UK Judge refuses to allow burka wearer to enter a plea!

Hitchens

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23814711

About time this burka nonsense was sorted out. Well done Judge Murphy!

paddy147

The judge is a racist so.................................
































Actually hes not...fair fcuks to him for doing what he did.

My name is URL

"Take off that silly hat and swear on this bible that you'll tell the truth"

wexie

this oughta be interesting....

MadsL

Wow. Just....wow.

MJ23

And he with a stupid looking white curly wig.

martinedwards

WELL DONE INDEED.....

Though.....

if your Mum was in Umbotoland where it's compulsory for all court witnesses to give evidence while naked on a mechanical Bull..........

clairefontaine

He made the right call.

MadsL

Ridiculous headwear, this is a court of law after all. Time to end silly garb in courts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q80ElML7KGk

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

definitely made the right call

Elbaston

Could have been anyone under there.


- ehh no, the accused didn't commit the crime, ill just go out and tell him its ok to come back in.

Howard Juneau

The judges reasoning & explaination are sound. If the accused is being charged with intimidating a witness, how can she be identified if she remains in her burka?

Kinzig

Murphys law applies in this case:D

MadsL

Why can her identity not be confirmed by a female prison officer?? Is the judge afraid of Houdini style trick?

paddy147

Elbaston wrote: »

Could have been anyone under there.

You damn right there....


"She" could be hiding a "tambomb" in there somewhere....:pac:

Cody Pomeray

I can't believe anyone would defend the notion of a person appearing in an open court in full disguise, without citing personal safety reasons.

For the record - I'm not in favour of wigs in the courtroom, but I do appreciate they have a role in protecting the anonymity/ safety of counsel and judges.

But to say that someone can seriously expect to turn up in court with a bin bag over their heads? For god's sake lads.

meoklmrk91

MadsL wrote: »

Why can her identity not be confirmed by a female prison officer?? Is the judge afraid of Houdini style trick?

If I went into court with a potato sack on my head and said it was part of my religion would I not get the same treatment? I have no problem with anyone who is religious as long as it doesn't affect me but this is court of law and religion has no place in it.

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1537414/Murder-suspect-fled-under-Muslim-veil.html

A Somali asylum seeker wanted for the murder of WPc Sharon Beshenivsky is believed to have fled Britain dressed as a woman wearing a Muslim niqab, which covers the whole face apart from the eyes.

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

Why can her identity not be confirmed by a female prison officer?? Is the judge afraid of Houdini style trick?

That's not how trials work in a democracy.

Jury and advocacy have to verify the witnesses and all participants.

You show your face in the west. That's how it works.

MadsL

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

If I went into court with a potato sack on my head and said it was part of my religion would I not get the same treatment? I have no problem with anyone who is religious as long as it doesn't affect me but this is court of law and religion has no place in it.

I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give....

How does this women wearing a burka affect you?

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give....

How does this women wearing a burka affect you?

You want us to swear by Allah? Would you like to import all the other nsanity of the ME as it applies to women on trial?

wexie

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1537414/Murder-suspect-fled-under-Muslim-veil.html

I was actually just wondering how these things work with passports and passport photo's (or ID in general?)?

Surely they don't just have passports of a black mask with some eyes showing?

bizmark

their ridiculous religion has no place in a civilized world anyway worked hard to subdue the power of the church in Europe we don't need an even more backward one having special privileges for its idiotic anti women/human practices

MadsL

clairefontaine wrote: »

That's not how trials work in a democracy.

Jury and advocacy have to verify the witnesses and all participants.

You show your face in the west. That's how it works.

Why can an officer of the court not bring the women before the court and testify under oath that it is the same woman?

Showing her face does not prove identity, she could have an identical twin sister...

MadsL

bizmark wrote: »

their ridiculous religion has no place in a civilized world anyway worked hard to subdue the power of the church in Europe we don't need an even more backward one having special privileges for its idiotic anti women/human practices

Wtf? You realise the burka has very little to do with Islam?

red sean

If the real IRA turned up in court with balaclavas on, I'd expect they'd be made remove them.
Yet they're part of the uniform!

