To think that this woman is damaging Islam(104 Posts)
I feel the judge is being reasonable. The woman is facing a very serious charge and if found guilty will be sent to jail.
Making sure that justice is not perverted is more important than religious rights. Asking someone to show their face in court to make sure that the right person is in the dock is vital. I feel the jury needs to be able to see her body language and facial expressions. Body and facial language can give a liar away quite easily and shows how the person is truely feeling.
It would be interesting to know how Sharia law would handle such a situation. What advice would islamic scholars suggest? I feel a better compromise would be for the woman to wear a hijab in court.
I feel that the woman should be punished for contempt of court.
Was she wearing her niqab when she was allegedly intimidating the witness. If she was, how was she initially identified and apprehended? If not, Q.E.D!
Don't get sidetracked by religion, look at the character disorder of the person in front of the judge:
1. charge: INTIMIDATING a witness (serious charge)
2. action: defiance, testing the court by making up a 'religion' rule.
Face covering not allowed in courts in Arab countries (!) and Nailak has already written the rules to show that she was making all this up.
Conclusion: not a nice person. Testing the boundaries. Got slapped by the judge. Got told who was really in charge.
I don't know the law, but I do know that this does not damage Islam, these who have a negitive view of it will use this to reinforce their idea, people like me will understand that whiles the lady in question is accused of a crime is at this point not quilty just suspected and her religious observance could be important to her.
the judge has done the correct thing, making sure that the legal process is not comprimised, and that a president can be made, she will be tried once that is sorted.
I must admit a little bit of me thinks she is being akward, but that is because she has found a way to be, that is not because of islam, because she or her lawyer has thought of it or through real religious conviction.
I can understand the above because I am the Queen of akward and finding a loophole in the system to make my point or deflect attention, who knows what this is but she will be tried eventually and all she has done has delayed herself getting on with her life because until she is tried she can't move on, either with being free or with whatever sentance she is given.
Maybe MNHQ will delete it for me?
I was actually thinking I'd drifted off topic and trying to decide whether it was relevant or waffling
Good lord. That's never happened before. It feels like fairy dust has been sprinkled over the debate.
You're right, I was really talking generally about courts but thinking specifically about witnesses.
If she wants to obey Islamic rules perhaps she should demand that her evidence isn't accepted against that of a man, unless it's supported by that of another woman.
The openness of judicial proceedings is a fundamental principle enshrined in Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to a fair trial). This underpins the requirement for a prosecution witness to be identifiable not only to the defendant, but also to the open court. It supports the ability of the defendant to present his case and to test the prosecution case by cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. In some cases it may also encourage other witnesses to come forward.
And this is about witnesses - why should defendants have a privilege which witnesses don't? Answer: they don't have that privilege.
Re failsafe: she said "get the feel" of telling the truth, not "jurors wouldn't be able to tell whether she's telling the truth." She was right.
The judge was right about the principle: the general principle certainly obtains about anonymity. You may be thinking about witnesses not defendants, but even then the rules are very strict.
It's the reason the judge gave Crumbled, that it's because of the principle of an open court, suggesting she has to show her face because anonymity isn't allowed.
With the failsafe thing, I was answering someone who said she shouldn't have the veil because jurors wouldn't be able to tell whether she's telling the truth.
Neither are set in stone meaning the boundaries can change to become a good reason (not that I personally think this is a good reason, but some might).
People aren't saying what you say they're saying, about how it's a failsafe method for juries, or because nobody else ever has anonymity. Nobody's using either of those grounds.
They're saying she hasn't got a good reason. She hasn't obviously, and she's wasting everyone's time.
There probably aren't any grounds to give her anonymity Crumblynuts, but to say she's not allowed it because the court has to be open to the public and nobody can be shielded from that isn't right.
Exceptions and provisions are made under specific circumstances.
I'm not saying I think religious reasons would be valid ones, but presumably there were times when children and victims of violent assault were required to run the gauntlet in court before it changed, that says it's not a static rule, and she's allowed to
try her luck test the boundaries just like everyone else.
UK traditional dress codes don't cover the face, and because 'we' encourage difference and individuality everywhere, testing what that means every now and then is going to be inevitable.
I think it's really the woman making a big fuss, not the court. A big fuss over nothing too.
