To think that this woman is damaging Islam

(104 Posts)
ReallyTired Fri 23-Aug-13 22:33:35

I feel the judge is being reasonable. The woman is facing a very serious charge and if found guilty will be sent to jail.

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

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.

TylerHopkins Fri 23-Aug-13 22:35:14

I agree.

ReallyTired Fri 23-Aug-13 22:36:10

Why do I think this woman is damaging islam? She is taking the piss! The majority of muslims don't wear the burka.

I suspect that she is being diliberately difficult.

Bowlersarm Fri 23-Aug-13 22:36:36

I agree.

TylerHopkins Fri 23-Aug-13 22:36:48

....with the judges decision that is.

slapandpickle Fri 23-Aug-13 23:10:35

erm ok, this one woman is damaging a faith held by billions...?

weird phrasing hmm

either it's her strongly held belief or she's being awkward, either way, I don't see how it could "damage Islam" to anyone's mind, it's to do with her and her alone.

FreudiansSlipper Fri 23-Aug-13 23:13:19

She has chosen to wear a niqab for religious reasons not to be difficult it is her choice and how she wishes to practise Islam

I can not see why a female police officer can not identify her

EldritchCleavage Fri 23-Aug-13 23:16:49

Silly thread title, it is actually a rather difficult question.

Assume it is a genuine and deeply held conviction of hers. You can't simply disregard that because that many other Muslims feel differently.
Equally, the judge has a very valid concern too.

If she is identified to the court at every session then permitted to veil herself again, I think that would be the best course. I pity the judge actually, it is not an easy matter and he's probably going to cop shit for whatever decision he makes.

FreudiansSlipper Fri 23-Aug-13 23:17:03

and why is she damaging Islam, our press do a good enough job of that

She represents herself no one else she just happens to be a Muslim woman

RussianBlu Fri 23-Aug-13 23:21:03

Assuming that she wears it all the time and isn't just wearing it now for the purpose of being a pain in the neck, I don't see why she can't just show her face to a female court official before she enters the room. Perhaps its the judge who is being unreasonable and awkward.

kali110 Fri 23-Aug-13 23:25:44

Think judge was in the right. As silly as it sounds if person who identified the women was involved in criminal activity with the accused, could say oh yes thats the right woman.

justanuthermanicmumsday Fri 23-Aug-13 23:41:59

I don't think she's damaging Islam like someone said its the press and ignorant folks who don't do research and presume everything said tabloids print is a true depiction of any particular belief or story.

Something I've not mentioned because i thought it was irrelevant and i wanted to be treated as everyone else is here, but I wear the face veil. In Islam I know of a few instances where the veil can be removed.

In front of your own family and any male who is not eligible to marry you it may be removed,

outside if men are at a distance

For the pilgrimage which all Muslims who are able to must perform once in their lifetime the face veil is to be removed . Scholars have made concessions though the ruling is based on no cloth touching the face, hence there are specially designed face veils that have a Brim on them and the veil hanging over. Should certain women feel uncomfortable foregoing the face veil in close proximity to men they can wear that to meet the conditions of the pilgrimage. In haj there's so many people its uncomfortable for women in general face veil or not.

For ID purposes I.e public transport, airports, when making applications for various reasons births, marriages, gp practice etc, police.

In a court of law it can be removed I don't know if it must be removed in an Islamic country but it can be. But since we are living in the uk we are to abide by the laws of the country we reside in so its not unreasonable to remove the veil in the courts either.

I'm not a scholar from what I have read and understood this is what I adhere to unless someone or new information I come Upon tells me otherwise.

Reading the article which I've just come across now I think the judge is unreasonable not because I'm muslim and happen to wear a veil. But it was suggested he simply needs to confirm her identity. 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. Why do a search on uk courts and how they are to treat women in hijab and the veil and you will see they are not compelled to remove their veils. I looked into it as I was called as a juror.

EldritchCleavage Fri 23-Aug-13 23:52:51

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?

