When did bigotry become a 'human right'?
John Geiger, National Post
Published: Tuesday, February 14, 2006
The "human right" of a teenage Muslim girl to wear full Islamic dress to school is this week before the House of Lords, Britain's highest court. The lawyer appearing for Shabina Begum, 17, is Cherie Booth, the wife of Prime Minister Tony Blair, and a notable human rights lawyer. It is unclear what human right was purportedly violated when Ms. Begum was in September, 2002, sent home for refusing to conform to the school uniform, since no human rights act explicitly includes the right to cover oneself in a shroud. There is no doubt, however, that the costume in question, the jilbab, a full-length gown worn by fundamentalist Muslim women, is a fashion statement of sorts. So perhaps in Ms. Booth's mind, the case involves freedom of expression.
It is the substance of that expression that is so disturbing, and that makes the school in this case very much the sympathetic party.
Denbigh High School in Luton, northwest of London, is the very epitome of multiculti tolerance, a school that prides itself on its inclusiveness, not only for the Muslims who make up three-quarters of the student body, but Sikhs and Hindus too. The headmistress, Yasmin Bevan, is Muslim. The school's dress policy was adopted only after consultations with a local council of mullahs. It permits girls to protect their modesty by wearing the traditional shalwar kameez, as well as the hijab headscarf. This form of dress, baggy trousers and knee-length tunic with headcovering, is commonly worn by millions of women in Muslim countries. However, it was not enough of a concession to Ms. Begum, who after several years of wearing a shalwar kameez showed up in the more conservative jilbab.
The school's decision to send her home for a change of clothes was informed by a number of factors, including concerns about the influence of Islamist extremism, worries the jilbab would provoke religious divisions and also apparently fears that if they submitted to the demand of Ms. Begum to wear the jilbab, they would next have a teenage girl show up at school wearing a burka, which also covers the entire face, claiming that too was her "right."
The school's worries about students being used as Islamist pawns are not without foundation. According to British newspaper reports, Ms. Begum's older brother is a supporter of Hizb ut-Tharir, a fundamentalist Islamic organization that advocates a Muslim world state and universal adherence to Sharia law. It was also reported that the group had played a role in advising Ms. Begum.
This might explain the statement released by the teenager when, last year, Britain's Court of Appeal sided with her, deciding the school had "unlawfully denied her the right to manifest her religion." Ms. Begum's statement was not about one person's belief; she claimed to speak for "Muslim women, from Uzbekistan to Turkey [who] are feeling the brunt of policies guided by Western governments." She blamed not the local council of mullahs and the school's Muslim headmistress for the policy, but "bigotry" in "Western societies post 9/11, an atmosphere in which Islam has been made a target for vilification."
Except who is the real bigot here? It was revealed last week that one of the objections Ms. Begum raised was that she would not wear a dress "normally worn by disbelieving women." In a letter to the school, her solicitors said she required dress "tailored to the requirements of the Muslim community alone."
This, then, is the "free expression" that Ms. Booth and her client are fighting for: The "right" to promote interfaith prejudice and separation -- while attending school.
© National Post 2006
