Defendent told to remove burka by crown court judge.

[Infinite Chaos]

A judge has refused to let a Muslim woman in a full-length burka enter a plea until she reveals her face.The 21-year-old from Hackney, who is charged with intimidating a witness, said she could not remove the veil in front of men because of her religion.
Judge Peter Murphy said however, she could not stand trial in the veil, which only reveals her eyes, because her identity could not be confirmed.

--quote--

The woman's barrister, Claire Burtwistle, told the court the woman was not prepared to lower her veil with men in the room and suggested a female police officer or prison guard could identify the defendant and confirm it to the court. Link

Had to laugh at the cheek of the woman, however it reminds me of the teacher's assistant in Preston a few years ago who took her employer to court for sacking her when she refused to remove her burka when the teacher she was supposed to be assisting was in the same classroom.

Her claim that she could not remove her veil because of her religion was utterly false so it was damn right of the judge to order her to remove her veil in court for her plea. The principle "equal before the law" had to be upheld.

 

[Gardener]

Had to laugh at the cheek of the woman, .

If you saw her cheeks, she must have complied with the request quite thoroughly.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Had to laugh at the cheek of the woman, however it reminds me of the teacher's assistant in Preston a few years ago who took her employer to court for sacking her when she refused to remove her burka when the teacher she was supposed to be assisting was in the same classroom.

Her claim that she could not remove her veil because of her religion was utterly false so it was damn right of the judge to order her to remove her veil in court for her plea. The principle "equal before the law" had to be upheld.

In Canada, our Supreme Court has made the ridiculous and totally unpopular ruling that a trial judge must examine the religious beliefs of a woman wearing such "modesty" garments that are not religious requirements and take into account whether or not removing a head covering of any kind is necessary for the fair delivery of justice. Of course, each side, depending on the judges ruling, will appeal the decision and trials will become circuses as appeals of the "burka" accommodation or lack thereof make their way back to the Supreme Court.

One has to wonder, sometimes, if judges lose all concept of reality or appreciation for the consequences of their stupidty once they gain the position.

 

[ecofarm]

If you saw her cheeks, she must have complied with the request quite thoroughly.

It was an assless burka.

 

[polgara]

In Canada, our Supreme Court has made the ridiculous and totally unpopular ruling that a trial judge must examine the religious beliefs of a woman wearing such "modesty" garments that are not religious requirements and take into account whether or not removing a head covering of any kind is necessary for the fair delivery of justice. Of course, each side, depending on the judges ruling, will appeal the decision and trials will become circuses as appeals of the "burka" accommodation or lack thereof make their way back to the Supreme Court.

One has to wonder, sometimes, if judges lose all concept of reality or appreciation for the consequences of their stupidty once they gain the position.

Interesting post, CJ. How many people are interested in seeing the laws of your country challenged? This could open up an unwelcome can of worms, IMO.:shock:

 

[CanadaJohn]

Interesting post, CJ. How many people are interested in seeing the laws of your country challenged? This could open up an unwelcome can of worms, IMO.:shock:

Well, the Supreme Court has ruled so unless they revisit the ruling or the federal government passes legislation voiding the Supreme Court's decision it is what it is. It is political correctness run amok.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Had to laugh at the cheek of the woman, however it reminds me of the teacher's assistant in Preston a few years ago who took her employer to court for sacking her when she refused to remove her burka when the teacher she was supposed to be assisting was in the same classroom.

Her claim that she could not remove her veil because of her religion was utterly false so it was damn right of the judge to order her to remove her veil in court for her plea. The principle "equal before the law" had to be upheld.

I wonder how many judges actually know the faces of the defendants scheduled to appear before them.

That aside, the woman has a lawyer, and the lawyer is an officer of the court. The judge is essentially saying he can't trust a fellow officer of the court. How is that appropriate?

Even if it is appropriate, why is the simplest of compromises -- a female officer -- not acceptable to the court?

