London woman left disfigured by shocking random acid attack

18

A young woman has been left severely scarred and partially blind after acid was thrown in her face in a seeming random late-night attack.

Naomi Oni, 20, was on her way home from work to her home in Dagenham, East London, on 30 December when an anonymous attacker, wearing a niqab, threw the corrosive liquid at her, leaving her with serious burns on her head, neck, arms, legs and body.

She has now released the shocking images above to the Evening Standard in a hope that they may help track her attacker, whose face was obscured by the traditional Muslim women’s dress, which completely covers the face apart from the eyes.

Ms Oni had been five minutes from her home in Dagenham after finishing work for the day at lingerie store Victoria’s Secret at Westfield Stratford.

She has since undergone a month’s treatment, undergoing skin grafts in Chelmsford’s Broomsfield Hospital, where doctors initially warned her that she may not be able to see again. She can now see out of her left eye but still only has partial vision in her right.

Ms Oni, who is the sole carer for her 52-year-old disabled mother Marian Yalekhue, made the decision to speak out in the Standard after police failed to establish a motive for the attack.

Speaking exclusively to the newspaper she said the attack had “destroyed” her life and left her too afraid to venture out or even show her face in public.

Written By: Steve Anderson
continue to source article at independent.co.uk

18 COMMENTS

  1. Not that it will help this poor woman, but isn’t it time the niqab was banned in public places, for security reasons? Too easy to be anonymous, there’s no knowing who is concealed within those things.

  2. In reply to #1 by OHooligan:

    Not that it will help this poor woman, but isn’t it time the niqab was banned in public places, for security reasons?

    In the UK? Not with our venal and cowardly politicans!

  3. In reply to #1 by OHooligan:

    Not that it will help this poor woman, but isn’t it time the niqab was banned in public places, for security reasons? Too easy to be anonymous, there’s no knowing who is concealed within those things.

    no it is not

    there are many ways to conceal a face; scarf, crash helmet, hoody, baseball cap, carnival mask etc and to impose a law against a niqab is a specific law against one religion. imposing a law against all forms of concealment in public is an infringement on human rights.

    what needs to be done is first up, stop pandering to religion. if someone hides their face in public we react in the correct way. if someone wears a mask at a carnival, we assume all is well (within reason), if they wear it in a bank, we assume all is very much not well.

    i find humans who choose to cover their faces without good reason offensive, it’s a natural reaction. i accept most women who cover their faces have little choice, and no doubt in some minds this is very useful if you want to commit a terrorist act like this but the initial problewm is this viscious attack. banning an item of clothing would not have stopped this attack. an attacker left their house carrying an offensive weapon with the intention of causing harm. you may as well ban whatever container was used to carry the acid in.

    also bear in mind muslims love to get offended and no doubt want to rattle the british right-wing into demanding a ban on their religious freedom so the choice of disguise has fringe benefits for inciting hatred.

    the veil that needs addressing is the one that allows such things to be considered acceptable within some pockets of british culture. the one that causes the deafening silence among the “moderates” and puts authorities off asking awkward questions in the name of multi-culturalism.

    islamic terrorists have, as we know, no depth they’re unprepared to sink. they will always abuse women, and whenever possible, hide under their skirts (or niqab) in order to get away with crimes against humanity.

    This is not the time to ban bits of cloth, it’s the time to ask british citizens to show their face or give a reason why they’re scared to. we already know that if someone who’s religious feels threatened, they’ll use their trump card of offence in the safe knowledge most people will play along and back off.

  4. In reply to #1 by OHooligan:

    Not that it will help this poor woman, but isn’t it time the niqab was banned in public places, for security reasons? Too easy to be anonymous, there’s no knowing who is concealed within those things.

    Here in France it is banned, but boy did France take shi’ite for doing it.

  5. In reply to #4 by SaganTheCat:

    In reply to #1 by OHooligan:

    Not that it will help this poor woman, but isn’t it time the niqab was banned in public places, for security reasons? Too easy to be anonymous, there’s no knowing who is concealed within those things.

    no it is not

    there are many ways to conceal a face; scarf, crash helmet, hoody, baseball cap, carnival mask etc and to impose a law against a niqab is a specific law against one religion. imposing a law against all forms of concealment in public is an infringement on human rights.