It is the judge who needs to receive evidence, particularly witness evidence, and he can't delegate that to other people.

cantspel Fri 23-Aug-13 23:59:08

The first thing asked of a defendant in open court is

Are you so and so

To identify that the correct person is in the dock and so that the criminal justice system is not only fair and correct but can be seen to be fair and correct by anyone who wishes to take notice of proceedings. There for i cant see how this woman can be identified by someone outside of the court.

I think in a court of law then you have to set aside a religious belief so that justice can be seen to be done and the judge is correct in the stance he has taken.

BrokenSunglasses Sat 24-Aug-13 00:29:30

I don't think she's damaging Islam itself, but I don't think she's doing the image of Islam any good when it comes to the many people who know little about it or who already have a negative image of it. That's not her problem though, and she shouldn't be expected to show her face because of what other people might feel.

I do think it's reasonable that anyone who is in a courtroom should be expected to show their face, not only for identification, but also because facial expressions matter.

The law has to come above religion.

TylerHopkins Sat 24-Aug-13 00:30:32

The law has to come above religion

Absolutely.

nailak Sat 24-Aug-13 00:32:06

In shariah in court you have to take veil off. I don't really see how one Muslims action damages Islam?

http://www.islamqa.info/en/ref/2198

IV – Testimony

It is permissible for a woman to uncover her face when she is giving testimony in court, whether she is a witness in a case or is there to witness a deal, and it is permissible for the qaadi (judge) to look at her in order to know who she is and to protect the rights of all concerned.

Shaykh al-Dardeer said: “It is not permitted to give testimony against a woman in niqaab until she uncovers her face so that it may be known who she is and what she looks like.” (Al-Sharh al-Kabeer li’l- Shaykh al-Dardeer, 4/194)

Ibn Qudaamah said: “The witness may look at the face of the woman against whom he is testifying so that his testimony will speak about her in specific terms. Ahmad said: ‘He cannot testify against a woman unless he knows who she is.’” (Al-Mughni, 7/459; al-Sharh al-Kabeer ‘ala Matan al-Muqni’, 7/348, bi haamish al-Mughni; al-Hidaayah ma’a Takmilat Fath al-Qadeer, 10/26).

V – In court cases

It is permissible for a woman to uncover her face in front of a qaadi (judge) who is to rule either in her favour or against her, and in this situation he may look at her face in order to know who she is and for the sake of protecting people’s rights.

The same rules that apply to giving testimony or bearing witness also apply in court cases, because they serve the same purpose. (See Al-Durar al-Mukhtaar, 5/237; Al-Hadiyah al-‘Alaa’iyah, p. 244; Al-Hadiyah ma’a Takmilat Fath al-Qadeer, 10/26).

WetAugust Sat 24-Aug-13 00:34:31

Justice has to be seen to be done.

You could ask why does the accused have to be in court at all?

ivykaty44 Sat 24-Aug-13 00:36:16

I don't see why she should be treated differently from anyone else appearing in the dock.

Any person in the dock has to have their face showing that includes this woman.

Otherwise every single accused person could decide I am going to cover my face so no one can see me in the dock - then no judge could discriminate if this judge had set a precedence

justanuthermanicmumsday Sat 24-Aug-13 00:37:06

No one mentioned what the uk law courts say regarding the veil see here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/6588157.stm

ivykaty44 Sat 24-Aug-13 00:40:56

that link is to what the law says about wearing a veil in court not in the dock

Fakebook Sat 24-Aug-13 00:41:22

I don't think she's damaging Islam, but she certainly isn't representing herself as a Muslim woman very well. The face veil is supposed to be a form of modesty...and what's she doing? Going around intimidating people! Talk about being a hypocrite.

AgentZigzag Sat 24-Aug-13 00:42:53

I can't see how this one situation could have a damaging effect on Islam. Or are you maybe thinking some people (non-Muslims) might see her as 'another awkward Muslim' asking for special treatment?

