��������

MADRID: Portugal’s parliament on Friday approved a bill banning face veils worn for “gender or religious” reasons in public, in a move seen as targeting the face coverings worn by some Muslim women.

The measure was proposed by the far-right Chega party and would prohibit coverings such as burqas — a full-body garment that covers a woman from head to foot — and niqabs — the full-face Islamic veil with space around the eyes — from being worn in most public places. Face veils would still be allowed in airplanes, diplomatic premises and places of worship.

The bill stipulates fines for those wearing face veils in public ranging between 200 euros and 4,000 euros ($234 and $4,669).

President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa still has to approve the bill. He could veto it or send it to the Constitutional Court for review.

If signed into law, Portugal would join a number of European countries such as Austria, France, Belgium and the Netherlands who have full or partial bans on face and head coverings.

Not many women in Portugal wear such coverings, but the issue of Islamic veils has generated controversy similar to other European countries.

Chega cited France and other European Union countries’ rationales for banning face coverings commonly worn by Muslim women. The far-right Portuguese party received support for the bill from center-right parties.

In its bill, Chega said that hiding the face subjects individuals — especially women — “to situations of exclusion and inferiority” and was incompatible with principles such as “liberty, equality and human dignity.”

Lawmakers from left-leaning parties disagreed.

“This initiative is used solely to target foreigners, those who have a different faith,” said center-left Socialist Party lawmaker Pedro Delgado Alves whose party voted against the bill.

He said that while no woman should be forced to wear a veil, the far-right party’s approach was wrong.

LONDON: It was one scandal too many.
After emails emerged this week showing that Prince Andrew remained in contact with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein longer than he previously admitted, the House of Windsor finally moved to insulate the monarchy from years of tawdry headlines about Andrew’s dodgy friends and suspicious business deals.
Buckingham Palace on Friday released a statement from Andrew saying that he had agreed to give up use of his last remaining royal titles so that continued allegations about him “don’t distract from the work of His Majesty.”
This week’s revelations demonstrated that Andrew had committed the unforgivable sin of misleading the British public, said Craig Prescott, an expert on the monarchy and constitutional law at Royal Holloway University of London.
“To say something which is proven not to be true, I think, is the straw that broke the camel’s back,’’ he said.
Signs of a new direction
The move comes as Charles, who is 76 and undergoing treatment for an undisclosed form of cancer, works to ensure the long-term stability of the monarchy under his son and heir Prince William.
William recently gave an interview in which he set out his vision for the monarchy, saying that the institution needed to change to make sure that it is a force for good.
“In some ways, Prince Andrew has been the exact opposite of that,” Prescott said. “And there is no space for that in the modern monarchy.”
Andrew, 65, is the second son of the late Queen Elizabeth II. He spent more than 20 years as an officer in the Royal Navy before leaving to take up his royal duties in 2001.
Following Friday’s announcement, Andrew will no longer use his remaining royal titles, including the Duke of York, though he technically retains them. Formally stripping him of those titles would be a time-consuming process requiring an act of Parliament.
A long time coming
Andrew’s banishment completes a process that began in November 2019, when he gave up all of his public duties and charity roles.
That was triggered by a disastrous interview Andrew gave to the BBC as he sought to counter media reports about his friendship with Epstein and deny allegations that he had sex with a 17-year-old girl, Virginia Giuffre, who was trafficked by Epstein in 2001. The prince was widely criticized for failing to show empathy for Epstein’s victims and for offering unbelievable explanations for his friendship with the disgraced financier.
The interview also sowed the seeds of this week’s upheaval, when Andrew told the BBC that he had cut off contact with Epstein in December 2010.
British newspapers on Sunday revealed that Andrew wrote an email to Epstein on Feb. 28, 2011. Andrew wrote the note after renewed reporting on the Epstein scandal, telling him they were “in this together” and would “have to rise above it.”
Andrew has recently faced another round of grimy stories as newspapers release excerpts of Giuffre’s posthumous memoir, which will be published on Tuesday. Giuffre died by suicide in April at the age of 41.
Andrew in 2022 reached an out-of-court settlement with Giuffre after she filed a civil suit against him in New York. While he didn’t admit wrongdoing, Andrew did acknowledge Giuffre’s suffering as a victim of sex trafficking.
Front-page fodder for wrong reasons
The prince has been the subject of tabloid stories stretching back to at least 2007, when he sold his house near Windsor Castle for 20 percent over the 15 million pound asking price. The buyer was reported to be Timur Kulibayev, son-in-law of Nursultan Nazarbayev, then-president of Kazakhstan, raising concerns that the deal was an attempt to buy influence in Britain.
Last year, a court case revealed Andrew’s relationship with a businessman and suspected Chinese spy who was barred from the United Kingdom as a threat to national security. Authorities were concerned that the man could have misused his influence over Andrew, according to court documents.
While the palace said Andrew had decided to give up his royal titles, royal commentator Jennie Bond said the king and Prince William exerted “enormous pressure” on him.
“We could say he has fallen on his sword, but I think he’s been pushed onto it,” Bond told the BBC. “I don’t think this is a decision that Andrew, quite an arrogant man — very, very fond of his status — would have willingly made without a lot of pressure.”
Insulating the monarchy at a delicate time
While the cumulative weight of Andrew’s scandals demanded a response from the royal family, this week’s revelations came at a particularly sensitive moment for the king as he prepares for a state visit to the Vatican, where he is expected to pray beside Pope Leo XIV.
The visit is very important to Charles, who has made the bridging of faiths an important part of his “mantra,” said George Gross, an expert on theology and the monarchy at King’s College, London.
“I think this was the speediest, really the quickest way of lowering his status even more without having to go to Parliament,” Gross said. “Even if Parliament would have approved, it takes time.’’
Charles may also have been motivated by a desire to protect the work of Queen Camilla, who has made combating domestic violence one of her signature issues, and the Duchess of Edinburgh, who has sought to combat sexual violence in war zones such as Congo.
The king will hope that this move finally draws a line between Andrew and the rest of the royal family, Prescott said.
“If there are allegations, or further stuff comes out, it will all be on Prince Andrew,” he said. “They’ve severed the connection between Prince Andrew and the monarchy as an institution.”