 

[Grand Mal]

In Canada, our Supreme Court has made the ridiculous and totally unpopular ruling that a trial judge must examine the religious beliefs of a woman wearing such "modesty" garments that are not religious requirements and take into account whether or not removing a head covering of any kind is necessary for the fair delivery of justice. Of course, each side, depending on the judges ruling, will appeal the decision and trials will become circuses as appeals of the "burka" accommodation or lack thereof make their way back to the Supreme Court.

One has to wonder, sometimes, if judges lose all concept of reality or appreciation for the consequences of their stupidty once they gain the position.

I don't support any legislative measure that takes discretion out of the hands of judges. I want these issues to be decided case-by-case by judges, not covered by blanket legislation produced by the same idiots who have saddled society with unworkable laws.
Who's your MP? Do you want his or her opinion to dictate the judgement in the courtroom?

 

[Infinite Chaos]

In Canada, our Supreme Court has made the ridiculous and totally unpopular ruling that a trial judge must examine the religious beliefs of a woman wearing such "modesty" garments that are not religious requirements and take into account whether or not removing a head covering of any kind is necessary for the fair delivery of justice.

Sounds completely ridiculous I'm afraid - do you know why the Canadian Supreme Court came to this conclusion?

I wonder how many judges actually know the faces of the defendants scheduled to appear before them.

That aside, the woman has a lawyer, and the lawyer is an officer of the court. The judge is essentially saying he can't trust a fellow officer of the court. How is that appropriate?

Even if it is appropriate, why is the simplest of compromises -- a female officer -- not acceptable to the court?

The reason is that a court of law is where justice is served, allowing someone to cover their face in court opens up all sorts of problems and we shouldn't have to accommodate such requests. The burka is a cultural garment, not a religious one. To use the judge's own words "There is the principle of open justice and it can't be subject to the religion of the defendant whether the principle is observed or not."


Justice has to be seen to be done and allowing a burka wearer to do this would open up problems if a rapist or mugger wished to wear a balaclava in court. That may sound a silly example but we have sexual equality laws and if we allow a woman to wear a facial cover, why not a male?
How would witnesses also identify their attacker in court if they (male or female are allowed to wear a facial cover in court?

 

[gunner]

Had to laugh at the cheek of the woman, however it reminds me of the teacher's assistant in Preston a few years ago who took her employer to court for sacking her when she refused to remove her burka when the teacher she was supposed to be assisting was in the same classroom.

Her claim that she could not remove her veil because of her religion was utterly false so it was damn right of the judge to order her to remove her veil in court for her plea. The principle "equal before the law" had to be upheld.

That is the essential part; the judicial process is a tenet of any ordered society, and equality under it paramount.

I wonder how many judges actually know the faces of the defendants scheduled to appear before them.

That aside, the woman has a lawyer, and the lawyer is an officer of the court. The judge is essentially saying he can't trust a fellow officer of the court. How is that appropriate?

Even if it is appropriate, why is the simplest of compromises -- a female officer -- not acceptable to the court?

Why should a court 'compromise' over it's procedures?

Paul

 

[CanadaJohn]

I don't support any legislative measure that takes discretion out of the hands of judges. I want these issues to be decided case-by-case by judges, not covered by blanket legislation produced by the same idiots who have saddled society with unworkable laws.
Who's your MP? Do you want his or her opinion to dictate the judgement in the courtroom?

I don't want any individual to skirt the historical justice system that's worked just fine here for decades. Why should a woman be able to hide her face from someone she's accused or from those who need to identify her simply because she's "modest" or because the men in her life dictate she hide her face? Should a non-muslim woman be able to wear a black veil in court when she's a witness? defendant?

Courts and juries historically watch facial expressions to see when people are lying or telling the truth - very easy to lie on the witness stand when your face is covered.

This ruling leaves every ruling by a judge regarding wearing a burka or other head covering open to endless appeals - it's stupid.