MadsL

clairefontaine wrote: »

You want us to swear by Allah? Would you like to import all the other nsanity of the ME as it applies to women on trial?

Or Jehova? Or Krishna? Or no God at all...

Madness, where would it end??

Can't be treating people as people.

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

Why can an officer of the court not bring the women before the court and testify under oath that it is the same woman?

Showing her face does not prove identity, she could have an identical twin sister...

Unlikely.

Because we in the west value transparency. It's an essential part of checks and balances.

The jury needs to see the face. In fact it works in a defendants favour. If the jury can't see your face, you look like you have something to hide. Your pretty much guaranteeing yourself a guilty verdict.

If you can't tolerate transparency,mother you go back to the ME and get stoned to death.

Examine what you tolerate.

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

Or Jehova? Or Krishna? Or no God at all...

Madness, where would it end??

Can't be treating people as people.

I agree God should be taken out of the oath. It should be secularised.

wexie

MadsL wrote: »

Wtf? You realise the burka has very little to do with Islam?

How's that?

(genuinely enquiring now)

Boombastic

They don't allow balaclava's in court, surprisingly enough. If she is so religious what is she doing in court, let me guess, wrongly accused??

MadsL

clairefontaine wrote: »

Unlikely.

Because we in the west value transparency. It's an essential part of checks and balances.

The jury needs to see the face. In fact it works in a defendants favour. If the jury can't see your face, you look like you have something to hide. Your pretty much guaranteeing yourself a guilty verdict.

If you can't tolerate transparency,mother you go back to the ME and get stoned to death.

Examine what you tolerate.

Wow, that's some bile right there Claire.

This women was entering a plea, no jury involved.

As for stoning,

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 wrote:

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death."

MadsL

Boombastic wrote: »

They don't allow balaclava's in court, surprisingly enough. If she is so religious what is she doing in court, let me guess, wrongly accused??

No religious person ever has been accused of a crime. Got it.

At least she wasn't praying in a park.

bizmark

oh look a quote from a book that isnt legal and doesnt get carried out in the west at all unlike you know what happens with Muslim law right now

Cody Pomeray

MadsL wrote: »

How does this women wearing a burka affect you?

It affects anyone with an interest in seeing justice administered properly.

A major reason why justice is administered in public includes the deterrent effect on criminality. Can you just steal into court and accept blame in some basement office at 4am? No. You do so publicly, before your peers, in a place where any one of those peers can walk in and witness your identity.

And except in the most sensitive cases, it is important that a judge, or a jury (where applicable) should be able to have regard to the body language of a witness or an accused when s/he is giving evidence, or answering a charge.

MadsL

wexie wrote: »

How's that?

(genuinely enquiring now)

The word burqa is not to be found anywhere in the Qu'ran, but it falls under the heading of hijab, an instruction in the Qu'ran to dress modestly (both men and women)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa

valknut

Fair play to the judge, common sense in a court of law.

MadsL

bizmark wrote: »

oh look a quote from a book that isnt legal and doesnt get carried out in the west at all unlike you know what happens with Muslim law right now

Murray Seidman, in 2011, a 70 year old senior in Lansdowne, Pennsylvania, near Philadelphia, stoned to death by 28 year old John Thomas after allegedly making sexual advances towards the younger man. Thomas' defence is that he did it because The Bible says to kill homosexuals.

K.Flyer

MadsL wrote: »

Wtf? You realise the burka has very little to do with Islam?

Maybe so, but she is refusing to remove the burka on account of Her religion, whichever one that may be.

MadsL

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It affects anyone with an interest in seeing justice administered properly.

A major reason why justice is administered in public includes the deterrent effect on criminality. Can you just steal into court and accept blame in some basement office at 4am? No. You do so publicly, before your peers, in a place where any one of those peers can walk in and witness your identity.