    I do not see why banning all forms of concealment in public has anything to do with human rights. And certainly as any human rights I do have are provided by and protected by the society in which I live, if that society has to protect itself, then so be it.
    Paris had a bomb attack on a police station; the bomb concealed on a scooter (it was found fortunately). But since then all central Parisian police stations ban parking any 2 wheeler near them.
    Oh, as a biker I should be calling for my human right to be restored! Are you with me? No? Because it’s not religion?
    Public servants here can refuse service to anyone with their face covered and as a society we mostly agree. If that puts a few people off because they want special treatment for their delusion, then that’s bad luck.
    I agree there should be no ban on just the religious garment. Religion should be ignored in this completely. Just ban covering up in public. There is no human rights issue. There is no human right to concealment.
    Normal members of society have rights too. The right not to be attacked by a concealed attacker, the right not to have people who can easily conceal them selves to avoid prosecution just by claiming they are religious, a biker, etc …
    Banning people from covering up won’t stop attacks, but it makes it harder to get away with in the same way banning guns won’t stop school massacres but it will make them harder to do and therefore more rare.

    We have restrictions in society that we don’t like, because we have elements in society that we don’t like.
    It’s not perfect, but that’s how societies work.

  6. In reply to #6 by Rosbif:

    We have restrictions in society that we don’t like, because we have elements in society that we don’t like.
    It’s not perfect, but that’s how societies work.

    sorry i disagree

    to choose to show ones face or not IS a human right, i understand France has brought laws in that mean people can’t get away with covering their faces and I disagree with that ruling also.

    it is also a human right to demand that a person show their face and does not hide their face in any way that could be a security risk. it’s right that no one should be allowed into a petrol station without showing their face or anywhere else where a crime could be committed but the banning of face covering is wrong. we have carnivals, fancy dress parties and people with horrific facial injuries they’d rather not show. this is where it becomes a human rights issue. which is why i think we have a right to be suspicious of anyone who has their face covered for no reason other than to cover their face (as in the niqab) and we have a right to say to people coming for jobs they have to show their face at interview and every day at work.

    the most important human rights are the ones that allow people to question. businesses have a right to demand how people dress for secrity reasons, private properties have the right to decide how people dress inside, and the authorities (police, traffic wardens even) have a right to demand people show their face but beyond that, i don’t believe any laws to make such demands are acceptable.

    maybe in france there has been an improvement since the ban but it’s probably too early to say. as far as women are concerned, the french authorities can demand they show their faces but of course a higher authority (husbands/fathers) will simply remove their rights to go out if they believe women must be covered.

    and as i said before, focussing on the clothes, even though you’re only focussing on the bit making the crime hard to solve, will always play into the hands of the religious extremist, agreed with by the moderate, and fought for as a religious right by the accommodationists and politically correct.

    i agree we have to have restrictions in light of undesirable elements in society but i disagree with this particular restriction. our culture should make the niqab unacceptable, not our law

  7. In reply to #7 by SaganTheCat:

    In reply to #6 by Rosbif:

    We have restrictions in society that we don’t like, because we have elements in society that we don’t like.
    It’s not perfect, but that’s how societies work.

    sorry i disagree

    to choose to show ones face or not IS a human right, i understand France has brought laws in that mean people can’t get away with covering their faces and I disagree with that ruling also.

    If we remove society, go back to the days before society, there was no notion of human rights. It is society that allows human rights and protects you to claim them. Society is based on laws. If society requires to protect its citizens by a ruling, I do not see how you can argue it is a human right not to abide by a majority supported law which protects all members of society. This is nothing like the right to criticize without retribution. You are proposing the right to conceal in a manner which allows you not to be accountable. There are no human rights without the support of the society and there is no human right that allows you to conceal yourself in public. In private, do as you like.

    it is also a human right to demand that a person show their face and does not hide their face in any way that could be a security risk. it’s right that no one should be allowed into a petrol station without showing their face or anywhere else where a crime could be committed but the banning of face covering is wrong.
    So is it a human right to cover the face or not? I think this is a contradiction to your earlier point.
    As we can read in the article, the public street is a place where crimes can be committed.

    we have carnivals, fancy dress parties and people with horrific facial injuries they’d rather not show. this is where it becomes a human rights issue.
    And society can and will be tolerant in certain cases but as these are not the majority it is surely easier to outlaw face covering and be tolerant in the few cases (carnivals, injuries etc…) than the other way round.

