Both BBC News 24 and BBC News Online have given substantial coverage this morning to the case of Shabina Begum, an orphaned 16-year old Muslim girl who, apparently under the sway of her older brother, in yet another ‘human rights’ judicial travesty, has won the right to drive a coach and horses through the rights of schools to set and maintain a school uniform policy.
With all the BBC’s coverage of this appeal case, including this News Online article, Muslim gown schoolgirl wins case (timestamped 10.56am and updated at 12.16pm), why is it that one has to turn to The Times, Muslim girl wins battle to wear traditional dress in school, to find that:
Ms Begum was represented at the appeal court by Cherie Booth QC, Tony Blair’s wife.
Why has the BBC seen fit to excise this small but noteworthy and newsworthy detail from their version of the news? Didn’t they notice Cherie Booth’s name? Or have they purposefully decided to ignore the involvement of the Prime Minister’s wife in this case?
Update: Channel 4 news this evening covered this story properly. Samira Ahmed’s report mentioned the involvement of Cherie Booth, the influence of Ms. Begum’s older brother (her effective guardian, since the death of her parents) and his links with the extreme Hizb-ut-Tahrir group (according to the Sunday Times HuT’s ‘ultimate aim is a worldwide Muslim state, ruled by sharia, Islamic law, and it urges Muslims not to participate in democratic politics’). Channel 4 News also mentioned that the headteacher of Denbigh High School is a Muslim too – another interesting aspect that escaped the BBC’s notice (or at least their reporting). Finally, prompted by Susan’s comments on this post, it seems that Ms. Begum’s lawyer, Yvonne Spencer, speaking on Channel 4 news last year, suggested that the real reason the girl objects to wearing the shalwar khameez is that Sikhs and Hindus also wear it.
Cherie Booth’s involvement not relevant: see the cab-rank rule, i.e. barristers have to take whatever cases they are given. See the Bar Council for details.
OT: Slip of the tongue by Jim Naughtie interviewing Ed Balls: “If we win the general election(referring to Labour)” on Today program. Radio 4 – use listen again option 1hr 14mins 20secs into the program.
Cab rank rule or not, it is still of some interest and should have been reported, after all, the BBC choose to report much of the trivia about her daily doings. When will we be liberated from the crushing contempt of BBC “journalists” and line editors?
In the version I read, the Beeb also did not mention that the girl’s suit was instigated by Hizbut Tahrir, a radical Islamist organization that is in favor of establishing an Islamic state in Britain.
I have a question of a somewhat abstract nature: Would the people who in Western countries demand their rights to wear the clothing that is in keeping with their religious beliefs, would these same people reciprocate and in turn permit others to dress according to their conscience?
E.g. If an observant Iranian female Muslim in Birmingham demands to be permitted to wear her Islamic hijab to school, would she be willing to put up with a Western girl in Iran dressing as she likes?
Regardless of this, I agree that the omission of any mention of the prime minister’s wife’s connection to the case was hardly an accident. Nor was it irrelevant as someone earlier shamelessly tried to pretend.
Re anon’s question
News24 just had a spokesperson of Muslim Somethingorother saying that people should be allowed to follow their religion – just like in Saudi, Pakistan etc, I suppose.
I have also heard statements by the self styled Islamic Human Rights Commission – masters of irony!
earthworm: re. the cab rank rule – it’s not as firm a rule as the name suggests – there is no one rank, and no independent person administering it. Each barrister or set of barristers employs a clerk – if the case comes the way of those chambers (i.e. through the client’s choice) then the clerk (employed by the barrister!) decides whether or not the barrister is available for the case – there are a whole load of reasons why any barrister may or may not be available for any given case – if you follow your own advice and take a look at the Bar Council web site, you’ll see just how much scope there is in applying the cab rank rule. So that aspect of your argument seems rather lame.
Even if the so-called ‘cab rank rule’ was firm and transparent, it remains relevant and of public interest that it happens to be the Prime Minister’s wife who has secured the outcome of this highly contentious case, and as such should be reported by the BBC as part of their coverage of it.
