Defendent told to remove burka by crown court judge.

[ChrisL]

You basing your argument on emotion, not fact. That is what I meant.



We do. It only covers civil matters if both parties agree. UK crminal is ( as she was charged under) the only system for her to be tried under.

Paul

I'm not really quite sure how such courts operate here in the US, but I do know they exist. Probably for divorces and other family court type matters.

 

[Medusa]

I must have misunderstood this post, sorry. I thought you were defending her right to be covered, a humanist would support the banning, by the way.

Paul

there are lots of moronic humanists in this world:mrgreen:

 

[gunner]

This is so wrong.
I suppose the judge's hands were tied when the prosecution barrister said she was happy for a police officer to verify the accused woman's identity but this is not a good day for equality before the law or justice in the UK today.

In addition to your update, IC. As I stated in my many posts:

"But in a lengthy ruling, Judge Murphy said it was of "cardinal importance" to the adversarial system that a jury could see a defendant's face while giving evidence[...]"

And:

"In her legal submissions, the defendant's barrister, Susan Meek, had argued that jurors would still be able to assess her demeanour by examining how her head, body and eyes moved.

A fair compromise?

He said while the defendant would have to remove her niqab while giving evidence, screens could be erected or video links used to ensure she was only visible to the judge, the jury and counsel.

Muslim woman Rebekah Dawson must remove niqab while giving evidence, judge rules - Telegraph

The face plays a massive part in our judicial system, which so many in this thread dismissed as unnecessary.

Paul

 

[gunner]

That is so completely inaccurate you don't even know how wrong you are. The majority of identifications in the courtroom are by a victim or witness who points to the defendant sitting in the courtroom and saying, "That's the person I saw commit the crime". It's that ID that you want, for some reason, to make illegal or something. I don't pretend to understand it.

Sorry, I forgot to bring you back into the discussion (see above).

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- The face plays a massive part in our judicial system, which so many in this thread dismissed as unnecessary.

Seems like a national debate on the face veil is starting after a call by Jeremy Browne's call for such. Going to start a separate thread on this.