    If someone wore a mask because they were disfigured or wore a mask in a carnival, of course it would be tolerated (and is in France) but I cannot wear my crash helmet in public and scream it’s a human right unless someone can show I could commit a crime. The rest of society have the human right not to have to deal with concealed faces.

    which is why i think we have a right to be suspicious of anyone who has their face covered for no reason other than to cover their face (as in the niqab) and we have a right to say to people coming for jobs they have to show their face at interview and every day at work.
    But as far as Islam is concerned, they do have reason to cover it. If you insist they show their face at work, at interview, in banks, on buses, you appear to agree that the face should be on show in public. The law here backs that up. If there is no law, requesting it is done will get you now where fast and probably an accusation of personal intolerance.

    the most important human rights are the ones that allow people to question.

    businesses have a right to demand how people dress for secrity reasons,
    If businesses are allowed to demand it, why isn’t society?

    private properties have the right to decide how people dress inside, and the authorities (police, traffic wardens even) have a right to demand people show their face but beyond that, i don’t believe any laws to make such demands are acceptable.

    maybe in france there has been an improvement since the ban but it’s probably too early to say. as far as women are concerned, the french authorities can demand they show their faces but of course a higher authority (husbands/fathers) will simply remove their rights to go out if they believe women must be covered.

    Whereas if there is no law, the “higher power” will insist on women wearing the cover, but with no way the woman can get away from it.
    With a law in place, the father etc .. will have to answer to the real high power which is the state.

    and as i said before, focussing on the clothes, even though you’re only focussing on the bit making the crime hard to solve, will always play into the hands of the religious extremist, agreed with by the moderate, and fought for as a religious right by the accommodationists and politically correct.

    I agree we shouldn’t focus on clothing. We should focus on security. That includes concealment laws here, but also education. No one here gets to cover their face in the classroom and no one gets to show any form of religious symbol. Kids are kids. It’s the law.

    i agree we have to have restrictions in light of undesirable elements in society but i disagree with this particular restriction.
    I think you might disagree if it was your daughter who had received the acid and the police could not ID anyone. Of course the perp could have used a hood etc, but if a concealed face is banned, it is more noticeable and therefore one is on one’s guard when seeing it.

    our culture should make the niqab unacceptable, not our law
    The niqab is unacceptable to our culture, but not to the Muslim culture.
    In France, a multicultural society is one that has 1 set of values gleaned from the best of the incoming cultures.
    In countries like the UK, multicultuism seems to mean that one can live within any culture you like,which sets up conflicting ghettos of differing culture.

    In France, 99% of citizens would not cover their face in public and would agree with the security rationale. The 1% who don’t agree are required by law ( whether they be bandits, bikers or hardline muslims) rather than letting them decide for themselves what is acceptable in society.

  8. Nobody seems to be considering the consequences a ban would have for women who are members of strict Muslim families. If they couldn’t conceal their faces in public, their menfolk would simply keep them imprisoned indoors.

  9. This had better not have any influence what so ever on any decision related to the banning of Niqabs! Niqabs should be banned for the sole reason that they are a tool of oppression used to glorify the notion that women are nothing but property. I’m very sorry that this woman suffered an acid attack, but I don’t want the niqab banned for “security” reasons, I want it banned because in terms of social evolution we’re at the point where its existence is offensive to those of us with a free mind and want nothing but equality regardless of religious beliefs.

  10. In reply to #8 by Rosbif:

    i stopped reading after this “You are proposing the right to conceal in a manner which allows you not to be accountable”

    if it’s too hard for you to avoid straw men, i shall leave this discussion

  11. In reply to #1 by OHooligan:

    Not that it will help this poor woman, but isn’t it time the niqab was banned in public places, for security reasons? Too easy to be anonymous, there’s no knowing who is concealed within those things.