I suppose it is being a bit awkward if this situation hasn't come up before, and you'd have to ask why she would push the boundaries. If other women from the same religion can take their veils off, then it's this woman's personal choice.

It's relevant because she's been accused of intimidating a witness and identification is a large part of that, but there's no fail safe way of telling whether someone's lying or not, seeing their face means nothing, especially in a stressful situation.

It's probably just the judge tantruming, wanting control in his own courtroom <purely supposition (M'lud)>

AgentZigzag Sat 24-Aug-13 00:45:36

Maybe she's not fussed about representing any groups Fakebook? I can't say I would be.

'and what's she doing? Going around intimidating people! Talk about being a hypocrite'

And she hasn't been convicted of anything as yet grin

Fakebook Sat 24-Aug-13 00:52:55

Oh I thought she had been! I read the article earlier today/yesterday and can't remember the whole thing blush.

justanuthermanicmumsday Sat 24-Aug-13 00:52:57

Ivykaty the same law look it up includes female defendants. Women can be asked to remove the veil if the judge wishes it. So it's up to the judge. unfortunately this woman will have to remove it unless there's some other course of action I don't know anything about how the courts work.

. Like the last poster said cases are based on evidence not a defendent or victims facial expressions, but rather their testimonies and any physical evidence produced.

Also another thing the face veil is just a thin cloth it has been suggested before in the media it prevents the voice from being audible, that's bull. Unless you wrap a scarf very tight like men would in the deserts of Arabia the voice is not muffled. If it is inaudible it's because she the lady is quietly spoken, or shy, so ask her to speak up.

ivykaty44 Sat 24-Aug-13 00:56:25

It is a guide line not a law and it is people in court in the case you linked to. If it was a law then it would have been past by parliament and it could not be changed and the judge would know that.

AgentZigzag Sat 24-Aug-13 01:02:56

I had to check again just to be sure Fakebook grin judge has adjourned it, she hasn't even entered a plea yet.

Anonymity is only allowed when there are serious reasons, being shielded from the defendant if you're a child/victim of violence, or completely if say it's for reasons of national security. But this is neither.

I'm probably reading too much into that short article, but could the judge think she's doing it for reasons other than her faith, that she's just doing it trying to sidestep what she's accused of? Or is he talking about something more fundamental about how justice plays out? Dunno.

softlysoftly Sat 24-Aug-13 01:05:39

So actually according to sharia she could/should remove the veil?

justanuthermanicmumsday Sat 24-Aug-13 01:05:45

Ok I stand corrected based on that I personally think as others have said the judge is just making a mountain out of a mole hill. Yes see her face privately identity her and get on with the case. He must have known this story would have been picked up by the tabloids makes for juicy gossip. I feel like anything about islam is highlighted as freak behaviour that is not acceptable in the uk. Hence I don't keep up with it and only heard about it on mumsnet today. its always negative stories. I feel sorry for any muslim women who may get abuse from ignorant folks in the streets because of the publicity.

justanuthermanicmumsday Sat 24-Aug-13 01:06:12

*identify

justanuthermanicmumsday Sat 24-Aug-13 01:08:49

Yes in Islamic courts she can and if asked should remove it. I don't know what scholars say regarding courts in non Islamic courts I think they would say she should what alternative is there if its the law?

GoshAnneGorilla Sat 24-Aug-13 03:37:08

What damages Islam and Muslims is that the bad behaviour of any single Muslim is held against Muslims as a whole (by some, anyway).

I am sorely tempted the next time I read a story about a man being in court, to start a thread on here saying "this man is damaging the reputation of men".

Or maybe I could do one if a mother is in court.

Or someone who works in a shop

Or someone who is a professional.

It is a shame the media has seized upon this, as they are so fond of doing.

Niqab can be removed if there is a valid need to do so, this would fall under that category, so no big story there.

She's entitled not to like it and enquire about alternatives, but the judge's decision is final.