Re. James Naughtie – after a quick listen to it it does sound to me as if he’s paraphrasing his question to try and extract a yes/no answer from a particularly slippery customer – e.g. ‘answer the question on the basis of if ‘we’ [i.e. you] are re-elected’, if you see what I mean, so I don’t think this is a clear cut case, more’s the pity! 🙂
This school ALREADY permitted its many Muslim pupils to wear modest dress 9though not as concealing as the type this girl wishes to wear). It’s hard to see this lawsuit as anything other than politically motivated. I heard the headmistress interviewed some time ago, there have been no problems till this case.
Andrew: I followed this case. I do believe the Beeb reported Cherie’s involvement months ago when she took the case — but obviously, then it wasn’t quite so close to election time.
s —
The girl had lost her case, using another lawyer, before Cherie took on the job.
The other lawyer said the reason she did not want to wear the already existing modest uniform for Muslim girls was because other, non-Muslim Indian girls also wore it (it was a shalwar khameez, the baggy pants and tunic worn by many women from the Subcontinent.) According to this girl, her religion forbids her from dressing like an infidel. It sounded quite racist to me.
After Cherie took on the case, the girl seems to have (wisely) dropped her “I can’t wear the shalwar zhameez because I can’t dress like a dirty kaffir” defense, as I read no more about it in the subsequent news coverage of the case.
Cherie must be quite the PR maven.
Here’s an old article from December 2004 which mentions Cherie’s involvement in the case:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/4109697.stm
I tried to find the story I read regarding the girl’s earlier lawyer’s statement that she refused to wear the shalwar khameez because it is worn by “unbelievers”, but I couldn’t. I distinctly remember reading about this on BBC online; however I couldn’t swear to it unreservedly.
Still, I wonder. Was it pulled when the Beeb realized how much it damaged the girl’s case?
I wouldn’t put it past them.
How is Cherie Booth’s involvement relevant to the case itself?
Here’s a link to an old Times article which explores the Hizbut Tahrir connection to the case:
http://mickhartley.typepad.com/blog/2004/06/the_jilbab_agai.html
Andy
C. Booths involvement is not relevant to the case at all. What is important is that issues are reported on “in the round”, i.e. anything that could be of interest must be mentioned. Had the muslim been represented by Laura Bush, I`d want to know.
Yes, re C4, Krishnan touched on all the important matters in his interviews with 2 Muslim women.
The daily “snowmail” email always reads better under his hand, rather than the tedious Snow. Yesterday Krishnan wrote
” Shabina Begum is an unusual Muslim schoolgirl. In the school she was excluded from most girls wore a headscarf and salwar kameez (a long tunic with trousers underneath). But Shabina insisted on wearing a jilbab – a full length Islamic robe – and the school said no. She missed two years of education over the dispute and ended up going to a different school that allowed her to wear what she wanted.
Shabina said it was a victory for “all Muslims who wish to preserve their identity and values despite prejudice and bigotry” but not all Muslims support her. Many say the salwar kameez is fine for them and some believe Shabina’s actions were to set herself up as a “better Muslim” than those who didn’t wear the same. What do teachers do now?”
Truly an earth shattering ruling. Does this pave the way for pupils to wear Jedi Knight costumes, or pagans to dress as Druids etc.
and what next when one girl/woman decides (or is ‘persuaded’) to wear the Burka to school???……..
Not a lot of support for Shabina Begum at (D)HYS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4311019.stm
Which means al-Beeb will probably pull the whole thread soon.
They’re not publishing letters from Satanists. It’s discrimination I tell you! So much for diversity.
BBC’s (D)HYS is happy to include numerous posts from Muslims, including from Pakistan, telling us what human rights abusers we are by denying this girl her costume rights.
I wonder why these paragons of virtue can’t concentrate a bit more on their own cesspit.
“The acquittal of five men convicted in a high-profile gang-rape case in the Pakistani province of Punjab..
A Pakistani tribal council allegedly ordered the rape of Mukhtar Mai in February 2002 as punishment for a rape falsely attributed to her brother.”
(BTW only the BBC seem to think its “allegedly)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4318247.stm
Did you hear the girls diatribe against the “west”?We must mend our ways,who shall we look to for inspiration?
I will be asking everybody I know who attends a school with a uniform code to turn up with a prepared legal opinion stating that since they believe in the Jeans God, they are allowed to wear their jeans to school. It makes as much sense as the decision in this case.