Should She Be Made To Remove Her Burkha?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2400844/Judge-orders-Muslim-woman-remove-burkha-court-appearance-bans-entering-plea-refuses.html

/// The woman, from Hackney, east London, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, ///

Surely not for legal reasons but because she is wearing that blooming Burkha?

[emmie]

still maintain she should remove the veil, it may be trite but you couldn't wear a crash helmet, balaclava in court, that would be daft to even suggest it, so why should this be excused..

[THECORBYLOON]

One of the reasons judges continue to wear a wig and a robe is to hide or disguise their identity in order to reduce the risk of being identified in public...hmm

[emmie]

they don't mask their faces, you can see m'lud in most of his glory..

[FredPuli43]

Ever heard the expression "to look shifty"? Some witnesses do, under pressure. So do some defendants. Now what do you think it means? Juries know.

Amusing idea that judges wear wigs to protect their identity. The full bottom wig being worn by them in their press photographs is not worn in court, though it could be wrapped around the face, I suppose. In court all, from highest to lowest, wear a form of the barristers' short court wig, which doesn't disguise anything apart from baldness.

[emmie]

at least they don't don a black cap now..

[friedgreentomato]

no

[askyourgran]

This is a British Court of Law, the Queen's Court. It could be said that the woman is in contempt of court if she refuses to uncover her face while in the courtroom. Apart from disability there should be no preferential treatment. The face covering is not a religious requirement, nor should it be accepted in court.

[emmie]

agreed. ^

[THECORBYLOON]

To those who are insisting a witness or the accused must be seen, how do you explain the fact that blind jurors or judges can sit in judgement?

[pixie373]

Blind people are accustomed to not being able to see and are often very good with their other senses- nuances in speech etc. Hiding a face from a sighted person puts them at more of a disadvantage. Has there ever been a jury where everyone is blind?

[chrisgel]

^^ Answered at 13:43 by New Judge.

[Arksided]

OP, IMO... Yes without question.

[pixie373]

So it is chrisgel! Thank you. I agree with Newjudge there.

[FredPuli43]

There is a blind judge sitting. He had to transfer a case to a sighted judge, for sentence, because he himself could not judge which category indecent pictures of children fell into.#

But judges don't decide the facts. Every jury is directed that the facts are for them alone and they alone decide what they make of the witnesses, including the defendant, who they believe and so forth. His duty is only to direct them on the law.

It follows that whether the judge is blind or not is of no significance: though it might help him to form an opinion of the defendant, that is wholly irrelevant to the trial.

[FredPuli43]

And judges don't, of course, wear the black cap in sentencing now, the death penalty being abolished, but the gown worn by counsel has still an attachment on the back which represents the bag in which the cap, not necessarily black, was kept, to be worn over the wig on solemn occasions.

[THECORBYLOON]

I am not talking about a jury where each juror is blind, I am asking how you can explain why any blind juror is allowed to sit if it suggested that each juror MUST be able to see the witnesses or the accused. If a blind Judge and a blind juror need not see the accused or a witness, as long as identity can be established to their satisfaction by means other than actually SEEING them, what is the problem?

[emmie]

that this could set a precedent if allowed, that others could cite reasons for not showing their face, shouldn't it be the rules that are in place should suffice. The more it's seen to pander, the more some people will see this as unfair. NJ has it right, not sure why some don't see that.

[janbee]

YES!!!

[ummmm]

We might not be experts in body language but it's something we've used all our lives.

[naomi24]

//Judge Murphy adjourned the case for legal argument over whether the defendant should have to remove her veil. //

How much is this costing? The judge is right. Justice overrides religious belief - and it overrides political symbolism, which is, for many who adopt this divisive apparel, what the burqa amounts to. She is in a British Court of Law and she should do as she's told. No argument!