Must Unveil In Court?

[mushroom25]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10261550/Muslim-woman-must-remove-burka-in-court-judge-insists.html

a sound legal principle? Or is the learned judge just exposing his prejudices?

[hc4361]

bazwillrun, your comments are out of order. It is not illegal for her and 'her sort' to wear the burka in the UK, she has not been found guilty of an offence.

You cannot truly believe that every woman in a burka is garbage, surely? You cannot believe that in the UK a person is guilty before the trial - that is not the British way.

[jomifl]

It would be sexual discrimination if she was allowed to remain veiled. That is the price for equal rights, they work both ways.

[Peter Pedant]

Well it is here: http://quran.com/33
English and Arabic

tell ( qal ) your wives and your daughters ( zawajak binaatak) and women of the believers (naas mumanin) yadanin aleyhun (bring over themselves) min jelabeebhun ( garments). Therelik adni (that is more...)

The English translation is more literary and there is a bit of exposition

It doesnt make me want to read much more
but it IS easier than the Hebrew OT which I cant do at all.

By the way, everyone agrees that Christians are allowed to translate the very word of God just in case you were wondering

[bazwillrun]

your comments are out of order.
pffftttt,

It is not illegal for her and 'her sort' to wear the burka in the UK
who said it was ? shame it isnt though

she has not been found guilty of an offence.
yet !

[New Judge]

I’m with Mikey on this.

The fact that this matter should even have to be determined by a Crown Court judge demonstrates the level to which this country has sunk to appease what are at best highly debateable religious requirements.

In court (and indeed in many other situations) in this country it is customary for those involved to have their faces visible to all the participants. That should be that. If people want to conduct their affairs contrary to this custom they should reside somewhere may their foibles will be more readily accommodated.

Whatever the Koran or anything else says is irrelevant and the sooner this country stops pandering to ridiculous religious nonsense which clearly interferes with the operation of serious institutions the better. Wearing a face covering of any sort in a court is completely inappropriate and the justice department’s wooly minded “guidance” is inadequate. It should say that no face coverings will be worn by anybody. The End.

[FredPuli43]

The French have not permitted this attire. There are many Muslims in France, mostly originating from North Africa, and plenty of scholars of Islam. The French were evidently satisfied that it was not required by Islam. They went further with regard to public buildings. There no overt religious symbols are permitted to be worn by anyone. This caused some .amusement when the law, as understood, forbad a monk from going into a state school to teach. He resolved the problem by changing in to ordinary clothing.

A court being a public building, this woman would be faced by two difficulties. She couldn't wear her attire in the street nor could she in the court .

[Orderlimit]

'he justice department’s wooly minded “guidance” is '

I had to read this bit twice NJ,

'Where identification is an issue, it must be dealt with appropriately and may require the witness to make a choice between showing her face or not giving evidence'.

[Peter Pedant]

Hi Fred Howz your French ? they have something called..... laicite
Good arteecl on French wiki

Despite being Roman Catholic, the state and religion are completely separate - unlike ours where the damned Prots are 'by God and Parliament ordained'

You or your children have a right to denominational education
and we even have Protestant Universities - Oxbridge.

[EDDIE51]

I seem to remember a case where a wanted man was able to leave the country by dressing as a woman and wearing a veil. If we permit women to be veiled in court while giving evidence a similar situation is going to happen.

[237SJ]

If the defendant can be identified by a court official/police person etc before they go into court, then I don`t see why they can`t wear their veil. They can still speak and give evidence while wearing the veil. I don`t know what all the fuss is about.

[New Judge]

"...may require the witness to make a choice between showing her face or not giving evidence'. "

Too wooly, OL. It most certainly should not be a choice for a witness to decline to give evidence on such flimsy grounds. If she's been warned she's needed. Further, it should not matter whether identity is an issue or not. The rules (not guidance) should be that no participants will take part in the proceedings with their faces covered.

