Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

24567…31

Comments

  • #32
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭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."


  • #33
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #34
    bizmark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,895 ✭✭✭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


  • #35
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭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.


  • #36
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    valknut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 129 ✭✭valknut


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


  • #38
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #39
    K.Flyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,560 ✭✭✭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.


  • #40
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #41
    meoklmrk91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,083 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭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.


  • #43
    Boombastic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭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?


  • #44
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #45
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭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.


  • #46
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,478 ✭✭✭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


  • #47
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭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.


  • #48
    Boombastic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭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


  • #49
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭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!


  • #50
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,251 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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


  • #51
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    It's not bile madsl.

    Then what's with the silliness about stoning, she's British, from Hackney.
    Transparency is essential to democracy. So is identity and its verification. So is precedent in law.
    I gave an example of how identity could be presented transparently. An officer of the court identifies her to the court. That is actually the function of the officer to bring the accused before the court, they have a duty to bring the correct person. The accused also swears on oath that they are that person. State your name for the record etc.
    If they let one person stay hidden, they have to let all.
    She's not hidden. She is physically present.
    You think ifnyounwere pulled aside by a state trooper they'd ask for your license and let you keep your face hidden? No way.
    It is not the issue of being hidden, it is simply asking for a female officer to deal with you. The trooper could easily bring someone to a police station or get a female officer on the scene just as they would have to do for a search.
    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.

    Years ago people were burned as witches. We learnt to accept paganism.


  • #53
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    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.


    ....go back to the middle east of Hackney?


  • #54
    bizmark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,895 ✭✭✭bizmark


    MadsL wrote: »
    Years ago people were burned as witches. We learnt to accept paganism.


    Then they can learn that covering your face in court cause your sky god or someone who speaks on behalf of your sky god proclaims it so is viewed as not acceptable in a modern country


  • #55
    red sean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,917 ✭✭✭red sean


    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?
    A nuns habit doesn't cover her face :rolleyes:


  • #56
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    red sean wrote: »
    A nuns habit doesn't cover her face :rolleyes:


    ...unless its her habit to wear a balaclava.


  • #57
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    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.

    I would assume we were talking about official, state sanctioned stonings. Not some lunatic acting alone.


  • #58
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    MadsL wrote: »
    Then what's with the silliness about stoning, she's British, from Hackney.


    I gave an example of how identity could be presented transparently. An officer of the court identifies her to the court. That is actually the function of the officer to bring the accused before the court, they have a duty to bring the correct person. The accused also swears on oath that they are that person. State your name for the record etc.


    She's not hidden. She is physically present.


    It is not the issue of being hidden, it is simply asking for a female officer to deal with you. The trooper could easily bring someone to a police station or get a female officer on the scene just as they would have to do for a search.



    Years ago people were burned as witches. We learnt to accept paganism.

    How are you as a witness supposed to point to someone in a burkha, and when asked to identify the person in the box, verify the identity to the jury? How about a line up? How about giving descriptions to police officer when you see a crime committed?


  • #59
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Habit doesn't cover the face.

    What is the difference would you say?
    If the habit conceals evidence, then yes absolutely should have to remove their habit.
    What evidence does a hijab cover?
    wexie wrote: »
    And he was prosecuted for the stoning, rather than the stoning being a result of prosecution.

    Bit of a twisted comparison

    A bit like claiming all muslims stone people perhaps, in relation to a British court case.
    clairefontaine wrote: »
    That isn't in our legal system though. What he did was a crime. It's not a crime in the ME.

    "Only God can Judge Me"

    So all ME countries conduct stonings. Sure of that?
    Boombastic wrote: »
    And it's the judges interpretation of how his court runs, his right

    Subject to legal challenge.
    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    With a rag over her head and slits for her eyes.

    Not going for insulting at all are we :rolleyes:
    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?

    Suspects come out of courtrooms with blankets over their heads ALL the time.

    I'd remind you she has been charged, not convicted.
    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.

    Do you even understand what entering a plea means?
    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.

    Many poker tells consist of looking at tension in the neck. If a nun is giving evidence in court, why is she not asked to remove her habit?


  • #60
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    How are you as a witness supposed to point to someone in a burkha, and when asked to identify the person in the box, verify the identity to the jury? How about a line up? How about giving descriptions to police officer when you see a crime committed?

    gets even trickier if she was wearing the burka at the time of the alleged offence.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    K.Flyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,560 ✭✭✭K.Flyer


    MadsL wrote: »
    ....
    Tell me, should nuns have to remove their habit to appear in court?

    A nun's habit covers her body, her head-dress covers her head and generally in public places her face is exposed, so identification is not a problem.


Advertisement
Advertisement