After all the whining about the House of Lords, how it’s unfair and unelected, and a club for atrophying gerontiacs, it’s great to see the House reaffirming its importance as a legislative check in British politics. Throughout the current PM’s regime the House of Lords has attempted to be a check and balance against the more authoritarian and autarkic impulses of New Labour. Now it has struck a blow against the PM’s wife, the lawyer for Shabina Begum. You’ll remember that last year a court ruled that teenager Shabina Begum's human rights were violated when she was banned from wearing full Islamic dress at school. Now that ruling has been overturned. As the Guardian reports, Lord Bingham said the school was fully justified in acting as it did:
"It had taken immense pains to devise a uniform policy which respected Muslim beliefs, but did so in an inclusive, unthreatening and uncompetitive way… The school had enjoyed a period of harmony and success to which the uniform policy was thought to contribute… It would, in my opinion, be irresponsible for any court, lacking the experience, background and detailed knowledge of the headteacher, staff and governors, to overrule their judgment on a matter as sensitive as this. The power of decision has been given to them for the compelling reason that they are best placed to exercise it, and I see no reason to disturb their decision."
Quite right too. The overturning of the ruling represents an important victory over Hizb-ut-Tahrir, the extremist organisation that has backed her case and wants to impose dhimmitude on all non-Muslims. Hizb-ut-Tahrir realised very clearly that it could ride roughshod over the best part of the British legal system by invoking the girl’s human rights. Islamists have become very clever at internalising our appeasement. This was also illustrated when a British-born terrorist who had failed to explode the bomb strapped to him in the London underground was later cornered in his bolt-hole by the police and obliged to strip to the waist to prove himself disarmed, whereupon he came out with his hands up, shouting, “I have rights”.
Although this has no particular relevance, it is almost funny that Ken Livingstone, about whom David Conway has written at some length on this site, has landed himself in more trouble with the Jewish community. The runner on The Times' article is: Mayor tells [Reuben] brothers financing the Olympic City to ‘go back to Iran’ even though they come from India. What a diplomat.
Comments (2)
What does it matter if the victory is over Hizb-ut-Tahrir or not? A human right is a human right, regardless of the beliefs of the human.
This ruling represents an unforunate francization of Britain. Too bad.
Posted by dan tdaxp | March 23, 2006 10:52 PM
Posted on March 23, 2006 22:52
What I find interesting about the burka business is the deafening silence of womens' rights groups on the issue. If ever there was a symbol of women's enslavement, of men's subjugation of women, then this surely is it. But nothing.
In the '70's and '80's the radical lesbian separatists at Spare Rib used to spit blood over enforced female circumcision in Arab countries so it's not as if the sisters are shy about expressing opinions on the rituals and customs of other cultures. Until now that is.
No doubt a passing critical theorist will address this site on behalf of all 'wimmin' and show up all those advocating a ban on burkas in schools and colleges to be Islamophobes and go on to suggest that the garb become de rigueur for white middle class males to atone for centuries of Western imperialism, racism and sexism.
C'mon Ken, I know you're gagging to...
Posted by Joseph | March 23, 2006 3:51 AM
Posted on March 23, 2006 03:51