Should These Women Have Even Been Allowed To Enter Court In Their Burkas?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4494956/Mother-daughter-court-terror-plot.html

/// District Judge Emma Arbuthnot had to ask both women – who appeared in burkas which covered their entire bodies and faces – to lift their veils, as their eyes were hidden by dark mesh screens. She said: ‘Miss Boular and Miss Dich, would you mind removing at least part of your veils so I can see part of your eyes?’ ///

/// Boular responded by lifting her veil for a few seconds, while her mother sat motionless and refused to expose her face throughout the preliminary hearing. ///

[Islay]

It is not illegal to wear a Burka, I don't believe they were in court over the taste in clothing

[andy-hughes]

Yes they should have been allowed to enter the court wearing their burkas - there is no law against it.

That said, I think the women should have revealed their faces at the judge's request - failure to do so should have resulted in a Contempt Of Court charge, since that it literally what it was.

[naomi24]

No.

[-Talbot-]

No they should not.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - why not?

[Togo]

Perhaps the thieves who have been mugging pedestrians whilst riding scooters, will be able to enter court wearing their helmets and face visors when apprehended.

[Togo]

Or better still the clowns arrested whilst fighting after a drunken fancy dress night out could keep their guises on. Can just see Darth Vador and Chewbacca in the dock.

[mushroom25]

//it is not illegal to wear a burkha//

true. but wouldn't you concede that serious difficulties could arise with the idea that a defendent or witness should have her head covered where any evidence pertaining is contested? surely if there is any question of credibility, it should be uncovered, shouldn't it?

in the UK justice is served by contested evidence being decided by witnesses giving evidence before a jury and having credibility weighed - and one factor taken strongly into account is the impression the defendent or witness makes and that includes being able to see their face.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //Naomi - why not?//

That question doesn't warrant a considered response.

[ichkeria]

They should have been made to remove them in court. One did as asked, one did not.

The wider "burka ban" thing is irrelevant. Guess what guys, banning burkas does not, in fact, wave a magic wand any more than banning mobile phone use in cars stops people doing it.
So I agree with andy.

[anotheoldgit]

It may not be illegal to wear the burka, but in certain circumstances it should not be allowed.

As already pointed out one would not be able to wear the perfectly legal (in fact compulsory) crash helmet and are they also within their right to have a burka covering their head on pass-port and driving licence's photographs, why not one could say, after all they are legal?

[andy-hughes]

Togo - //Perhaps the thieves who have been mugging pedestrians whilst riding scooters, will be able to enter court wearing their helmets and face visors when apprehended. //

Not really a valid comparison, as I am sure you are aware.

People wear crash helmets to comply with the law when riding motorcycles - there is no requirement for them to wear them when not riding, so it is not reasonable for them to wear them in court.

Religious attire is worn on a daily basis by that religion's adherents, and there is no law to compel them to dress as they would do normally, to attend court.

[andy-hughes]

Togo - Or better still the clowns arrested whilst fighting after a drunken fancy dress night out could keep their guises on. Can just see Darth Vador and Chewbacca in the dock. //

Once again, the law comes into play. Appearing in fancy dress is not standard attire, and risks a Contempt Of Court charge.

[andy-hughes]

AOG - //As already pointed out one would not be able to wear the perfectly legal (in fact compulsory) crash helmet and are they also within their right to have a burka covering their head on pass-port and driving licence's photographs, why not one could say, after all they are legal? //

As with Togo, your point does not stand up.

It is a legal requirement to wear a helmet only when riding a motorcycle, that does not apply to appearing in court.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //andy-hughes, //Naomi - why not?//

That question doesn't warrant a considered response. //

I believe it does.

How am I to accept your viewpoint if you are not willing to explain it?

You may argue that you are not interested in whether I accept your view or not, but that is not in the spirit of debate, so I would appreciate a response please.

[anotheoldgit]

/// Appearing in fancy dress is not standard attire, and risks a Contempt Of Court charge. ///

As already said these women should have faced a Contempt Of Court charge.

[naomi24]

These women were there on charges of terrorism. I seriously fail to understand why anyone would support their contemptuous attitude towards a British court of law.

[Islay]

AH there is no point in trying to make common sense arguments over this subject

[Togo]

You are allowed to put Jedi on a census form as you religion, so why cant a Darth Vador costume be allowed. He was a Jedi and it is an officially recognised religion. ;))

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //These women were there on charges of terrorism. I seriously fail to understand why anyone would support their contemptuous attitude towards a British court of law. //

These women are innocent until proven guilty, and the perception that they are wearing their religious clothing in order to demonstrate contempt for the court is just that - a perception.

If we start dictating how people dress in order to appear in court, then we are as bad as the Muslims who you constantly say force women to wear burkas.

You can't have it both ways.