    The individual Muslim who wants nothing more than to get on with their lives and neighbours is blamelessly implicated in this kind atrocious crime.

    But surely this must constitute a precedent legallly. How much longer is it going to be acceptable to indulge in the bizarre and irrational practice of cultural equivalence in the face of such attrocities?

    Even if the attacker was not a Muslim, the fact remains that a niqab was employed as a disguise, which must give pause for consideration of a change in the law.

    There are also disguised individuals displaying placards calling for Sharia Law in Britain; which brings into question the small matter of an event which took place at Runnymede in the year 1215. Namely, the signing of Magna Carta, which has enshrined within it one law for all, to which Sharia Law is inimical.

    This nation has always welcomed immigrants, and indeed after the second world war we like many other European countries couldn’t have survived without them, and historically they have contributed to the richness of our culture, but as far as I’m aware, apart from the Nazis, nothing like the vicious hatred engendered by Islam has been visited upon our communities before.

    Back to the innocent Muslim! What are they to do as individuals if there is no apparant leadership from within their communities, since the fundamental doctrine of Islam is life long submission?

  12. The end of the final paragraph of my reply to OHooligan in comment 12 failed to be transposed:

    Back to the innocent Muslim! What is she/he to do as an individual if there is no apparant leadership from within their community, since the fundamental doctrine of Islam is life long submission?

    They have my full sympathy.

  13. In reply to #4 by SaganTheCat:

    I mostly agree with you, Sagan. But I also applaud the French law. Certainly, no bank should be required to admit someone who cannot be identified on the security video, be it burqa or crash helmet, and I’m sure they don’t. In Northern Ireland at least, I’ve seen “airlocks” at banks,where the outer door is closed before the inner one is opened by a staff member, after they’ve decided you look safe enough, and/or they’ve ensured they have you identifiably photographed for evidence should they need it.

    As for what you rightly describe as a terrorist attack, yes, the terrorist will use whatever advantage the local environment offers. If anonymous covered womenfolk like mobile black tents are acceptable on the street, then that is an obvious disguise to use, and it could well be a man in there. Anti-terrorist action is always on the back foot, reacting to the last attack, just so there can’t be another one done in exactly the same way, because if they don’t, there will be. Just like the law banning parking of motor scooters within blast-radius of a police station in France, mentioned here.

    So, I agree with you in essence. But also, ban these convenient terrorist-disguises in public places before the acid terrorist strikes again. Or maybe start taking them down randomly with SWAT teams, to check ID and ensure that no corrosive material is being carried. Then send a squad round to the home address to check if the menfolk aren’t up to something illegal, such as abusing women.

    Another poster wanted to ban such garments not on security grounds, but on the grounds that they are a flagrant denial of the rights of women. I agree with this, and have long suspected that there may be a good deal of very nasty evidence of domestic violence hidden under those robes. Random checks would be a good start.

  14. In reply to #14 by OHooligan:

    Another poster wanted to ban such garments not on security grounds, but on the grounds that they are a flagrant denial of the rights of women. I agree with this, and have long suspected that there may be a good deal of very nasty evidence of domestic violence hidden under those robes. Random checks would be a good start.

    You want the police empowered to approach women in the street and demand they remove clothing so evidence of domestic abuse can be determined, with no prima facie reason even to suspect this?

    I guess it could work. And if it does, the practice could be extended to include any female in Western attire whose ensemble seems to be inappropriate for the occasion: a woman wearing jeans on a hot day may be concealing bruises on her legs; sunglasses are a tried-and-tested way of hiding black eyes. Before you know it, though, abusers would catch on and start belting their partners in areas of the body which are almost always covered in public. The obvious solution is to make all women wear transparent bikinis whenever we’re out and about, or nothing at all.

    Sorry. Sarcasm mode switching to off. You don’t get to dictate what women are allowed to wear. We decide that, or at least we should. The basic human right to dress as one chooses is being taken away from a great number of women, but you can’t redress this injustice by saying “You used to have to wear this. You don’t anymore. Now you have to wear this. You’re welcome.”

