ChatterBank2 mins ago
The Saga Of The Veil, Continued
Further to AoGs recent post on wearing the Niqab at Birmingham Metropolitan University
(thread here)
http://
and another thread on the Muslim woman ordered by the judge to remove her veil, which I believe had a thread here also, although I cannot find it - it now appears that Birmingham Metropolitan University have now reversed themselves and will allow personal items of religious significance after all. Is this a humiliating climbdown, as described, or a sensible response to a protest against what some might have described as a draconian measure?
http://
In that Birmingham Mail article, it also goes on to say that the judge who ordered the woman to remove her veil has also reversed himself and relented. This was also covered in the Guardian.
http://
Again, sensible response or cowardly climbdown?
(thread here)
http://
and another thread on the Muslim woman ordered by the judge to remove her veil, which I believe had a thread here also, although I cannot find it - it now appears that Birmingham Metropolitan University have now reversed themselves and will allow personal items of religious significance after all. Is this a humiliating climbdown, as described, or a sensible response to a protest against what some might have described as a draconian measure?
http://
In that Birmingham Mail article, it also goes on to say that the judge who ordered the woman to remove her veil has also reversed himself and relented. This was also covered in the Guardian.
http://
Again, sensible response or cowardly climbdown?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LazyGun. 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.
Neither. Just Commonsense.
The aim of the lady in court was not to evade justice and the aim of the students at the College was not to undermine security. There are other ways of verifying identity. I suspect in both instances the rules were brought in not to improve the smooth running of things, but to make some kind of political point. They fact that both bans have quickly been lifted shows the folly of that.
The aim of the lady in court was not to evade justice and the aim of the students at the College was not to undermine security. There are other ways of verifying identity. I suspect in both instances the rules were brought in not to improve the smooth running of things, but to make some kind of political point. They fact that both bans have quickly been lifted shows the folly of that.
I deplore attempts to ban these items of dress (tho' I fully support the principle that they should never be used as an excuse for dishonestly masking someone's identity) but on the other hand, deplorable though they are, at least they are honest in the sense that they address the issue of veils directly and are not wrapped up in weaselly words like Mr Hollobone's Bill which would use his undoubted distaste for them to morph into the ridiculous idea of forcing everyone, Moslem, Christian, Jew, atheist etc. to walk around in public with their face uncovered
This whole situation is ludicrous. If I wore a bucket on my head, and told everyone that my religion forbade me to take it off, I wouldn't expect any court of law to take me seriously.
This daft woman's religion is completely irrelevant. Nobody should expect to appear as the defendant in any court case, if they refuse to take off their veil. She is in contempt of court as far as I can see.
What will happen when the case takes off proper ? She is accused of a serious offence. Why is she not being identified ? She isn't a minor.
This is Britain in the 21st century, not Arabia in the dark ages.
This daft woman's religion is completely irrelevant. Nobody should expect to appear as the defendant in any court case, if they refuse to take off their veil. She is in contempt of court as far as I can see.
What will happen when the case takes off proper ? She is accused of a serious offence. Why is she not being identified ? She isn't a minor.
This is Britain in the 21st century, not Arabia in the dark ages.
I agree with mikey on this, in fact I will go further and say this ridiculous, mode of dress should be banned in this country, thus putting an end to a small minority dictating what the majority must accept what is alien to our way of life.
Regarding this woman appearing in a British court of law with her face covered, that should defiantly not be allowed, because the jury will not be able to read her facial expressions, which is a very important matter in those type of circumstances.
Regarding this woman appearing in a British court of law with her face covered, that should defiantly not be allowed, because the jury will not be able to read her facial expressions, which is a very important matter in those type of circumstances.
so yet again we see these people getting their own way and we bend to suit them.
absolutely ridiculous
i find her and her religion and the garb she wears extremely offensive
They must be laughing at us, knowing full well they can come here and to some degree do what they want, in the full knowledge that usually we cave in to their demands
where will it stop ?
A disgraceful cave in by the authorites, would they buckle like this to a christian ?....hardly likely
absolutely ridiculous
i find her and her religion and the garb she wears extremely offensive
They must be laughing at us, knowing full well they can come here and to some degree do what they want, in the full knowledge that usually we cave in to their demands
where will it stop ?
A disgraceful cave in by the authorites, would they buckle like this to a christian ?....hardly likely
I would love to label this as 'cowardly climbdown' but, having read the article about the trial judge, the point is made there that there is no legislation which empowers a judge to -demand- the veil's removal, nor is there a ban on their use.
So, in the face of the absence of certain laws, it becomes a sensible response.
