A Sensible Ruling From The Judge

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24112067

Its seems that the Judge has reached a sensible ruling in this case. She can be shielded from the public when giving evidence, but must be seen, veil-less
to the Judge, the Jury and lawyers.

But what I can't understand is why this woman, who is a defendant, on a serious charge, not a witness or a victim, can't be identified "for legal reasons"

Can anybody enlighten me here ?

[naomi24]

And that’s exactly what should happen. This woman is no shrinking violet. The veil is, in this and many other instances, purposefully worn as a visible symbol of defiance against western values – and politics; to the forgotten voiceless women who are forced by their men into separation from the rest of society, it’s a garment of subjugation – and the few who choose to wear it, actually believing they must hide themselves from the gaze of what they perceive to be the incurably licentious male of the species, are insulting every decent man on the planet.

[emmie]

does contempt of court come with a jail sentence?
if so do it, then they might get the message.

[jake-the-peg]

This is a very sensible ruling

It balances two conflicting rights and does so to the minimum necessary to satisfy the right the judge has decided pre-eminant

It is not considered sensible by those looking for some sort of 'victory'

Those with a rabid hatred of everything and anything even remotely connected with Islam

*We are not at war with Islam*

[emmie]

but they are at war with each other and the west, or hadn't you noticed.

[naomi24]

Jake, objecting to people who deliberately create waves by insisting on wearing this outlandish and thoroughly unnecessary mode of dress does not equate to 'a rabid hatred of everything and anything even remotely connected with Islam'. These people are making fools of us - and they are laughing at people like you who, in an effort to be 'liberal', support their efforts to disrupt.

Are you happy to be perceived as a potential abuser?

[jake-the-peg]

They are not 'making fools of us' - they are trying to not taking off their veils and going down the pub laughing at us, they are trying to live their lives according to their view of their religion.

You seem to see this as a personal challenge - an aggressive act

That is all in your head

It's as mad as if I wanted to bring in a law to stop people wearing sandles with socks

[naomi24]

What, in your opinion, I see it as, is irrelevant. I have outlined the reasons that women wear the veil – and none equate to a requirement of their religion.

I’ll ask you again. Are you happy to be perceived as a potential abuser?

[emmie]

well i would put any bloke wearing black socks with sandals in the stocks, but that is another matter.
This country has laws, which strangely we all have to adhere to, why should there be exceptions. Once you start down that rocky road you will get anarchy or indeed the idiot system that is in operation now, when some foreign criminals, rapists, murderers, can't be deported to his home country on the grounds of his human rights, right to a family life, undesirables once they have finished their sentence, should be automatically deported.

[netibiza]

so can any woman wear a headscarf or hat when giving evidence?

[bazwillrun]

"Baz

// your intolerance in a country you know and came to knowing is not a muslim country //

It is more than likely they were born here, so your go home rant cannot apply. "

1: its not a rant its a request
2: if they arent born here then they should go if they dont like it, and if they were born here then if they dont like the culture and traditions of the country they were born into, then still feel free to go.

you happier know ?

[emmie]

its a political stance not a religious one, Anjem Choudary when questioned by Stacey Dooley on Naomi's video link said that Islam does not recognise the police, in this country, if it's un Islamic then they tell the police to go F--- themselves, his words not mine, is he just one or one of many, who on earth knows.

[sandyRoe]

In the unlikely event that a nun found herself in the dock would she have to appear in mufti? Admittedly, the wimple doesn't cover the entire face but her usual mode of dress might hamper the courts ability to weight her evidence.

[emmie]

you can see the nun's face, that is the whole point, the woman has not been asked to remove burkha, just the veil, so the jurors can see her face, it's not hard to understand.

[emmie]

and how many nuns do you see wearing a wimple? most i see, and that isn't many these days just have a rather drab grey type outfit with a head covering not unlike a scarf...

[sandyRoe]

And when you come to think of it, how many nuns do you see, or hear of, in the dock?

[emmie]

good point, some should have been, going on some of the books i have read on Catholicism and those who came under their care, in homes or through the church. Angela's Ashes was the most depressing book i have ever read, and i have read others rather like it,

[Orderlimit]

Jack Straw: Muslim Face Veils Should Not Be Worn By Defendants In Court:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/17/jack-straw-veil_n_3939368.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

[youngmafbog]

Yet more pandering to these people and the usual suspects on here defending them.

The law is the law. She is a defendant for gawds sake.

This will not help relationships with the muslim 'community'

Gromit, maybe not go home but they can relocate to another country more akin to their warped beliefs. Why do you have to be so pedantic?

[Zeuhl]

/It's as mad as if I wanted to bring in a law to stop people wearing sandles with socks/

No it's not jtp

that's a nonsense comparison

unless you can explain how interaction and communication between people might be affected by someone's choice of sock and sandal combination

[emmie]

there isn't one, and it is a daft analogy.