And except in the most sensitive cases, it is important that a judge, or a jury (where applicable) should be able to have regard to the body language of a witness or an accused when s/he is giving evidence, or answering a charge.

She did appear in public, just as she appears everyday in public.

Tell me, should nuns have to remove their habit to appear in court?

meoklmrk91

MadsL wrote: »

I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give....

How does this women wearing a burka affect you?

I completely concur, swearing on the bible is archaic at best.

It doesn't affect me personally, I never said it did, it does however beg the question that if I went into court having been accused of a crime with a sack on my head and said it was part of my religion would I be afforded any of the special treatment that this woman is asking for, I think not, and therefore she shouldn't get it either. Religion as I have said has not place in a court of law.

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

Wow, that's some bile right there Claire.

This women was entering a plea, no jury involved.

As for stoning,

It's not bile madsl.

Transparency is essential to democracy. So is identity and its verification. So is precedent in law.

If they let one person stay hidden, they have to let all. You think ifnyounwere pulled aside by a state trooper they'd ask for your license and let you keep your face hidden? No way.

Emigrants are faced with a hard choice. No way around it. It comes with the territory. You can go through the hard challenges of transformation or you can remain living in exile from your homeland.

Boombastic

MadsL wrote: »

No religious person ever has been accused of a crime. Got it.

At least she wasn't praying in a park.

True. Maybe the laws of the land should be made clearer to those unfamiliar with it may stop falling foul of it?

MadsL

K.Flyer wrote: »

Maybe so, but she is refusing to remove the burka on account of Her religion, whichever one that may be.

Her interpretation of her religion, which she has a right to.

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

She did appear in public, just as she appears everyday in public.

Tell me, should nuns have to remove their habit to appear in court?

Habit doesn't cover the face.

If the habit conceals evidence, then yes absolutely should have to remove their habit.

wexie

MadsL wrote: »

Murray Seidman, in 2011, a 70 year old senior in Lansdowne, Pennsylvania, near Philadelphia, stoned to death by 28 year old John Thomas after allegedly making sexual advances towards the younger man. Thomas' defence is that he did it because The Bible says to kill homosexuals.

And he was prosecuted for the stoning, rather than the stoning being a result of prosecution.

Bit of a twisted comparison

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

Murray Seidman, in 2011, a 70 year old senior in Lansdowne, Pennsylvania, near Philadelphia, stoned to death by 28 year old John Thomas after allegedly making sexual advances towards the younger man. Thomas' defence is that he did it because The Bible says to kill homosexuals.

That isn't in our legal system though. What he did was a crime. It's not a crime in the ME.

Boombastic

MadsL wrote: »

Her interpretation of her religion, which she has a right to.

And it's the judges interpretation of how his court runs, his right

Muise...

MadsL wrote: »

Murray Seidman, in 2011, a 70 year old senior in Lansdowne, Pennsylvania, near Philadelphia, stoned to death by 28 year old John Thomas after allegedly making sexual advances towards the younger man. Thomas' defence is that he did it because The Bible says to kill homosexuals.

what a prick!

clairefontaine

clairefontaine wrote: »

That's not how trials work in a democracy.

Jury and advocacy have to verify the witnesses and all participants.

You show your face. That's how it works.

FYP

Cody Pomeray

MadsL wrote: »

She did appear in public, just as she appears everyday in public.

With a rag over her head and slits for her eyes.

Suppose some knob was going around harassing gay people, or found in possession of child pronography... would you be arguing for his right to appear before the law dressed in a blanket, with slits for his eyes, presuming he can cite some strange religious justification? Or maybe he's a member of the Klan?

It's an excuse that the justice system should not entertain. Justice must be administered in public, having regard to a witness's body language, except where the personal safety of that witness is at risk. Bit of cop on please.

Tell me, should nuns have to remove their habit to appear in court?

If it was obstructing her face, as in this case, absolutely.

I don't think it is particularly important to see the back of one's head, or neck. Obviously the same applies to this Muslim lady. The issue arises when someone covers their face.