We need to establish and enforce rules that suit the institutions of the UK.

[New Judge]

The fuss, 237, is that many people find it offensive to have to deal with people with face masks on and it is not customary in the UK among the majority of the population. Most people in court have no choice but to be there and they should not have to pander to a minority custom.

Further, as has been pointed out, there are practical reasons why participants in court proceedings should have their faces visible to everybody else.

[Orderlimit]

Absolutely NJ, but none of this nonsense surprises me I'm afraid.

[FredPuli43]

237, the magistrates or judge and jury, and counsel, need to see the facial expressions of witnesses and any defendant who elects to testify . In examining and cross-examining, counsel find this extremely informative and so do the jury (or magistrates). So do we all, in everyday life, when speaking to people. This woman wishes to deny them that opportunity, and, in so doing, deny the due process of justice.

[237SJ]

If they find it offensive, then maybe they just need to become a bit more culturally aware. I deal with people wearing veils and I can`t for the life of me see why it is offensive. It`s just ignorance - people aren`t used to it so they don`t like it. Maybe a bit of diversity training wouldn`t go amiss.

[FredPuli43]

NJ, why do you say that many people here find it offensive to have to deal with people with 'face masks' on, by which I take it you mean, in this case, the burqa ? Is this the subject of some research, or is it just your personal opinion that it must be, or is, so ? Is it any part of your argument that the practice is only that of a minority and is thus alien to us?

Courts should not pander to a minority custom. Well, we 'pander' to those Jews who insist upon wearing a Koppel when taking the oath in court, and they are definitely a minority in our country. So how are you defining a minority custom?

All this surely ignores the substantial, and only proper, objection, that of the facial expressions being denied to all interested persons in court. That we find some minority practices alien is not.

[New Judge]

If I had to deal with anybody with their face covered, Fred (be it with a religious garment, a scarf or anything else) unless there was a practical reason borne of necessity I would be most offended. I don’t think I’d be alone, but cannot produce data to support this. The fact that I would find such people in a minority does not alter that fact. I would find it insulting that they cannot bare their face to me.

I don’t know the reason why Muslim women cover their faces but if it is because men (i.e. me) cannot be trusted to control their urges when confronted by a female face then I find that especially insulting.

I don’t need “diversity training”. I don’t like people walking about with their faces covered and no amount of indoctrination will alter that. As much as they might be offended by having to bear their faces in public I am offended by their secrecy and distrust. Since they seem not to care too much for my feelings I can scarcely be chastised if I care not too much for theirs. But no matter. I’m sure we’ll both get over it. Well I will, but I'm not so sure about them.

[hc4361]

What is a Koppel?
People can give an oath on any holy book they wish to, with the accompanying apparel if necessary - people giving evidence can even affirm if they have no god to swear an oath to. That is right and proper in a democratic country that believes in public and open justice.

A covered face is not acceptable in a law court for the reasons already given. Law cannot be perceived to be open and just if members of the judiciary, jury, witnesses or the accused are wearing face coverings of any description.

I am liberal but would no way want to be tried by a judge with a face covering, or any jury members with hidden faces. A person should stand accused with a face that is clearly seen, be represented by barristers that can clearly be seen, be found guilty or innocent by a jury that doesn't hide its face and is guided by a judge I can see.
This is the basic tenets of justice.

[FredPuli43]

NJ, if woman having her face covered, for whatever reason , is an insult to you, it must be the same insult to everyone, mustn't it? Or do you perhaps accept that your 'many people' are in the minority and thus more easily offended or insulted than the rest of us ? Personally , I don't see it as insult. I see such women every time I go to London and a few here in Cambridgeshire.

What social or business intercourse do you have with these women, that you can be insulted by their not baring their face to you when you deal with them?

Do you really think that the ordinary people who you pass in the street are really mindful of not insulting you?

[Zacs-Master]

Some people ain't livin life to the full.