 

[Andalublue]

I don't want any individual to skirt the historical justice system that's worked just fine here for decades. Why should a woman be able to hide her face from someone she's accused or from those who need to identify her simply because she's "modest" or because the men in her life dictate she hide her face? Should a non-muslim woman be able to wear a black veil in court when she's a witness? defendant?

Courts and juries historically watch facial expressions to see when people are lying or telling the truth - very easy to lie on the witness stand when your face is covered.

This ruling leaves every ruling by a judge regarding wearing a burka or other head covering open to endless appeals - it's stupid.

I agree.

While cultural practices ought to be respected, when doing so would damage the process of justice the needs of the court come first and the woman should be required to show her face.

Burka-wearing appears nowhere in the Qur'an, it's a cultural practice from Afghanistan and central Asia adopted by extreme Islamic sects based on their own interpretation of Hadiths. There is also a small Haredi Jewish sect in Israel that requires it too.

 

[Serenity]

If you saw her cheeks, she must have complied with the request quite thoroughly.

Good one :lol:

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

The reason is that a court of law is where justice is served, allowing someone to cover their face in court opens up all sorts of problems and we shouldn't have to accommodate such requests. The burka is a cultural garment, not a religious one. To use the judge's own words "There is the principle of open justice and it can't be subject to the religion of the defendant whether the principle is observed or not."


Justice has to be seen to be done and allowing a burka wearer to do this would open up problems if a rapist or mugger wished to wear a balaclava in court. That may sound a silly example but we have sexual equality laws and if we allow a woman to wear a facial cover, why not a male?
How would witnesses also identify their attacker in court if they (male or female are allowed to wear a facial cover in court?

Leaving aside the religion versus culture discussion, if you allow a defendant to wear such a garment and devise a legally acceptable work-around, defendants won't wear them to try to trick the court because they won't be able to trick the court.

It doesn't cost the court anything to do so but a little time and thought. Instead what we have here is what we have in practically every courtroom the world over -- you walk into a courtroom, and the presiding judge acts as though you have entered their personal fife.

I'm a fan of the role judges play and I think that legislatures impinge on them far too often, but this because-I-say-so thinking is too much even for me.

 

[justabubba]

why unnecessarily deprive the woman of her ability to conform to her religious principles?
would we require a nun to remove the headdress of her habit, in order to view her full face?
the alternative method, having a woman view the defendant out of the sight of males, to confirm the appropriate person was taking the stand, satisfied the question that there was no imposter beneath the veil
this was but a thinly veiled attack upon the islamic religion

 

[AGENT J]

its a court room, not a church and somethings need to be done to treat everyone equal, nobody is special in a courtroom.


in court cases body languages and facial expressions can be VERY important so yes, no burka, this is just common sense.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

its a court room, not a church and somethings need to be done to treat everyone equal, nobody is special in a courtroom.

There's nothing special about respecting someone else's religion where it doesn't compromise anyone else's rights or jeopardize the operation of the court.

in court cases body languages and facial expressions can be VERY important so yes, no burka, this is just common sense.

We're talking about England, the originator of the right to not to incriminate yourself. I don't see how the court has a right to observe her body language or facial expressions if she doesn't choose to reveal them.

 

[gunner]

why unnecessarily deprive the woman of her ability to conform to her religious principles?
would we require a nun to remove the headdress of her habit, in order to view her full face?
the alternative method, having a woman view the defendant out of the sight of males, to confirm the appropriate person was taking the stand, satisfied the question that there was no imposter beneath the veil
this was but a thinly veiled attack upon the islamic religion

Leaving aside the religion versus culture discussion, if you allow a defendant to wear such a garment and devise a legally acceptable work-around, defendants won't wear them to try to trick the court because they won't be able to trick the court.

It doesn't cost the court anything to do so but a little time and thought. Instead what we have here is what we have in practically every courtroom the world over -- you walk into a courtroom, and the presiding judge acts as though you have entered their personal fife.

