Muslim pubic hair dispute baffles judge

Muslim pubic hair dispute baffles judge

Vagina shaving case winds up costing British taxpayers £350,000

A LEGAL battle over a Muslim couple’s right to shave the pubic hair of their disabled daughter ended suddenly when the parents dropped their court action at the last minute, leaving a judge at London’s High Court “utterly baffled”.

According to this report the mother and father of the young woman, who cannot be named and is referred to as ED in court documents, said their daughter’s pubic hair should be removed in line with Islamic tradition.

But their local council, which has cared for their daughter since 2008, questioned whether the disabled woman had the mental capacity to consent to her hair being removed.

In 2011 the couple applied to the family court for their daughter, now in her thirties, to be returned home and raised the “stark” issue of her pubic hair being removed – leading to a long-running, £350,000 taxpayer-funded legal battle.

Mr Justice Roderic Wood said:

I thus remain utterly baffled by the course this litigation has taken, and perplexed by this lack of clarity in their case. Obtaining a 10-day slot of a High Court Judge’s time is not easy, for there are many competing cases of equal if not greater urgency than this one.
The local authority involved had incurred costs of £138,000, the couple of £82,000 and the official solicitor, appearing for ED, of £130,000 –  with the taxpayer footing the entire bill.

The judge added:

This is an astonishing sum of money. Particularly when one considers…that the ultimate resolution is that the parents have, ultimately with their own ‘consent’, agreed to orders which dismiss any hope of ED coming to live with them and a significant reduction in her contact with them.

In the lead up to a final hearing, fixed for this month, “a great morass” of evidence was prepared, including 740 pages of witness statements, 300 pages of expert evidence as well as other documents, the judge added.

Unchallenged evidence from a cultural expert observed that:

Whilst there was a duty to remove pubic hair – both for religious and cultural reasons – there is an exemption for those incapacitated such as ED.

Note: The picture at the top of the page is the only hair-free pussy we’re permitted to use to illustrate this report

Hat tip: BarrieJohn

64 responses to “Muslim pubic hair dispute baffles judge”

  1. remigius says:

    Jay, all I can say is – thank fuck you’re not a judge!

  2. Angela_K says:

    Jay, if you had read the whole report, it states that the woman was in the care of the local Council, a Government body; they have a legal duty of care to this vulnerable person who lacks the mental capacity to decide for herself.

  3. jay says:

    Unless I am missing something here, we are not talking anything harmful or permanent. This is no more significant than choice of haircut. When the government starts coercively making choices not based on quantifiable harm, we have authoritarianism.

  4. Matt+Westwood says:

    @jay: So, let’s say that you have elderly people in a care home. It’s expedient to make all the residents wear onesies, and to shave them bald all over, male and female, and provide them with nutritious but bland soup. Hey, we’re not talking anything harmful or permanent, and this is no more significant than choice of haircut.

    Let me tell you, sunshine, if anyone tells me what haircut to wear, they’ll get the scissors shoved up their arse. And, in my dotage and feeble old age, if a relative of mine suddenly turned up on my doorstep to e.g. shave my hair off or, say, dress me a certain way because of *their religion*, then I would *rely* upon the government to guard my rights.

  5. Barry Duke says:

    Excellent response M+W. Could not have expressed that point better myself. When I was 21 a group of Afrikaner vigilantes in apartheid South Africa set upon me with the intention of cutting off my “hippy hair”. Fortunately, I was armed at the time, and my attackers fled when they realised I could and would kill them.

  6. remigius says:

    Totally agree, Barry. I was in the process of drafting a reply to jay, using words he wouldn’t understand – like consent. But Matt’s comment was more succinct, and used fewer expletives.

  7. 1859 says:

    @ jay: ‘This is no more…than a choice of haircut’!!! Are you serious or totally demented? You’re saying that if someone wants to get inside my pants with a razor to give my dick a short-back-and-sides for RELIGIOUS reasons, that it’s the same as a normal haircut!?? What sort of barber do you visit? I suggest you read carefully all the words of the article before you blather and embarrass yourself – the ‘victim’ is in the care of the Local Authority and it’s dam right they should protect her from her parent’s religious stupidity.

  8. remigius says:

    I suggest you read carefully all the words of the article before you blather and embarrass yourself

    1859, it would appear our friend jay hasn’t learned his lesson.

    He embarrassed himself with his ignorance of the law about a year ago, on this very blog…

    Though I always encourage people to speak their minds, I would suggest caution in people like jay. Better to say nothing and let people think you’re stupid, than to let rip on’t internet and prove them right!

  9. stargraves says:

    Bloody hell Barry – trying to imagine you with long hippy hair!

    I get a tactical neatening once a decade myself. But as for haircuts, I can never decide which strand of hair I want cutting.

    Concerning the article – someone should have just said to the parents at the outset, behave and show some respect.

  10. Barry Duke says:

    Sceptic! Here we go Stargraves. Me in deep conversation somewhere in the mid-seventies with the late Susannah York, who sadly died in 2011:
    and me with a holiday shag in Brighton in the summer of 76:
    I shudder each time I check out those flared jeans!

  11. 1859 says:

    Oh Barry! You look so desirable with those striped undies!

  12. badger says:

    new here, and not a blogger. just can’t see anywhere the actual law for this, or it’s selective purpose or tradition.
    I wondered, if this is something, traditional in Muslim” faith, and lady was unable to accommodate the practice – why, suddenly the need, could there have been another motive, perhaps.

    The parents/family may have had some other concerns, just wondering..
    and, since this is not something the facility would see to provide, I see no reason for any interference in “religious matters” , unless the parents forfeit all parental/familial
    rights, which seems absurd.

    If the lady is unable to make a choice, is not a minor, or does not want to be shaved, no one should lay a hand on her. It reminds me of rape – if you are unable to consent because of incapacitation, it is still rape.

    The question here is, who is the court defending. The rights of the woman in facility, or the parents. If they have no rights under British Law, then the whole court thing was a fiasco.
    I don’t think religion is part of this. I think the rule of Law (of the Land) comes first. it doesn’t seem to have been the case here, but i don’t see anything written about it.

    Not the age of the person, nothing.

  13. Bella says:

    New to the forum.
    Is it always so animated?

    Surely the most serious offence that’s taken place here is the fee charged by the ED lawyer.

  14. stargraves says:

    Barry – Those jeans are rocking!