Muslim woman must remove burka in court, judge insists

[Aught3]

Judge Peter Murphy said he would not allow the 21-year-old defendant to stand trial in the veil, which only revealed her eyes, because her identity had not been confirmed.
He said the principle of open justice overrode the woman's religious beliefs and warned that a different person could go into the dock pretending to be here if she did not show her face.
But the woman, from Hackney, east London, told Blackfriars Crown Court she could not remove the veil in front of any men because of her religion.
Judge Murphy told her: “It is necessary for this court to be satisfied that they can recognise the defendant.
“While I obviously respect the right to dress in any way she wishes, certainly while outside the court, the interests of justice are paramount."

The article goes on to suggest what seems a pretty simple solution, to have a female court official or police officer identify her before standing trial.

 

[bluejatheist]

Whatever appeases their glorified dress up game I suppose

 

[Epiquinn]

The article goes on to suggest what seems a pretty simple solution, to have a female court official or police officer identify her before standing trial.

Fuck that. Everyone must play by the same rules. No special arrangements on religious grounds for anyone.

 

[Aught3]

The article goes on to suggest what seems a pretty simple solution, to have a female court official or police officer identify her before standing trial.

Fuck that. Everyone must play by the same rules. No special arrangements on religious grounds for anyone.

Why not? It's not a big imposition on the court's or anyone else's time. If she needed to be ID'd by a witness in open court for some procedural reason then okay but from the story it just seemed like the judge was being intentionally obtuse.

 

[Epiquinn]

Fuck that. Everyone must play by the same rules. No special arrangements on religious grounds for anyone.

Why not?

Because justice systems should not be subject to whims of supernatural entities.

It's not a big imposition on the court's or anyone else's time.

Yeah, and it's also not a big imposition on her to ask her to show her face, just like everyone else.

 

[sick_jesus]

Yeah, and what if a bank robber or rapist wants to keep his balaclava on in court? This isn't a muslim country and if you live here, or you're british, then understand that your religion will at times be undermined in public or government buildings. If you don't like the rules of the system go to a place where you can wear the burka in court. Also, if you know you can't wear the burka in a court of law then don't break the law or be very careful when breaking the law... do like me: make sure you don't get fucking caught!

as a foot note to this story: when she did finally remove the burka she had a full length beard! :lol:

 

[DanDare]

The rules are that the court should not place unnecessary burdens on the participants, as that may warp their equal ability to defend themselves. The court does not require anyone to be identifiable while in the doc as long as they are known to be that person by some means. If someone wants to wear a burqua, nun's habit, balaclava, mascara or dark glasses in the dock then so be it. The complaints are just bigotry and the discussion of "equal treatment" is being used to produce unequal treatment by requiring cultural conformity for no other valid reason.

 

[Deleted member 619]

My view is that no facial covering should be allowed. To the extent that witness testimony has any value (in my opinion, it has none), that value is undermined by not being able to read facial expression.

 

[DanDare]

My view is that no facial covering should be allowed. To the extent that witness testimony has any value (in my opinion, it has none), that value is undermined by not being able to read facial expression.

I would agree with that but then a rule to make facial expressions readable would require no face tatoos, excessive makeup, face studs or face lifts.

 

[Deleted member 619]

In the few days since I posted that, I've given the issue considerably more thought than went into the post, and now I'm not actually sure what I think about it. On the one hand, I still have issues with covered faces, I'm also aware that some of that is just cultural bias. I think that there's a very delicate balance of critical liberties, and it requires careful consideration.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Although I take the point that a female officer of the court could confirm the identity of the witness prior to her entering the stand, there remains the issue of the fact that the veil may make what she says difficult for the court to hear - particularly if she has a accent.

The main reason for the veil (and full covering) is a cultural one rather than religious - it was to prevent males' passions being aroused by the sight of a female's face (flesh).

This is hardly a reason for not revealing the face in a court of law or other official circumstance rather than in general public appearances - although even in the latter's case it's arguably a non-argument for covering a woman's face/body, unless the woman in question feels uncomfortable (vulnerable) doing so in public.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[tuxbox]

Greetings,

Although I take the point that a female officer of the court could confirm the identity of the witness prior to her entering the stand, there remains the issue of the fact that the veil may make what she says difficult for the court to hear - particularly if she has a accent.

The main reason for the veil (and full covering) is a cultural one rather than religious - it was to prevent males' passions being aroused by the sight of a female's face (flesh).

This is hardly a reason for not revealing the face in a court of law or other official circumstance rather than in general public appearances - although even in the latter's case it's arguably a non-argument for covering a woman's face/body, unless the woman in question feels uncomfortable (vulnerable) doing so in public.

Kindest regards,

James

The religious should not get special treatment in society, regardless whether or not they feel uncomfortable and what is to stop someone from lying and saying they are uncomfortable just to make it easier for them to lie to the jury?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

Although I take the point that a female officer of the court could confirm the identity of the witness prior to her entering the stand, there remains the issue of the fact that the veil may make what she says difficult for the court to hear - particularly if she has a accent.

The main reason for the veil (and full covering) is a cultural one rather than religious - it was to prevent males' passions being aroused by the sight of a female's face (flesh).

This is hardly a reason for not revealing the face in a court of law or other official circumstance rather than in general public appearances - although even in the latter's case it's arguably a non-argument for covering a woman's face/body, unless the woman in question feels uncomfortable (vulnerable) doing so in public.

Kindest regards,

James

The religious should not get special treatment in society, regardless whether or not they feel uncomfortable and what is to stop someone from lying and saying they are uncomfortable just to make it easier for them to lie to the jury?

Both victims and witnesses are allowed give testimony behind a screen in certain circumstances.

A veil is one way of doing so.

However, the argument can be made that a Muslim woman could give testimony behind a screen without a veil as no-one would see her face.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[tuxbox]

Greetings,

Both victims and witnesses are allowed give testimony behind a screen in certain circumstances.

A veil is one way of doing so.

However, the argument can be made that a Muslim woman could give testimony behind a screen without a veil as no-one would see her face.

Kindest regards,

James

This is true in the States as well, but it not done for religious reasons. It is usually done to protect the identity of a victim or witnesses.

 

[surreptitious57]

When it is a legal requirement for a face covering to be removed then it should be complied with. Other than
that one should be allowed to wear what ever they want to in a public space. I do love the irony of those who
expect Muslims to conform to Western traditions of fashion while ignoring the fact that anyone is free to dress
exactly how they choose to over here. If you do not like the way someone dresses it is your problem not theirs

 

[tuxbox]

When it is a legal requirement for a face covering to be removed then it should be complied with. Other than
that one should be allowed to wear what ever they want to in a public space. I do love the irony of those who
expect Muslims to conform to Western traditions of fashion while ignoring the fact that anyone is free to dress
exactly how they choose to over here. If you do not like the way someone dresses it is your problem not theirs

I don't really care how someone dresses in public, but in a court of law, no one should get special treatment.