Only By Under The Table Means Would This...
Crosswords21 mins ago
Muslim juror who refused to take veil off is ordered to stand down
http://www.dailymail....cial-expressions.html
I’ve just been watching a discussion about this on The Wright Stuff. Apparently this woman was wearing western clothing, but had her face covered. Was the judge right or wrong to dismiss her?
I’ve just been watching a discussion about this on The Wright Stuff. Apparently this woman was wearing western clothing, but had her face covered. Was the judge right or wrong to dismiss her?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You are not alone BOO. So do I. I didn't use to when it was older women, but now find it very aggressive on the younger women, who probably a couple of years ago would happily have dressed in western clothes. I am quite sure that many of these younger women are deliberately being provacative and sticking two fingers up under their ensemble.
"If you were in the dock, would you want her on the jury ?"
I wouldn't have any objection.
"Everyone involved in the case had the right to be able to gauge the juror's reactions to the proceedings."
Zeuhl, I've never heard this argument advanced before, not by lawyers or judges. I've never seen a case reported in which a juror was accused of grinning or scowling (or otherwise grimacing). Do you have any link to such a thing happening? As far as I'm aware, jurors can show any expression they like or none, and are free to cover it up if they like (with their hand, for instance).
Are you really suggesting there's some law, or tradition, or practice, that requires jurors' faces to be visible? Seriously, I've never heard of this.
I wouldn't have any objection.
"Everyone involved in the case had the right to be able to gauge the juror's reactions to the proceedings."
Zeuhl, I've never heard this argument advanced before, not by lawyers or judges. I've never seen a case reported in which a juror was accused of grinning or scowling (or otherwise grimacing). Do you have any link to such a thing happening? As far as I'm aware, jurors can show any expression they like or none, and are free to cover it up if they like (with their hand, for instance).
Are you really suggesting there's some law, or tradition, or practice, that requires jurors' faces to be visible? Seriously, I've never heard of this.
Yes jno
there is a tradition and practice in all cultures that the face is used to reveal expressions and aid communication and rapport between people.
The ONLY exceptions to this as far as I know are women (not men of course) in arab cultures and only when men other than their husbands or close relatives might see them.
Perhaps you can identify the cases where laws, traditions or practice require people to cover their faces other than in H&S situations or when someone is committing a criminal act.
If not, please suggest which of those two categories this woman's behaviour best places her; was there a H&S issue or was she preparing to mug someone?
there is a tradition and practice in all cultures that the face is used to reveal expressions and aid communication and rapport between people.
The ONLY exceptions to this as far as I know are women (not men of course) in arab cultures and only when men other than their husbands or close relatives might see them.
Perhaps you can identify the cases where laws, traditions or practice require people to cover their faces other than in H&S situations or when someone is committing a criminal act.
If not, please suggest which of those two categories this woman's behaviour best places her; was there a H&S issue or was she preparing to mug someone?
I'm saying that rapport isn't a requirement of criminal proceedings, however useful it may be in daily life. Doubtless lawyers would like to see that they're getting their case across when jurors start weeping; but I know of no stipulation that they should be permitted to do so.
It's not a question of this woman being *required* to wear a niqab - only that I think she should be allowed to wear what she wants, as anyone else is.
I'm in two minds about whether this should extend to defendants as well, and I suspect it's this that explains the regulation ludwig cites, giving the judge the right to order veils to be removed. The regulation presumably allows him to do the same with a juror; but I wonder if that is what was intended?
It's not a question of this woman being *required* to wear a niqab - only that I think she should be allowed to wear what she wants, as anyone else is.
I'm in two minds about whether this should extend to defendants as well, and I suspect it's this that explains the regulation ludwig cites, giving the judge the right to order veils to be removed. The regulation presumably allows him to do the same with a juror; but I wonder if that is what was intended?
I am fed up to the back teeth with this constantly being raised. Isn't it time that this issue is settled once & for all. What these people wear in their own homes is up to themselves but in this country it should be law that in the interests of security all persons should be very clearly seen when mixing with others in public( and before you answer jno you are obviously biased in favour of it all). I repeat what has been said many times on A/B to those of you who don't like our culture then I suggest that you go & live in another culture of your choosing.
W Ron.
W Ron.