With regard to a law which does exist - that against racial discrimination - I have not the foggiest idea how to apply it, in this case, since it is the minority person who is treating the authority figure with disrespect.
Furthermore, it is unclear whether this can be construed as racially based disrespect, since it is merely someone asserting that their religious belief forbades any male non-spouse seeing their whole face.
Incidentally, if she is found guilty, does this mean her mugshot can be published in the newspaper, like every other criminal?
(Paradoxically, not even her neighbours would recognise her from such a photo, so why there is all this effort to conceal her identity I have no idea).
So, in the face of the absence of certain laws, it becomes a sensible response.
With regard to a law which does exist - that against racial discrimination - I have not the foggiest idea how to apply it, in this case, since it is the minority person who is treating the authority figure with disrespect.
Furthermore, it is unclear whether this can be construed as racially based disrespect, since it is merely someone asserting that their religious belief forbades any male non-spouse seeing their whole face.
Incidentally, if she is found guilty, does this mean her mugshot can be published in the newspaper, like every other criminal?
(Paradoxically, not even her neighbours would recognise her from such a photo, so why there is all this effort to conceal her identity I have no idea).
“…without tearing their clothes off them. “
Come, come, jno, asking someone to reveal their face is hardly tearing their clothes off them.
We’ve done this to death already but just to reiterate - I believe there is no reason (with the possible exception of some severe medical conditions) for anybody to conceal their faces in a court of law in the UK. Yes, people can be identified by other means but that is not the issue. Justice is supposed to be fair and it is not fair if one party (whatever part they are taking in the proceedings) is allowed to participate with their face hidden. It might be interesting to know if this particular lady would feel at ease if the judge, advocates, witnesses and jury all turned up in full face balaclavas.
Come, come, jno, asking someone to reveal their face is hardly tearing their clothes off them.
We’ve done this to death already but just to reiterate - I believe there is no reason (with the possible exception of some severe medical conditions) for anybody to conceal their faces in a court of law in the UK. Yes, people can be identified by other means but that is not the issue. Justice is supposed to be fair and it is not fair if one party (whatever part they are taking in the proceedings) is allowed to participate with their face hidden. It might be interesting to know if this particular lady would feel at ease if the judge, advocates, witnesses and jury all turned up in full face balaclavas.
AOG - "I agree with mikey on this, in fact I will go further and say this ridiculous, mode of dress should be banned in this country, thus putting an end to a small minority dictating what the majority must accept what is alien to our way of life."
This is not a 'ricidulous' mode of dress - it is a way of dressing that is culturally different from ours - which, as i have opined previously, stirs up fear and suspcision among ignorant people.
I dont think that citizens of a country that lets people walk about with obscene messages on tee-shirts, and hoodies used to hide criminals, and men with no shirts and beer bellies is in any position to lecture other cultures about their dress code!
This is not a 'ricidulous' mode of dress - it is a way of dressing that is culturally different from ours - which, as i have opined previously, stirs up fear and suspcision among ignorant people.
I dont think that citizens of a country that lets people walk about with obscene messages on tee-shirts, and hoodies used to hide criminals, and men with no shirts and beer bellies is in any position to lecture other cultures about their dress code!
As NJ says, done to death probably, however it's worth repeating for the umpteenth time that in the case of the defendant, the judge's objection related solely to the question of the woman's identity and nothing whatever to do with interpretations os facial expressions etc etc.
So it always seemed likely that this would be sorted out in the way it has been, as you don't need to be a genius to arrive at the solution which has been reached.
The rest is just discussion - interesting though that may be - beyond the immediate issue.
So it always seemed likely that this would be sorted out in the way it has been, as you don't need to be a genius to arrive at the solution which has been reached.
The rest is just discussion - interesting though that may be - beyond the immediate issue.
"So, in the face of the absence of certain laws, it becomes a sensible response."
How do you respond to Mikey("I don't like Douglas Adams")444's question about the bucket, Hypognosis?
What if a woman turned up in court wearing bikini?
I am unaware of lwas about buckets and bikinis (the argument used by her lawyer, which you quote).
Do you agree or disagree that the idea of dressing appropriately?
The OP? Cowardly climbdown.
How do you respond to Mikey("I don't like Douglas Adams")444's question about the bucket, Hypognosis?
What if a woman turned up in court wearing bikini?
I am unaware of lwas about buckets and bikinis (the argument used by her lawyer, which you quote).
Do you agree or disagree that the idea of dressing appropriately?
The OP? Cowardly climbdown.