    It may surprise you to learn that many women choose to wear the burka; and, I suspect, convert to Islam for this very reason. I’ve never worn one myself, but I imagine it could be quite liberating: you don’t lose an hour of sleep every morning by having to get up early to put on your make up, or half an hour at night taking it off. And if you do oversleep, you can just throw the thing on and leave the house. You could be holding court at an important business presentation and no one in the room would know you’re wearing your Kermit the Frog pajamas and cuddling your teddy bear.

    So, I agree with you in essence. But also, ban these convenient terrorist-disguises in public places before the acid terrorist strikes again. Or maybe start taking them down randomly with SWAT teams, to check ID and ensure that no corrosive material is being carried. Then send a squad round to the home address to check if the menfolk aren’t up to something illegal, such as abusing women.

    I’m assuming the above is a joke, given that the first half of your comment was eminently sensible. Surely you don’t want to see 21st Century Britain begin to resemble something from the imagination of Alan Moore: jackbooted, heavily armed stormtroopers patrolling the streets, monitoring their radios for any reports of people wearing Islamic dress, then descending en masse on any individual wearing same, performing a strip search and identity check and frogmarching the unfortunate woman to her home, which is then turned upside down in search of evidence of wrongdoing by her unsuspecting husband.

    By the way, how do you know the person responsible for this attack wasn’t one of Nick Griffin or Pat Condell’s followers? The assault on Ms Oni may have been done to stir up anti-Muslim feeling.

  15. I don’t like the sight of the hijab and I oppose everything that it represents however because I’m a strong believer in freedom of expression and because of the problems that would arise with a blanket ban on everyone covering their face I don’t think that it should be banned. I do think that there are many places though that the wearing of the hijab should be restricted mainly because of security reasons ei banks, shops, building societies, airports, schools. Aside from the ability to identify people there are various other reasons which I think the restriction on the wearing of the hijab is necessary but security is my main reason.

  16. In reply to #15 by Katy Cordeth:

    In reply to #14 by OHooligan:

    You want the police empowered to approach women in the street and demand they remove clothing so evidence of domestic abuse can be determined, with no prima facie reason even to suspect this?

    In parts of the UK, it appears to be almost a crime to be visible while black. This level of police attention to detail would IMHO be better deployed at those unidentifiable-in-public.

    … sarcasm ….

    Ignored.

    The basic human right to dress as one chooses is being taken away from a great number of women….

    Sorry, I thought you’d stopped the sarcasm. This is pseudo-feminist nonesense that winds up Backing The Burqa. No. And since when has dress-code been a “basic human right”?

    I’d promote dress-how-you please, but not when it conflicts with other concerns, like security and public order. Hence, gang regalia are prohibited in places where they are an obvious provocation, and nazi stuff is prohibited in many places. I have no issue with the headscarf for religious or aesthetic reasons, since it still leaves an identifiable face on show. And I don’t think women should be covered up just because some men have never been taught a scrap of self-control, like the “she was asking for it” brigade.

    It may surprise you to learn that many women choose to wear the burka…

    Yes it would surprise me. Remove the “many”, to lessen the surprise. I had a religinut relative whose perverted take on Xtianity had her insist that everyone in her family, and everyone she visited, should wear clothing that conformed to her dress code. Long sleeves, long loose skirts, high necks. No evil tempting flesh on display.

    For the burqa brigade, I’m completely in favour of the French approach.

    … and I suspect [many] convert to Islam for this very reason.

    You’re back on the sarcasm again, I take it.

    [ ... my rant about SWAT teams and such ... ]

    I’m assuming the above is a joke

    Yes, near enough. Pushback I suppose.

    how do you know the person responsible for this attack wasn’t one of Nick Griffin or Pat Condell’s followers?

    Well, of course, I don’t. That’s the point of using a convenient disguise, you can’t tell who it is. Could well be a false-flag operation by someone out to discredit the naqib-wearers of the country, and provoke hostile reaction to the peace-loving followers of The Prophet. Worse, it could be a follower of the rantings of that Norwegian Narcissist Psycho Murderer with the stupid beard. You know the one, I refuse to remember his name.

Leave a Reply