There’s nothing specific about face coverings as far as I know, jno. However it is the responsibility of the judge (or the Magistrates in the case of proceedings in the Magistrates’’ Court) to ensure that the trial is conducted justly. Defence and prosecution counsel are entitled to see the jury’s reaction to evidence presented to them and frankly it is preposterous to expect to take part in Crown Court proceedings (in any capacity) with one’s face almost completely covered.
Mr Shadjareh’s reaction (“...totally unacceptable... can’t understand why facial expressions could have any impact on the judge...speechless...very worrying that a judge is being prejudiced against women wearing a veil.”) is nothing if not predictable.
What I find more worrying, however, is that a Crown Court judge has to tread on eggshells when trying to ensure that justice is administered properly in his court. Also of concern is that the Judicial Studies Board suggested that excluding a woman who refuses to uncover her face may serve to “exclude and marginalise her”. Of course a lady choosing to walk around peering at the world through a letterbox-sized is doing all she can to integrate herself into British life.
Mr Shadjareh’s reaction (“...totally unacceptable... can’t understand why facial expressions could have any impact on the judge...speechless...very worrying that a judge is being prejudiced against women wearing a veil.”) is nothing if not predictable.
What I find more worrying, however, is that a Crown Court judge has to tread on eggshells when trying to ensure that justice is administered properly in his court. Also of concern is that the Judicial Studies Board suggested that excluding a woman who refuses to uncover her face may serve to “exclude and marginalise her”. Of course a lady choosing to walk around peering at the world through a letterbox-sized is doing all she can to integrate herself into British life.
I agree with you Ron and I wish we would be more definitive about British values to these issues, as per Australia's approach which is essentially "put up with us, respect our culture and common law system, adapt or you can push off. To sp, the Aborgine issue has nothing to do with immigration....the Ozzies have it right on this one. 'Bout time we learned.
Whiskeyron
Are you suggesting that those who disagree with you should leave the country?
Bit strong eh?
What should those who partially disagree with you do? Should they be sent to live somewhere in the English channel?
Lastly - how will the banning of face veils affect brides?
You may say, "Well, brides would obviously be excluded from your new law".
...but what about Muslim brides?
And what about poor crafters working in the outer Hebrides? Will they no long be able to wear balaclavas?
Are you suggesting that those who disagree with you should leave the country?
Bit strong eh?
What should those who partially disagree with you do? Should they be sent to live somewhere in the English channel?
Lastly - how will the banning of face veils affect brides?
You may say, "Well, brides would obviously be excluded from your new law".
...but what about Muslim brides?
And what about poor crafters working in the outer Hebrides? Will they no long be able to wear balaclavas?
sp, brides will only wear their veil for a very short time, and you can usually see through them, and many brides don't even wear one, so not sure that works, however i see women walking around London covered head to toe in black shrouds, face, head, body, hands, totally covered, so why should someone wear one in a courtroom, it is absurd that anyone would think that would be permissible.
Interestingly, James Caan (of Dragon’s Den) took part in the discussion on The Wright Stuff this morning. We all know that concealing the face is not a religious requirement, but he, a Pakistani-born Muslim, confirmed that Islam simply requires women to wear clothing that does not accentuate the figure – and he was in complete agreement with the judge’s decision. Let us not forget this woman was wearing western clothing, so her reasons for covering her face can only be a matter of conjecture. I would guess that either she wanted to avoid Jury Service, or that she was making some sort of political statement, as I believe many women who voluntarily take to the veil are doing, or that she was simply being bloody minded. Whatever her reasons, in my opinion the judge was absolutely right.
Additionally, I would say that in criticising the Judge’s decision, the chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, Massoud Shadjareh, rather than encouraging integration and cohesion, is actively impairing both.
Additionally, I would say that in criticising the Judge’s decision, the chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, Massoud Shadjareh, rather than encouraging integration and cohesion, is actively impairing both.
^^ Hear Hear
I also consider myself a tolerant person and I absolutely refuse to have any but the most cursory dealings with anyone who conceals their face from me unless it is for any appropriate H&S reasons.
I would certainly refuse to partake in any court proceedings in which another participant was hiding their face.
I also consider myself a tolerant person and I absolutely refuse to have any but the most cursory dealings with anyone who conceals their face from me unless it is for any appropriate H&S reasons.
I would certainly refuse to partake in any court proceedings in which another participant was hiding their face.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles44 mins ago
ChatterBank85 mins ago
ChatterBank91 mins ago
It’s Christmas Eve! What Are We...
ChatterBank98 mins ago
Crosswords101 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.