Reasonable request.
There is no need to cover face in a court and no it does not infringe her right to practice seeing the niqab is not a religious practice in any shape or form.
YEH !! That makes sense since that nitbob thing you mentioned is a cultural thing not a relligious item.
YEH !! That makes sense since that nitbob thing you mentioned is a cultural thing not a relligious item.
Many Arab Muslim women consider it to be religious in nature.
If a judge asked a Christian to take off a particularly disruptive crucifix, that Christian would have to comply even though the crucifix is "religious in nature".
I'm trying to imagine how exactly a crucifix could be particularly disruptive, but my imagination is failing me. :roll:
Absent a compelling reason, judges should not be interfering with people's religious beliefs. And I don't see any compelling reason in this case.
Well it's the same way a T-shirt with a bible quote or a religious signature on a member's profile is "hate speech".
Of course you don't see a compelling reason, you support students wearing pitot costumes into the class in support of a bogus 'religion' :lol:
I mean if you don't see what's wrong with that then your judgment is pretty wak.
If a judge asked a Christian to take off a particularly disruptive crucifix, that Christian would have to comply even though the crucifix is "religious in nature".
Well it's the same way a T-shirt with a bible quote or a religious signature on a member's profile is "hate speech".
Jerry said:Of course you don't see a compelling reason, you support students wearing pitot costumes into the class in support of a bogus 'religion' :lol:
I mean if you don't see what's wrong with that then your judgment is pretty wak.
I also would like to know what exactly is a "disruptive crucifix"! Is it one that has flashing red lights where the nails are and running neon red lights in the side gash? Otherwise I do not comprehend a "particularly disruptive crucifix".
I don't know what you're referring to...
but a judge has no business making someone cover up a T-shirt with a Bible quote on it. I'd question why they were wearing a T-shirt in a courtroom in the first place, but that's a different topic.
Do you have proof about these allegations towards Britain? I know that the gov't is very PC and out of control but I don't believe what you are saying about Sharia law is correct. Not that the right of a private person to wear a veil is Sharia law.She said nothing about them taking over the country.
It has more to do with moving the bar by demanding special accomidations. THis has proven a successful strategy in the U.K. where the accomidations have now become such that certain practices of Sharia law now receive the full support of the British legal system.
This is a POLITICAL move aimed at exerting pressure upon our own legal system towards similar ends (althouth the position reached in the U.K. is by no means an endpoint).
Well Society has to have ritualized disdain for someone! Today smokers, the overweight and the unborn are acceptable victims.30 years lol. Around the same time we let black people drink from the same fountains as white people. The same time gays were killed because they were gay. That was soooooooooo long ago.
I don't know what you're referring to, but a judge has no business making someone cover up a T-shirt with a Bible quote on it. I'd question why they were wearing a T-shirt in a courtroom in the first place, but that's a different topic.
Now I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. But I suspect that was your intention.
I also would like to know what exactly is a "disruptive crucifix"! Is it one that has flashing red lights where the nails are and running neon red lights in the side gash? Otherwise I do not comprehend a "particularly disruptive crucifix".
Google FTW :2wave:
Do you have proof about these allegations towards Britain? I know that the gov't is very PC and out of control but I don't believe what you are saying about Sharia law is correct. Not that the right of a private person to wear a veil is Sharia law.
ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.
It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.
That is an arbitration tribunal which is a little different, a bit like judge Judy if you will, but I agree it is worrying.Read it and weep. If Americans don't think this is the goal of Islamics in some sections of the U.S., they're delusional.
Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts -Times Online
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?