^^what you won't see written in any DM-style article about this.

crescentmoon Sat 24-Aug-13 06:25:48

Yup softlysoftly based on the rulings naila posted earlier from a website popular with the type who think the niqab/face veil is obligatory. the woman in this court case doesn't know it but hopefully someone will alert her of it as the court is one of the places where the veil can/should be removed.

softlysoftly Sat 24-Aug-13 06:34:38

In which case yanbu op

softlysoftly Sat 24-Aug-13 06:35:51

Actually sorry yanbu op to think she should remove the veil. Yabu about the "damages islam" statement.

ivykaty44 Sat 24-Aug-13 09:15:36

I don't see why the judge should see any woman's face privately and then go into court for the case.

If a police person behaves badly then it brings the reputation of the police into question and the same for a lot of other groups of people, then the media pick up on it and will run with a story. The same thing has happened here.

Mrsdavidcaruso Sat 24-Aug-13 10:44:07

But surely its not just the Judge that has to see her face, but witnesses to. Now when I had to go to court the person I was giving evidence about was in the Dock, but I was still asked 'do you see the man who ** in court and I had to identify him to the court.

We don't know anything about this case but clearly at some point this woman was identified as the suspect, if the person who was intimidated saw her face, or a photograph of her face then they need to be able to identify her.

Personally If she is going to plead not guilty then I would have thought that showing her face to prove it wasn't her would have been one way of doing that but as I say we don not know the specifics, in a court of Law
a Judge is not only representing the Law, he is the Law.

I think he should jail her for contempt, and every time she refuses, jail her again

Sallyingforth Sat 24-Aug-13 11:17:02

Those are interesting quotes above about the veil.

This one is a little different..

The "religious" argument does not hold. Islam does not "demand" face coverage, even if some Muslims do. Over the years we have heard from hundreds of imams and scholars on this subject. In 2009 Sheikh Muhammed Sayyid Tantawi, the grand Sheikh of al-Azhar University, Sunni Islam's highest institution of religious learning, scolded a Cairo high school girl for wearing a face-veil: "The niqab is a tradition," he said. "It has no connection to religion."

GoshAnneGorilla Sat 24-Aug-13 12:23:06

Sallying - where's the quote from?

I do remember Tantawi's remarks sparked huge debate.

In short, to some Muslims, wearing niqab is a religious act, despite that whenever you discuss it, you'll get smartarses saying otherwise.

Also a bit concerned by the clamour by some to have her jailed. It is rather expensive to imprison someone, you know.

Sallyingforth Sat 24-Aug-13 12:44:30

Gorilla It was an article about a similar case in Canada. Link below.

Like all articles it gives one side of the argument. I used only its attributed quote, since much of the rest was just the writer's opinion and therefore no more valid than anyone else's.

There are 'smartarses' on both sides you know!

Yes to suggest jailing is foolish. I believe the judge has acted sensibly, following the law as we all must do, but giving due respect to the defendant's beliefs. I hope she will respond in a like manner.

www.aina.org/news/2011121092913.htm

Clawdius Sat 24-Aug-13 13:09:52

Does the validity of your adopted and professed religious views depend on how many other people around the globe also adopt and profess it? If I invent a religion, adopt a behaviour and profess it intrinsic to the free practice of my religion, is it not just as valid as any other one?

If many millions/billions? of female muslims don't cover their identity, are they adopting a different religion or is it not intrinsic to Islam?

When does the common good override certain behaviours?

No answers, but lots of questions.

Clawdius Sat 24-Aug-13 13:11:48

Didn't mean to sound glib. Genuinely wonder about this.

ivykaty44 Sat 24-Aug-13 13:59:48

does refusing to show your identity to a man but permitting to show your identity to a woman cause offence to men?

hackmum Sat 24-Aug-13 14:06:27

I don't think you can say that she is damaging Islam, or even people's perceptions of it. I doubt there are a lot of people out there who will say, "Well, I used to think Islam was a fine and reasonable religion, but as a result of this woman's actions, I'm beginning to have my doubts."

