Well done Cherie Booth QC

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 02 March 2005 19:26.

It can’t be often that the Prime Minister’s wife, otherwise known as Miss Cherie Booth QC, takes a hand in defending our culture. But she did just that today before the civil division of the Court of Appeal. She won the right for 16-year old Shabina Begum to wear the Jilbab - traditional head-to-toe Muslim dress - to school.

Although important legal and social implications attach to this case it is, in itself, a minor matter. Miss Begum was excluded from Denbigh High School, Luton, Bedfordshire last year when she informed assistant head-teacher Stuart Moore that thenceforward she would no longer wear the shalwar kameez - trousers and a tunic consistent with school uniform - but would swathe herself in the Jilbab. She found another school where she could do so. But by means of legal aid – government largesse with our confiscated income – she also launched a lengthy and, no doubt, grossly expensive Human Rights action against the governors and head of her former school.

Inevitably, the school was ordered by the Appeal judges to pay costs to the legal aid authoritity. State school budgets are not elastic. Most probably, the lawyers will profit at the expense of sacked teachers. The real losers will be Shabina’s former schoolmates.

In a statement after the hearing the school said the case had been lost on a technicality. It remained, it said, proud of its multiracial policy.

Miss Begum, however, was not magnanimous in victory.

“Today’s decision,” she said, “is a victory for all Muslims who wish to preserve their identity and values despite prejudice and bigotry. The decision of Denbigh High School to prevent my adherence to my religion cannot unfortunately be viewed as merely a local decision taken in isolation. Rather it was a consequence of an atmosphere that has been created in Western societies post 9/11, an atmosphere in which Islam has been made a target for vilification in the name of the ‘war on terror’.”

So she saw it as the West and Western bigotry and prejudice against Islam. Muslim “leaders”, however, have reacted with a bit more caution and political nouse.

Dr Nazreen Nawaz, women’s representative of
Hizb ut-Tahrir (which seeks to explain Islamic beliefs to you and me) said, “Shabina’s case is a great source of motivation for Muslims living in the West to maintain their Islamic values regardless of the obstacles.”

The Muslim Council of Britain was somewhat more emollient, welcoming Shabina’s victory as “a very important ruling on the issue of personal freedoms … those that believe and choose to wear the jilbab and consider it to be part of their faith requirement for modest attire should be respected. Today’s judgement is a clear reflection of that common-sense approach.”

Word from the (once markedly Irish) streets of Luton can be heard here. But a spokesman for the Luton Council of Mosques, Dr Yasin Rehman, demonstrated that the words “moderate” and “Muslim” do, in fact, function next to one another.

“The school,” he said, “has a uniform policy which is very satisfactory ... it serves the needs of all pupils, not just Muslims. There is no prescribed Islamic dress code. People of Islam, like other religions, say that you should dress modestly. This will create a lot of complications. Where is the end to this?”

The end to all this, it seems to me, lies precisely in those complications Dr Rehman is worrying about. They are the ineluctable consequences of difference. The more of them the better it will be for all those prejudiced and bigoted English people who want nothing more than to live in peace in their own country, as did their forefathers before the rise of the Multi-Cult. Our interests run in the same direction as Miss Begum’s, not Dr Rehman’s. A mere matter of dress though it is, this judgement of the Court of Appeal is something we can welcome.

Tags: Law

Comments:

Posted by Phil Peterson on Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:59 | #

GW:

What if someone sent his kid to school wearing a Swastika arm band? Would he be allowed to wear it? Probably not, I guess.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Mar 2005 23:13 | #

Not unless it was an expression of his religious beliefs. I suppose the kerfuffle over the Confederate flag in American schools and colleges answers to the issue you are raising. The majority is not permitted its own expressions. It must dissolve its unique identity in the interests of the Multi-Cult, since that identity is all minority-repressive “prejudice and bigotry”.

Posted by sumarah on Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:37 | #

Why is it that there’s a focus on muslims ever since the 9/11, i mean down here everything is multicultural and britain is all about multicultural communities.
other people frm other cultures are apart if out culture because our culture involves everyone, if a person want’s to wear a religous outfit which is apart of her religon then why not, but yeh the school asisstant in luton should that person be sacked for following her religon?

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 20 Oct 2006 13:05 | #

The Muslim veil-wearing school-assistant should be “following her religion” back to its point of Third World origin, as should all of her co-religionists in the West.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 20 Oct 2006 13:49 | #

Sumarah,

We did not ask foreigners to invade our cities and towns, drive us out and threaten our survival. No people on earth would ask that. We have been subject to a blanket campaign of official lies, official hatred. Some of us have heard nothing but lies. Those who see through them have been silenced, chastised, imprisoned for trying to express our normal, natural desire to live as ourselves sovereign in our own homeland.

The time is coming when we must take back our homeland. For we cannot share it with the rest of the world. They have homelands, and to those they will surely have to return.

What right do you have to oppose this desire?

Posted by JJR Apologist on Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:11 | #

why is it that there’s a focus on muslims ever since the 9/11

Sumarah,

The middle east is one of the few remaining regions not under direct U.S. hegemony. Your home nations are on the neocon’s menu.

Do not expect to emerge with control of your oil reserves. Perhaps the best-case scenario is a Saudi Arabia, where the natives receive a substantial fraction of the earnings, albeit invested in U.S. treasuries by agreement where they are held hostage, forever subject to seizure. In a worse-case scenario a nation will receive the Peru treatment, where multi-national firms received 75% of the oil revenue directly and another 20% indirectly by design. Corrupt natives who are American stooges receive much of the remaining 5%. (And Karl Magnus wonders why the Latin Americans are rising up and voting for “leftist, anti-American candidates”. Their political systems, with the exception of Cuba, were thoroughly penetrated by the U.S. several decades ago. The natives smell a fish; they don’t like it.)

Do not expect a single nation of yours to retain true sovereignty.
CIA, NED, Freedom House teams roam each of your nations setting up underground press, prepping the most promising local useful idiots and sellouts, surveilling all the electronic communications of your leading political and societal figures, and building permanent politics-related machinery in general.

Do not expect Islam to emerge as anything but a thoroughly crippled cultural expression. They will annihilate it—cartoons, pederasty accusations are but examples. Prepare for “girls gone wild, Suez”. Unfortunately, your burka-less women are not very hot, and your salarymen not economically productive, so you won’t even receive much of a hedonism rent from degeneracy.

Oh well.

It’s not as though your nations won independence from the British and French Empires; they were freed merely to weaken the home nations in the interregnum. They do not deserve to exist as independent entities.

Now prepare for a new master.