It had to happen:
An exiled Muslim couple is using a British legal team to fight the burka ban in France. They claim the ruling breaches their human rights and restricts their free movement across countries in the European Union.
The pair, who wish to remain anonymous, now live in the West Midlands with their two children, claiming the new law forced them out of their home country. They are seeking damages and a ruling that the ban on Islamic women covering their faces in public is ‘unnecessary, disproportionate and unlawful’.
The husband, who is a French national, and his wife are being represented by Robina Shah from the Immigration Advisory Service. She has lodged their application with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
‘The case clearly is of importance to my clients,’ said Ms Shah. ‘As a result of the ban they have had to leave their country of nationality, as the ban restricts their freedom of choice, and that of their daughters.’
Court papers state the principal applicant is the husband who ‘expects and instructs’ his wife to wear the burka, a full-body covering that includes a mesh over the face, as well as the niqab, a face veil that only leaves an opening for the eyes.
The wife, the second applicant in the case, ‘respects and follows’ her husband’s instructions ‘out of her own free will’, the Strasbourg court is being told. She is seeking £10,000 in damages from the French government for ‘injury to feelings’ caused by the alleged breach of her human rights. The couple agreed there were times when it would be unacceptable to wear a burka – such as during an airport security check or when going to the bank.
President Nicolas Sarkozy’s ban on face veils came into force in April. Anyone wearing the niqab or burka in public could now face a fine of £130 or lessons in French citizenship.
I've cut and pasted the whole article because there wasn't a single sentence not dripping with DoubleThink. Everybody can choose the bit they find most repugnant - from the idea that the woman, who is by implication not French, was 'forced' out of her home country, all the way to the Hobson's choice right at the end - would you rather pay a £130 fine or suffer lessons in French citizenship?
At the Railway Station, Upway
4 hours ago
14 comments:
What I want to know is who is paying for this round of Victimhood Poker? If we are, they can fsck off back to France. If they are, then game on! Sexist v racist, may the worst man lose.
B, it's quite clear that we are funding it. Their lawyer is from Immigration Advisory Services, which in turn is a fakecharity largely funded by Legal Aid from UK government.
£130 fine? Lessons in French citizenship?
Can I choose Vogon poetry?
".. the principal applicant is the husband who ‘expects and instructs’ his wife to wear the burka .."
So if the court finds in his favour, they are also ruling that a wife must follow her husband's instructions?
FT, what's Vogon Poetry?
VFTS, indeedy. As 'second applicant', she is fighting for her human right to be oppressed by her 'husband', and I use the term loosely.
Vogon poetry:
From the Hitchhiker's Guide - Here is what to do if you want to get a lift from a Vogon: forget it. They are one of the most unpleasant races in the Galaxy. Not actually evil, but bad-tempered, bureaucratic, officious and callous. They wouldn't even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal without orders signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters. The best way to get a drink out of a Vogon is to stick your finger down his throat, and the best way to irritate him is to feed his grandmother to the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal. On no account should you allow a Vogon to read poetry at you.
Any resemblance between Vogons and TUC officials is coincidental, naturally.
I quite like it when this kind of thing happens. It brings all kind of stupidities to the surface and waves them around for all to see.
FT, ta. I'd still prefer to pay teh fine.
AKH, indeedy, this is the best kind of Victimhood Poker.
I'd turn up for the French citizenship lessons wearing my burka
We're the litigation capital of Europe all right.
You may also be interested in...
Some facts
B, it strikes me that 'burka' is an anagram for 'uk bra'.
JH, indeed.
PPS, I'm always interested in 'facts' but that article is hardly chock full of them.
The sole counter-claim in that article is that the taxpayer will not be paying for this case. The accounts for the IAS show that 95% of its income is from the Legal Services Commission, the Scottish Legal Aid Board and Scottish Government Grant. I hope you are not seriously suggesting that this particular case is not cross-subsidised from those sources of income?
And who's paying for the court time, the judge, the ushers, the paper shufflers? Are we going to send the couple a bill for all this, or will France stump up?
Methinks not.
This quote:
But a Legal Services spokesman said that even if taxpayer-funded IAS lawyers were representing the couple, that service would not be paid for by legal aid
indicates to me, although not definitively, that UK taxpayers will be not be paying for legal representation.
The court is in Strasbourg so again I'm not sure how exactly much UK taxpayers will be paying for that, but doesn't the winning side usually get costs?
Other than going to court and obeying the rule of law, which is customary in Western Europe, how else would they resolve this dispute?
PPS: "Other than... obeying the rule of law, which is customary in Western Europe, how else would they resolve this dispute?"
Hey, try this - they could try obeying THE LAW and not wearing a burka in France?
As a smoker, do you think that the government will pay for a laywer so that i can take them to court for infringing my human rights and not allowing me to smoke in a pub? Nope. Unfortunately for me, the law is, i can't smoke in a pub.
You can't pick and choose.
Post a Comment