Sallyingforth Sat 24-Aug-13 14:10:45

does refusing to show your identity to a man but permitting to show your identity to a woman cause offence to men?

does showing your identity to a man cause offence to men?

specialsubject Sat 24-Aug-13 14:11:20

no, not damaging Islam, just making a fool of herself.

the judge needs to see her at every court session to make sure he is talking to whom he thinks she is talking to. The jury need to see her face when she testifies to get a real feel for whether she is telling the truth.

And 'mumsday''s interesting posts make it clear that Islam does not stop her doing that.

law does over-ride religion. Don't like it? Live somewhere else. Plenty of Islamic-law countries to choose.

Crumbledwalnuts Sat 24-Aug-13 14:12:25

Yes she should take off her veil. It doesn't damage Islam but it definitely damages its image.

ivykaty44 Sat 24-Aug-13 14:15:54

sally - but you don't ask whether it offends the woman

Crumbledwalnuts Sat 24-Aug-13 14:17:31

It's not the paper's fault. Don't shoot the messenger. Things happen, they get reported. It's quite good for it to get attention - now lots of people know that "religious requirement" isn't a justified reason for face-covering. These things need clearing up. People are really scared to say things or ask for things because of the fear of being called racist of prejudiced. It's definitely a talking point. It's going to be established now that actually one doesn't have to pussy foot around and be oversensitive, in this situation at least.

ivykaty44 Sat 24-Aug-13 14:17:38

does showing your identity to a person cause offence to person?

Crumbledwalnuts Sat 24-Aug-13 14:18:19

people wearing masks when they want to talk to me offends me, but I don't think you're asking me are you

AgentZigzag Sat 24-Aug-13 14:24:42

'The jury need to see her face when she testifies to get a real feel for whether she is telling the truth.'

That's the problem with juries (and a problem people have in general) there's no reliable way of telling whether someone's telling the truth, and it's a mistake to think there is.

If there was, don't you think the courts would have made use of it by now? Even if it was just reading the micro expressions on someone's face, or using intuition.

Jurors thinking they can get to the truth by judging how the person looks and talks (when they're in what is probably the most stressful situation they've come across so far, and maybe not acting as jurors (wrongly) think they should) is what gets innocent people convicted.

Crumbledwalnuts Sat 24-Aug-13 14:27:10

Agent ZZ are you serious, Just because there's no foolproof naked eye lie detector, juries shouldn't be able to see the face of the accused?

AgentZigzag Sat 24-Aug-13 14:28:14

'people wearing masks when they want to talk to me offends me'

Just out of pure nosiness grin when do you come across people in masks when they could take them off?

Crumbledwalnuts Sat 24-Aug-13 14:30:23

"when do you come across people in masks when they could take them off?"

I don't - there aren't any situations like that - people can always take them off

AgentZigzag Sat 24-Aug-13 14:33:09

I understand this situation to be one of identification rather than whether jurors can judge her to be telling the truth Crumbled.

It's not that I think juries don't necessarily need to see the defendants/witnesses face, but rather that jurors shouldn't be encouraged to treat seeing their faces as a fail safe way of judging their innocence/guilt.

AgentZigzag Sat 24-Aug-13 14:35:17

'I don't - there aren't any situations like that - people can always take them off'

Then why would you think it'd offend you? confused

pigletmania Sat 24-Aug-13 14:35:41

YABU of course the judge is not damaging Islam, what a silly title, this is the law, nobody is above the law, and yes it is her courtroom and its her right to decide. The judge is right, somebody could well pretend to be her, its not impossible and easy to do. Not all Muslims wear a veil, its not a requirement in the Koran as far as i am aware, i suspect the woman is being difficult.

Mabey the woman could only show the judge her face, as she is a woman

Crumbledwalnuts Sat 24-Aug-13 14:36:26

Is somebody doing that? Who is telling jurors that a defendant's demeanour is a failsafe tool?