I'm a fan of the role judges play and I think that legislatures impinge on them far too often, but this because-I-say-so thinking is too much even for me.

There is NO absolute necessity for adherents of Islam to wear a Burkha, other than those who follow a selective brand so extreme
that the right of a woman is subjugated by the will of a man.

Paul

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

There is NO absolute necessity for adherents of Islam to wear a Burkha, other than those who follow a selective brand so extreme
that the right of a woman is subjugated by the will of a man.

So what? If that's her religion, that's her religion. Her wearing a Burkha doesn't violate anyone else's rights or jeopardize the operation of the court.

 

[justabubba]

There is NO absolute necessity for adherents of Islam to wear a Burkha, other than those who follow a selective brand so extreme
that the right of a woman is subjugated by the will of a man.

Paul

what we know is the woman chose to wear it consistent with HER own religious beliefs
i can already hear the yelling and gnashing of teeth if the judge similarly required a Christian woman to remove the cross pendant from around her neck
another item not anywhere required in the scripture to be worn by faith adherents
but the hue and cry would insist that such requirement of the court was nothing more than an attack on Christians
just as this IS an actual attack on those of the islamic faith

 

[gunner]

So what? If that's her religion, that's her religion. Her wearing a Burkha doesn't violate anyone else's rights or jeopardize the operation of the court.

I take you know very little about court process? As has been mentioned viewing a persons face is an integral part of assessing their guilt or not, moreover, you would not be allowed to wear hats etc. If she does not like the process, how do you think she would cope under Sharia?

Paul

 

[AGENT J]

1.)There's nothing special about respecting someone else's religion where it doesn't compromise anyone else's rights or jeopardize the operation of the court.

2.)We're talking about England, the originator of the right to not to incriminate yourself. I don't see how the court has a right to observe her body language or facial expressions if she doesn't choose to reveal them.

I know where we are talking about but of course im operating under what goes on here in the US. SO simply questions are other people allowed to hide their face, if so then ok, if not then to bad. WOuld be ok if people just testified over the phone if their ID was verified? How about chat room? If those things are ok over there then fine, if not she has to play by the same rules as everybody else.

1.) again unless others are allowed to hide their face it definitely compromises the operation of the court
2.) are you saying that others can simply refuse to go into the court if they dont want to and testify from home? if not again see 1#

its courtroom not a church she plays by the same rules as everyone.

 

[justabubba]

I know where we are talking about but of course im operating under what goes on here in the US. SO simply questions are other people allowed to hide their face, if so then ok, if not then to bad. WOuld be ok if people just testified over the phone if their ID was verified? How about chat room? If those things are ok over there then fine, if not she has to play by the same rules as everybody else.

1.) again unless others are allowed to hide their face it definitely compromises the operation of the court
2.) are you saying that others can simply refuse to go into the court if they dont want to and testify from home? if not again see 1#

its courtroom not a church she plays by the same rules as everyone.

just so long as she is deprived of the right to practice her religion as she understands it is to be observed

 

[AGENT J]

what we know is the woman chose to wear it consistent with HER own religious beliefs
i can already hear the yelling and gnashing of teeth if the judge similarly required a Christian woman to remove the cross pendant from around her neck
another item not anywhere required in the scripture to be worn by faith adherents
but the hue and cry would insist that such requirement of the court was nothing more than an attack on Christians
just as this IS an actual attack on those of the islamic faith

cross around neck =/= to hiding ones face

not even close to equal, theres no attack unless others over their can also hide their faces, if they cant she cant either.

 

[gunner]

what we know is the woman chose to wear it consistent with HER own religious beliefs
i can already hear the yelling and gnashing of teeth if the judge similarly required a Christian woman to remove the cross pendant from around her neck
another item not anywhere required in the scripture to be worn by faith adherents
but the hue and cry would insist that such requirement of the court was nothing more than an attack on Christians
just as this IS an actual attack on those of the islamic faith

What utter bullcrap. It is the covering of the face that is the issue.

Paul