World News

Women with hijab found to face bias in Egypt

Women wearing hijabs (Muslim headscarves) are being discriminated against by businesses in Egypt, a BBC Arabic investigation has discovered.

The evidence appears to violate Egypt’s constitution, which bans discrimination based on religion, sex, race or social class.

Since 2015, some Egyptian women wearing a hijab have taken to social media to complain about such treatment.

Mayar Omar, a 25-year-old research executive from Cairo, says she has faced repeated problems going to some high-end restaurants.

“You want to feel that you can be yourself when you enter a venue and no-one is forcing you to do something, or make you feel that you are the cause of a problem for the venue or your friends.”

On hijabi lifestyle social media groups, BBC News Arabic found what appears to be a growing trend, with women accusing numerous venues of refusing them entry if they are wearing a hijab.

“In most cases the main cause is classism,” Nada Nashat, a lawyer and women’s rights activist, said. “So we find discrimination against hijabi women in venues that like to present themselves as uppermiddle or upper class.

“But we also find discrimination against non-hijabi women in lower and middle classes.”

BBC News Arabic tried to make a reservation at 15 upmarket venues across Cairo that had been accused online of discriminating against hijab-wearing women.

Most of the venues asked for the social media profiles of all guests and 11 venues stated that head coverings were not allowed.

We sent an undercover married couple, with the woman wearing a hijab, to some of the venues that told us that hijabwearing women were not allowed entry.

At L’Aubergine in the upmarket neighbourhood of Zamalek, the doorman immediately told the couple that the headscarf was forbidden as they had a bar inside, and that this might offend women wearing a hijab.

The manager too was adamant, saying: “The headscarf is forbidden.”

When presented with our recorded evidence, L’Aubergine told us it was “inaccurate” and that refusing women who wear the hijab is not a house rule, adding: “We denounce it.” The venue also told us: “We have reiterated our house policies to staff to avoid any confusion in the future.”

At Kazan, in the same neighbourhood, the couple was once again told by the doormen: “The problem is the headscarf.” When asked why, they simply stated: “This is the house rules.”

At the final venue, Andiamo in Heliopolis, the couple was initially refused entry. After appealing, they were told they could enter but would have to sit in a corner as the manager said: “It’s a ministry of tourism instruction, and if they find any hijabi woman beside the bar, they’ll fine us.”

Neither Kazan nor Andiamo responded to requests for comment.

‘Find an alternative’

BBC News Arabic presented the evidence to Adel El Masry, chairman of the Chamber of Tourism Establishments and Restaurants.

“Never in any era of the ministry of tourism has a decision been issued banning veiled women [from leisure venues],” he said. “This is not acceptable. Discrimination is unacceptable, these are public places.”

BBC News Arabic also gathered evidence suggesting that hijab-wearing women were being restricted from buying holiday apartments by a major developer, La Vista. The company has projects in Cairo as well as several high-end coastal developments.

In the past it has sold properties to women with hijabs, but our investigation found many social media posts accusing La Vista of changing its policy and now placing restrictions on them.

An executive at a multinational company told BBC News Arabic how he had contacted several property brokers to buy a property at La Vista, but that they told him: “Sorry, La Vista are a bit difficult regarding the hijab.”

BBC News Arabic contacted six property brokers, posing as a buyer whose wife wears a hijab and who wanted to buy a unit at a La Vista coastal project. They told us it would not be possible to purchase a unit.

One told our undercover reporter: “Can I speak to you frankly? Definitely look for an alternative.”

Another went even further, stating: “To be frank with you, regarding the North Coast and Sokhna projects, they are discriminatory.”

One broker explained how the process worked. “They will not say that we won’t sell you a unit, but they will say that this project you have selected is closed now and when it’s open, we will call you, and they won’t.”

When our undercover reporter phoned La Vista stating that his wife wore a hijab, he was told he would be put on a waiting list and there were no properties available.

Several weeks later he visited the La Vista office but this time didn’t say that his wife wore a hijab. He was told there were property units available immediately and when he asked what kind of people lived there, the agent told him: “The idea is that all the people we have look like each other.”

She stated that one La Vista development “has no veiled women at all”.

La Vista has not yet responded to requests for comment.

Amira Saber, an Egyptian MP who has campaigned for women’s rights, said the Egyptian constitution was clear that discrimination of this kind was not allowed.

“I will certainly use one of my parliamentary tools to ask the officials in the government how we can ensure that this does not happen again, and if it does happen, the perpetrator must be punished,” she said.