@vetuste_ennemi
Mikey's exact words were "If I wore a bucket on my head, and told everyone that my religion forbade me to take it off"
which means that, regardless of how ridiculous wearing a bucket makes one look, under the laws against discrimination on basis of colour, creed or culture, the rest of us are legally obliged to treat that bucket-wearing aspect of his belief with all seriousness and respect.
By now, you're probably beginning to understand my inordinate fondness for all the absurdities in the world.
Mikey's exact words were "If I wore a bucket on my head, and told everyone that my religion forbade me to take it off"
which means that, regardless of how ridiculous wearing a bucket makes one look, under the laws against discrimination on basis of colour, creed or culture, the rest of us are legally obliged to treat that bucket-wearing aspect of his belief with all seriousness and respect.
By now, you're probably beginning to understand my inordinate fondness for all the absurdities in the world.
andy-hughes
/// which, as i have opined previously, stirs up fear and suspcision among ignorant people. ///
Oh so the greatly self opinionated and tolerant andy-hughes, thinks that anyone who disagrees with matters that he has opined on previously are just ignorant.
Well I for one is getting rather fed up with your offensive remarks, I don't know about others?
/// which, as i have opined previously, stirs up fear and suspcision among ignorant people. ///
Oh so the greatly self opinionated and tolerant andy-hughes, thinks that anyone who disagrees with matters that he has opined on previously are just ignorant.
Well I for one is getting rather fed up with your offensive remarks, I don't know about others?
Here we go again (sigh)...
/stirs up fear and suspicion among ignorant people/
It is natural for certain things to stir up fear and suspicion - regardless of people's level of ignorance - and people hiding their faces behind a mask is one of them.
Ask an armed robber whether a face mask helps them terrorise people.
/it is a way of dressing/
No it isn't.
To describe this as a dress code issue is simplistic and ingenuous in the extreme.
The veil was originated to conceal people who were only allowed to go out in public under sufferance anyway.
Back to the fear and suspicion point;
being surrounded by 200 /men with no shirts and beer bellies/
being surrounded by 200 people wearing black hoods over their faces
which is most likely to cause you /fear and suspicion/?
/stirs up fear and suspicion among ignorant people/
It is natural for certain things to stir up fear and suspicion - regardless of people's level of ignorance - and people hiding their faces behind a mask is one of them.
Ask an armed robber whether a face mask helps them terrorise people.
/it is a way of dressing/
No it isn't.
To describe this as a dress code issue is simplistic and ingenuous in the extreme.
The veil was originated to conceal people who were only allowed to go out in public under sufferance anyway.
Back to the fear and suspicion point;
being surrounded by 200 /men with no shirts and beer bellies/
being surrounded by 200 people wearing black hoods over their faces
which is most likely to cause you /fear and suspicion/?
AOG - "Oh so the greatly self opinionated and tolerant andy-hughes, thinks that anyone who disagrees with matters that he has opined on previously are just ignorant."
That is not what I said AOG.
What I said was, this is not a ridiculous mode of dress, it is something that is different from the way that we dress in the West.
It has nothing to do with people agreeing or not with something I have said previously - I merely highlighted that in a previous post, I mentioned that a difference in dress like this arouses suspicion and fear which is based on ignorance.
So you have made a connection which does not exist.
As for refering to me as 'greatly self-opinionated', and then having the brass face to call me offensive - that frankly beggars belief.
My remark about ignorant people was not aimed at you - as hopefully you realise - so if you are taking up arms on behalf of others, that again is something you have criticised me for in the past, so it is not appropriate that you do so now.
If anyone else is ever offended any anything i say at any time on any post,Ii look forward to an opportunity to debate with them person-to-person on The AB.
Oh, the 'tolerant' bit is fine - thanks for that.
That is not what I said AOG.
What I said was, this is not a ridiculous mode of dress, it is something that is different from the way that we dress in the West.
It has nothing to do with people agreeing or not with something I have said previously - I merely highlighted that in a previous post, I mentioned that a difference in dress like this arouses suspicion and fear which is based on ignorance.
So you have made a connection which does not exist.
As for refering to me as 'greatly self-opinionated', and then having the brass face to call me offensive - that frankly beggars belief.
My remark about ignorant people was not aimed at you - as hopefully you realise - so if you are taking up arms on behalf of others, that again is something you have criticised me for in the past, so it is not appropriate that you do so now.
If anyone else is ever offended any anything i say at any time on any post,Ii look forward to an opportunity to debate with them person-to-person on The AB.
Oh, the 'tolerant' bit is fine - thanks for that.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Crosswords16 mins ago
ChatterBank25 mins ago
