Body & Soul1 min ago
Should She Be Made To Remove Her Burkha?
155 Answers
http://
/// 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?
/// 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?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
The Sunday Express has an article saying the Burka ban has been backed by the legal profession Michael Turner QC agrees with the judge. He said on Radio 4 - "that the public are entitled to see an individual who is entering their plea, if you carry forward to trial process and a person in a full burka intends to give evidence is it right that the jury cannot see the person giving evidence? Our whole courtroom is set up so that the jury can see a witness give evidence and a reaction of that witness is very important in terms of the jury's thinking." The case will be heard on Sept 12.
MUSHROOM, it's not my argument that's been torpedoed, it's the Judge's. If he says the accused's identity has not been established in August and a person appearing in the court in September claiming to be the accused again refuses to lift her veil, a contempt charge may be considered. How could the Judge possibly say with certainty they are one and the same? How could he say he is dealing with the same woman that appeared in front of him in August?
Corby the trial is going ahead, by all accounts the legal profession back the judge. The Sunday Express have expressed their opinion on it praising the judge and British Justice. I have yet to hear of a whole jury of blind people in court on the same day not to mention with a blind judge. Why are you putting up obstacles? There should be no special dispensations in a courtroom except for confirmed disablity, the burka is not required in religion. it has no place here either.
"then they should use fingerprints"
For heaven's sake DJ !!! Why on earth should a court fanny about identifying participants by means of fingerprints? Apart from the practical problems that have been discussed in this and another question this is the United Kingdom and people here involved in court proceedings should be prepared to reveal their identity by means of facial recognition. There is no reason why anybody needs to conceal their face in such circumstances.
For heaven's sake DJ !!! Why on earth should a court fanny about identifying participants by means of fingerprints? Apart from the practical problems that have been discussed in this and another question this is the United Kingdom and people here involved in court proceedings should be prepared to reveal their identity by means of facial recognition. There is no reason why anybody needs to conceal their face in such circumstances.
NAOMI, guidance issued by the Judicial Studies Board in 2010 states respect should be shown when considering such a case so they believe that different treatment is appropriate. The point at issue is the Judge is insisting that the ONLY way of confirming her identity is by his seeing her face even when a police officer has confirmed her identity. If a Muslim woman had been the victim of abuse and refused to lift her veil to a male judge who requested it soley to confirm identity, would you be happy if that judge refused to let her appear as a witness and the case collapsed as a consequence?
The judge started with a fairly bad point, that he couldn't be sure who it was, when it turns out that a woman police officer could say with certainty that this as the same person that she interviewed or otherwise knew, but he very quickly went on to the main objections, which are those which we have already discussed on this thread.
Corbloon:If a woman complainant refuses to remove he face covering when in court then she won't be allowed to testify, if only because the defendant is entitled to a full and fair trial and have his counsel and the jury see the woman's face. This would not be a matter of identity, whether anybody suggested that or not and whether or not the identity question was resolved.
Corbloon:If a woman complainant refuses to remove he face covering when in court then she won't be allowed to testify, if only because the defendant is entitled to a full and fair trial and have his counsel and the jury see the woman's face. This would not be a matter of identity, whether anybody suggested that or not and whether or not the identity question was resolved.
TCL, //If a Muslim woman had been the victim of abuse and refused to lift her veil to a male judge who requested it soley to confirm identity, would you be happy if that judge refused to let her appear as a witness and the case collapsed as a consequence? //
Actually, yes I would. If she wanted justice but refused to comply with the judge's instruction, expecting special privileges, I'd have no sympathy for her. I really think we have to stop pussyfooting around the issue of the burka and make a definite ruling on it.
Actually, yes I would. If she wanted justice but refused to comply with the judge's instruction, expecting special privileges, I'd have no sympathy for her. I really think we have to stop pussyfooting around the issue of the burka and make a definite ruling on it.
TCL, If she would prefer her attacker to escape justice rather than show her face, why should I complain? That’s her choice.
I’m actually pretty fed up with Muslims demanding special privilege – and getting it. Why should our Courts to go the trouble of making special arrangements for them? Even the NHS, contrary to the hygiene rules that apply to other staff, have conceded to religious foibles (which in the case of the burka is often a political statement rather than a religious requirement anyway) by allowing Muslims to cover their arms – thereby compromising the well-being of the patient. Sorry, TCL – not good enough. People like this woman are making fools of us and they know it. It’s high time we put a stop to this nonsense. Time to start saying ‘no!’
I’m actually pretty fed up with Muslims demanding special privilege – and getting it. Why should our Courts to go the trouble of making special arrangements for them? Even the NHS, contrary to the hygiene rules that apply to other staff, have conceded to religious foibles (which in the case of the burka is often a political statement rather than a religious requirement anyway) by allowing Muslims to cover their arms – thereby compromising the well-being of the patient. Sorry, TCL – not good enough. People like this woman are making fools of us and they know it. It’s high time we put a stop to this nonsense. Time to start saying ‘no!’
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.