Discrimination based on religion or social class is barred by the constitution in Egypt

Mayar Omar says she has repeatedly been refused entry to venues

Australia: Scott Morrison saga casts scrutiny on Queen’s representative

In the past fortnight, Australia has been gripped by revelations that former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison secretly appointed himself to several additional ministries.

The move has been labelled a “power grab” by his successor as prime minister, and Mr Morrison has been scolded by many - even his own colleagues.

But the scandal has also dragged Australia’s governor-general into the fray - sparking one of the biggest controversies involving the Queen’s representative in Australia in 50 years.

So does Governor-General David Hurley have questions to answer, or is he just collateral damage?

‘Just paperwork’

Governors-general have fulfilled the practical duties as Australia’s head of state since the country’s 1901 federation.

Candidates for the role were initially chosen by the monarch but are now recommended by the Australian government.

The job is largely ceremonial - a governor-general in almost every circumstance must act on the advice of the government of the day. But conventions allow them the right to “encourage” and “warn” politicians.

Key duties include signing bills into law, issuing writs for elections, and swearing in ministers.

Mr Hurley has run into trouble on the latter. At Mr Morrison’s request, he swore the prime minister in as joint minister for health in March 2020, in case the existing minister became incapacitated by Covid.

Over the next 14 months, he also signed off Mr Morrison as an additional minister in the finance, treasury, home affairs and resources portfolios.

Mr Morrison already had ministerial powers, so Mr Hurley was basically just giving him authority over extra departments.

It’s a request the governor-general “would not have any kind of power to override or reject”, constitutional law professor Anne Twomey tells the BBC.

“This wasn’t even a meeting between the prime minister and the governorgeneral, it was just paperwork.”

But Mr Morrison’s appointments were not publicly announced, disclosed to the parliament, or even communicated to most of the ministers he was job-sharing with.

Australia’s solicitor-general found Mr Morrison’s actions were not illegal but had “fundamentally undermined” responsible government.

But the governor-general had done the right thing, the solicitor-general said in his advice this week.

It would have been “a clear breach” for him to refuse the prime minister, regardless of whether he knew the appointments would be kept secret, Stephen Donaghue said.

Critics push for investigation

Ultimately, Mr Hurley had to sign off on Mr Morrison’s requests, but critics say he could have counselled him against it and he could have publicised it himself.

But representatives for the governor-general say these types of appointments - giving ministers the right to administer other departments - are not unusual.

And it falls to the government of the day to decide if they should be announced to the public. They often opt not to.

Mr Hurley himself announcing the appointments would be unprecedented. He had “no reason to believe that appointments would not be communicated”, his spokesperson said.

Emeritus professor Jenny Hocking finds the suggestion Mr Hurley didn’t know the ministries had been kept secret “ridiculous”.

“The last of these bizarre, duplicated ministry appointments… were made more than a year after the first, so clearly by then the governor-general did know that they weren’t being made public,” she says.

“I don’t agree for a moment that the governor-general has a lot of things on his plate and might not have noticed.”

The historian says it’s one of the biggest controversies surrounding a governor-general since John Kerr caused a constitutional crisis by sacking Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975.

Prof Hocking famously fought for transparency around that matter - waging a lengthy and costly legal battle that culminated in the release of Mr Kerr’s correspondence with the Queen.

And she says the same transparency is needed here.

The Australian public need to know whether Mr Hurley counselled the prime minister against the moves, and why he didn’t disclose them himself.

The government has already announced an inquiry into Mr Morrison’s actions, but she wants it to look at the governor-general and his office too.

“If the inquiry is to find out what happened in order to fix what happened, it would be extremely problematic to leave out a key part of that equation.”

Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull - Mr Morrison’s predecessor - has also voiced support for an inquiry.

“Something has gone seriously wrong at Government House,” he told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

“It is the passive compliance along the chain… that did undermine our constitution and our democracy… that troubles me the most. This is how tyranny gets under way.”

PM defends governor-general

Prof Twomey says the criticism of Mr Hurley is unfair - there’s was no “conspiracy” on his part to keep things secret.

“I don’t think it’s reasonable for anyone to expect that he could have guessed that the prime minister was keeping things secret from his own ministers, for example.

“Nobody really thought that was a possibility until about two weeks ago.”

Even if he had taken the unprecedented step to publicise the appointments or to reject Mr Morrison’s request, he’d have been criticised, she says.

“There’d be even more people saying ‘how outrageous!’” she says. “The role of governor-general is awkward because people are going to attack you either way.” Source: BBC