So why make a big fuss. Why not allow a female member of staff do that discreetly . There is no need for all and sundry to do that, since he did say it was for ID and nothing else? Had he said her testimony won't be acceptable with a veil on he'd be treading in hot waters.
Because she is as subject to English law as anyone else, which requires an uncovered face in court.
On what grounds might this woman be granted anonymity AZZ?
I was thinking about the reasons in general for women who are Muslims to wear it Pixel, or the original reasons maybe?
It's trying to work out the reasons why the judge has done this sarah, and whether they're 'legitimate' (to me).
If it's because she must be seen to submit to the process of the court/justice, then fair enough. If people don't submit, they should be forced.
If it's so the victim/witnesses can identify her, I could understand that too, if she's playing games using her veil to try to get away with it, then she's only herself to blame.
But if it's because people think the truth is written on her face under the veil, that's not the case. And if it's because nobody has a right to anonymity in the court, that's not true either.
I might be sceptical, but the judge saying it's for the principle of 'open justice', I suppose all the holes in the cjs has do make it a bit drafty.
Agent- With this woman she is stopping the judge from seeing her and identifying her though she would let any woman identify her, I dont' see how that is not discrimination of a male.
It makes no difference if she thinks it is wrong for a male to see her face as he may change into a green frog or a sexual assailant. Woman can be sexual assailants in any case. she is treating one sex in one way and the other in a different way. Both sexes are people and should be treated the same as we have sexual discrimination rules.
but she sees it as either protecting herself from sexual assault (forced to see it as her responsibility to limit them) or she's protecting men from themselves (again forced, and again because it's the woman's fault if she's assaulted by allowing men access to look at her).
It's a court of law, what sort of sexual assault is she expecting?
that argument is a bit like ( not identical to or exactly analogous) to a driver of a car not wearing a seatbelt it is not affecting anyone else but it is illegal and can the driver can get fined
so she argues that wearing a veil is not disadvantaging anyone else; well maybe it's not, on the other hand maybe it is hindering the timely administration of justice by causing delayin the court process; whether she is guilty or not; if it is reasonable to ask her to remove veil and she does not it is contempt of court
in the seatbelt case whether you are harming someone else or not is irrelevant as it is illegal ( except very special circumstances)
I didn't mean it was acceptable to discriminate against anyone ivy, but there's a difference between discriminating against a same sex couple when you're christian, to what I think is happening here (and it's only my opinion).
With the couple, it's the B and B owners prejudice putting them at a disadvantage by not letting them access something everyone else is entitled to, because of something that's innate.
But with the veil, it's not only the woman's personal choice (rather than religious commandment), but she sees it as either protecting herself from sexual assault (forced to see it as her responsibility to limit them) or she's protecting men from themselves (again forced, and again because it's the woman's fault if she's assaulted by allowing men access to look at her).
The disadvantage/denial of access is turned on herself not on someone else. Denying men access to her face isn't limiting access to something they're entitled to.
Not sure if that makes sense, if it doesn't it's me not you
I feel like anything about Islam is highlighted as freak behaviour that is not acceptable in the UK
Actually Islam gets off incredibly lightly in the left/liberal media given its generally deeply conservative views on gender and sexuality, whereas Christianity (which is actually much much less uniformly conservative on those issues) gets bollocked and stereotyped all the time.
my dear - it's the worst possible insult
By the way, I enjoyed the "Daily Mail Reporter" barb. I think that's the best insult I've ever received. Thank you. (Sincerely.)
The Mail isn't published in this country, Allah be praised.
ha ha falcon but I think you are being a little prejudicial
Nope, I didn't call her beliefs BS. As I said, I don't know what she believes. That's between her and Allah, surely?
Trying to have the way the good old common law system has operated for centuries changed so that the judge cannot take evidence properly (whilst throwing around the term "discrimination" for good measure) is BS.
Conveniently choosing which tenets of a faith to adhere to based on personal convenience is also BS.
If this woman be blameless and yet made to give evidence to a (gasp!) male judge, she can pray that Allah will forgive her.
On the other hand, should this doubtless lovely specimen of humankind be proven to be guilty of witness intimidation and ALSO be a deeply devout woman, I'll eat my hat.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.