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]

that's the point isn't it, making a point about the right for her face to remain covered. divisive it is, and it will stay that way until someone says enough is enough.

[sandyRoe]

Don't they say justice itself is blind?

[naomi24]

Em, high time someone said it.

[emmie]

sometimes blind, however this is a court of law, and what's good for one should be good for all.

[THECORBYLOON]

As the judge needed to ascertain the accused's identity, why did he not just agree to the suggestion that a female officer or court official do that for him? She has already had a photo taken so she has not refused to be seen without the veil. She was refusing to lift her veil only in the presence of men, if she had been taken to a wee room or lifted her veil while in front of only women, there would not be the hoo-hah there is.

[mushroom25]

so british justice has to be subservient to religious sensitivity then?

[vetuste_ennemi]

Justice has a scarf covering her eyes
Woman in burkha has sack covering everything except her eyes.

[pixie373]

No, religion should never be above the law (exactly as i said when the Church refused to marry two gay men). Everyone should be treated as equal.

[THECORBYLOON]

MUSHROOM, if the accused had been allowed to show her face only in the presence of a woman or women and her identity had been confirmed, it what way would "British justice" have been affected?

[ichkeria]

The only issue the judge appears to have raised is the matter of identity. If that is all he is worried about then there's a workaround. If he has other issues he should stare them if he has not already done so.
Otherwise he gives the no doubt misleading impression that he is prejudiced

[CatGirl4]

Could be any one under there!!

[pusskin]

Yes, she could be anyone under that mask. Take it off while in court.

[mushroom25]

TCL, if she was a witness, I might accept your argument that she receive preferential treatment. She's not. she's the accused.

if defendents are to be afforded the privilege of remaining hidden from view in open court, then it must apply equally to everybody. In a long hearing that would involve the identity verification process every day.

would you be prepared to underwite the cost of that?

[naomi24]

Unless they are disabled or infirm, no one should receive special treatment.

[THECORBYLOON]

MUSHROOM, does "British justice" not apply to all those involved in a trial then?

[THECORBYLOON]

MUSHROOM, the police can fingerprint when they are out and about so I doubt it would be expensive to check each day if need be. If she is charged with contempt, how will they proceed with that if her identity can not be established? How would they know it was the same person who had refused in the first place?

[mushroom25]

//If she is charged with contempt, how will they proceed with that if her identity can not be established?//

I think you just torpedoed your own argument.

:-)

[Svejk]

Its rather uncivilized of us,imo.
Does anyone know whether burkas are removed for stoning and/or beheading.

[mushroom25]

//Does anyone know whether burkas are removed for stoning and/or beheading.//

i don't know, but i would guess not. the stoners or beheaders would be "non-mahram" and not entitled to gaze on the woman.

[Baldric]

Yes she should