Express apologises to Cherie Blair

The Daily Express has published the following apology to Cherie Blair:

In our 5 November 2010 article “Burkha ‘no more a threat than a nun’s habit’ says Cherie” we reported that Cherie Blair had, in a speech to Muslim women, defended the wearing of the Burkha and that this was a change from her previously stated opposition to the Burkha and to full-face veils.

In fact, Mrs Blair spoke in support of Muslim women’s right to wear their traditional hair cover which leaves the face uncovered. We accept that Mrs Blair made no comment about the Burkha and her views on face coverings had not changed. We apologise to Mrs Blair for this error and any confusion caused.

Express contradicts itself on burkha bans

Yesterday, it was slightly surprising to see the Express reporting this:


After all, on 24 June they claimed:


It's almost as if that totally misleading headline was designed to create a new 'EU bans...' myth irrespective of the facts.

Who would have thought the Express would do that?

Express headline invents new 'Eurocrat' myth

Today's Express front page contains lots of their favourite subjects - English flagwaving, meddling Europeans, Muslims and banning the burkha:


It was inevitable that England's win in the World Cup would find a place on the front page, but this image seems to have been deliberately picked for this headline. It's not a picture of Fabio Capello, or goalscorer Jermain Defoe, but of English fans waving their flags and being patriotic. The headline is 'Land of Hope and Glory'.

Compare that to the main headline. It's as if the Express is saying - look at what 'Eurocrats' and Muslims are conspiring to do against you. Look at what they're doing to damage your proud country.

So what is this story about? The headline very clearly implies that 'Eurocrats' (whoever they actually are - in this case, they actually mean parliamentarians) have said 'you' (whoever 'you' is, but presumably members states) can't ban the burkha.

Yet in the very first sentence of Nick Fagge's article, the headline is called into question:

Europe backed the burkha yesterday by ruling that the controversial Muslim veils should not be banned.

So whereas the headline is you 'can't ban the burkha', the first line says you 'should not'. That is a significant difference.

And the third sentence of the article makes this clear:

The Council of Europe’s resolution is not binding on members of the group.

Therefore, this is unlikely to have any effect at all on the planned bans in France, the Netherlands and Spain.

What actually happened yesterday was the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe unanimously adopted a resolution opposing a general ban:

on wearing the burqa and the niqab or other religious clothing...though it added that legal restrictions may be justified “for security purposes, or where the public or professional functions of individuals require their religious neutrality, or that their face can be seen”...

...the veiling of women is often perceived as “a symbol of the subjugation of women to men” but a general ban would deny women “who genuinely and freely desire to do so” their right to cover their face.

What that is clearly not saying is: 'you can't ban the burkha' - indeed, it says there may be justifiable legal restrictions on it.

But as usual with an Express front page, why bother with the facts when a scaremongering, myth-making headline will do instead?

One robbery, three days of front page news

The news that a jewellery store was robbed by a person wearing a burkha has got the Daily Mail, and its messageboard folk, in a terrible tizzy.

The crime in question was in fact carried about by three perpetrators (plus a getaway driver) - one wearing a burkha and two who weren't, but had their face covered in other ways. And yet the burkha is the sole focus of the story. Why would that be...?

The Mail first reported this story on Tuesday. On Wednesday it discovered that two travel agents had been robbed by someone in a burkha and so wrote about it all again. With no new details emerging, why is this story still on the Mail website homepage on Thursday - and not only that, but is still one of their larger two column trails:


Why would this article be on the front page for three days running? Because the Mail is trying its very best to make it seem that people in burkhas can not be trusted.

One of the comments reads:

You know when these burqas will get banned in this country? When hundreds of people have died from a bomb attack (i.e. when it's TOO LATE). Only then will the goverment act. Stolen jewels are not nearly enough to trigger a reaction from them. Bravo indeed, Great Britain.
- P, London UK, 26/8/2009 11:53

So there you have it - burkhas = terrorists.

The idea that robbers cover their faces while committing a crime seems to be big news to the Mail. Are they going to write inflammatory articles about balaclavas and stockings, and how they have no place in Britain? Should we also ban clown's outfits so nobody copies Bill Murray's heist in Quick Change?

Some of the comments have suggested banning the burkha, like the French President wants to do - in which case, robbers will dress in drag, and then there will have to be calls to ban other types of women's clothing too.

Mail columnist takes part in 'patronising stunt'

Remember how Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn dismissed three police women who dressed in burkhas for the day to see what it was like as 'dopey birds' engaging in a 'patroinising stunt'?

Well, never-known-to-be-interesting Mail columnist Liz Jones is revealing her experiences of spending a whole week dressed in a burkha.

Is this a 'patronising stunt' too, Richard?

As with the Star, it seems this is designed to be groundbreaking when the journos do it, but a disgrace when the police do it. Go figure.

Anyway, Jones has written a staggeringly shallow article on the subject, coming up with 'insights' that are familair to anyone who has followed the 'ban the burkha' argument.

Here's one of her pearls of wisdom:

An Arab man shouted abuse. I have no idea what he was saying

So how did you know it was abuse? But what she's really trying to say is:

the interesting point is that during my week in a burka, he was the only person who gave me any abuse whatsoever.

Of course that may be true (if he was insulting her at all) although as she spent her time going around the coffee shops in Primrose Hill, that may not be entirely surprising. Why not travel to an area where the BNP has some councillors and then see how many insults she gets?

Or indeed, to Birmingham, where another far-right protest against 'Islamic extremists' has descended into violence. Facts a bit thin on the ground as yet, but 33 people were arrested.

Desmond papers campaign against burkha, don't know what it is

As Septicisle has pointed out, the Desmond papers - which have long been at the forefront of anti-Islam coverage - have jumped on President Sarkozy's comments about the burkha.

But as their front pages on 23 and 24 June shows, every story about banning the burkha they have published has been illustrated with a niqab.

Inside the 24 June edition, there are photos of women in Burnley and Luton in niqabs. They also have a pic from Leeds showing three women - two appear to be in niqabs, one in a hijab. The caption reads: 'Women in burkhas in Leeds yesterday, one almost completely covered. Another shows her eyes, a third her face'. So not burkhas then.