as long as it does not interfere with others. "This freedom is enshrined within Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. My client and her family are not the extremists that they have been portrayed as by some elements of the press. "All she wants is to be able to practice her deeply held beliefs whilst getting on with her daily life. She is not impinging on the rights of others and has always been willing to meet with the school to reach a resolution." Commenting on today's ruling Shah Qureshi said: "My client and her family are deeply disappointed with the decision. "We believe there are a number of errors in the decision that have led to Mr Justice Silber reaching the wrong conclusions. "It is surprising that he decided that the school had not infringed my client's freedom to manifest her religion given the fact that she entered the school on the understanding that the wearing of the veil was allowed when being taught by male teachers." He added: "In various press reports, my client and her family have been portrayed as extremists. "However, many Muslim women hold the same views and conscience. Just like in any other religion, Islam has many orthodoxies, and for some the wearing of the veil is obligatory when in the presence of males." Mr Qureshi pointed out that the wearing of the niqab did not affect the education of the elder sisters. All three did well in their A-levels. One was now in medical research, the second training to be a doctor, and the third was at university. "The family are a great example of being very religious whilst at the same time being fully integrated into school life and society," he said. "Their activities at school included tutoring others in Maths, participating in schemes to assist autistic children, being nominated form representative, playing netball and entering drama competitions. They are certainly not the type of family that believe in separatism." The judge refused X permission to appeal, although her lawyers can still apply to the Court of Appeal for leave. The school was awarded costs against the girl's parents, who had privately funded her case. Mr Justice Silber urged the parents to reconsider the offer of the alternative school. Free transport to and from that school would be provided. If they continued to refuse the offer, X would face a further period away from school, he said. She had already been away for four and half months and this was causing her some distress. In his judgment, Mr Justice Silber stressed that he was dealing with the facts of a particular case and in no way seeking to resolve the wider issue of whether the niqab should be worn in the country's schools, or in any other arena. He held that the school's ban on the niqab was "proportionate" in the light of certain factors: • The veil prevented teachers from seeing a pupil's facial expressions - a key element in effective classroom interaction. • The necessity to enforce a school uniform policy under which girls of different faiths would have a sense of equality and identity within the ethos of the school. • School security - the headteacher had said that an unwelcome visitor could move incognito around the school wearing a niqab. • The need to avoid peer pressure on girls to take up wearing the veil.
February 22, 200719 yr I don't know why she insist to wear veil in school, the veil not from Islam. Those people helping to make Islam looks bad.
February 23, 200719 yr Author I don't know why she insist to wear veil in school, the veil not from Islam. Those people helping to make Islam looks bad. Definitely. The school which contested the case won the backing of The Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford But this will certainly help. I also believe the school was backed financially by a Muslim organisation so they could fight the case, which is great to hear. This was about school rules and nothing else. If a school has rules you should adhere to them or go elsewhere where the rules are to your liking. End of story.
Create an account or sign in to comment