Sallyingforth Sat 24-Aug-13 14:36:51

Jurors thinking they can get to the truth by judging how the person looks and talks (when they're in what is probably the most stressful situation they've come across so far, and maybe not acting as jurors (wrongly) think they should) is what gets innocent people convicted.

That might happen Agent but of course it's only one aspect of the juror's duty.
How would you deal with the defendant's stress then?
Would you allow them to cover their face to not show it? Would you allow them to write down their evidence to avoid a shaking voice?

ivykaty44 Sat 24-Aug-13 14:43:36

why is this woman refusing to show her face in a court? The reason given in the paper is that she doesn't want men to see her face but to show a woman her face would be alright. If you were to replace the word man with a range of other things it would be discrimination and would not be accepted.

AgentZigzag Sat 24-Aug-13 14:45:24

I haven't got any solutions Sally, I'm just saying that arguing the woman should take her veil off so jurors can see whether they think she's telling the truth, isn't a valid argument.

It's generally believed that you can tell whether someone's lying by looking at them Crumbled, that there are certain behaviours that point to lying, and that's not true. Even detectives with decades of experience aren't able to tell truth from lies more than anyone else.

Jurors bring all sorts of untrue stereotypes and beliefs to their judgement of the people they come across. Some are taken into account by the court, others are ignored.

Sallyingforth Sat 24-Aug-13 14:51:24

ivykaty I don't understand your man/woman/person posts.

The procedure in a court of law is one of the few areas of our life that is genuinely, demonstrably, non-sexist. All are treated alike.
The accused must show their face and be identified, regardless of age, sex, race, religion or any other factor.

Are you actually saying that you want to introduce discrimination into the courts and treat some people different to others? That would be a very slippery slope and I hope it never happens

AgentZigzag Sat 24-Aug-13 14:58:03

I thought ivy was saying the woman not taking off her veil is sexist, and if she didn't want to show her face to someone from another group, it'd be seen as discrimination.

But then she's not doing it because she's discriminating against men as a group, isn't it to 'protect' men from her...body/hair? Not sure what exactly, but it's not the same as not wanting to have contact/give job to someone who was gay/disabled because you think they're dirty or will contaminate you.

This sort of BS needs to stomped out now.

Sallyingforth Sat 24-Aug-13 15:06:59

I don't know Agent
'discrimination' is a powerful term with lots of unpleasant connotations.

ivy seems to be saying that if you don't allow someone to be treated differently, they are being discriminated against. I just can't follow that sort of argument.

Sallyingforth Sat 24-Aug-13 15:09:09

No falcon. It doesn't do any good to call someone else's sincere beliefs 'BS'. That way just raises the temperature and eventually causes pain.

Crumbledwalnuts Sat 24-Aug-13 15:14:15

Ivy there might be men on the jury or a male judge or whatever. You can't just have all woman courts because of something like this. Everyone is treated the same. What's the problem. There's no discrimination.

Crumbledwalnuts Sat 24-Aug-13 15:16:02

It really is silly. No doubt if she's done for contempt there'll be all sorts of claims of racism or discrimination. It's ludicrous. Because that's exactly what it's not - discrimination - and that's exactly what some people might like to introduce - discrimination (by the looks of it).

Crumbledwalnuts Sat 24-Aug-13 15:17:38

Can't even believe there's a debate about it. It's a bit 'well duh' to me.

Crowler Sat 24-Aug-13 15:18:40

God, it's like the Daily Mail's dream come true.

If you go to a foreign country and break the law, you've got to submit to their judicial procedure. This goes for white people in Arabia, and it goes for Arabs/Muslims in the west.

ReallyTired Sat 24-Aug-13 15:20:05

A person should be treated as innocent until PROVED guilty. Prehaps its is wrong, but cross examination is part of the court process for both victim and the accused. Twelve adults weigh up the evidence in front of them and part of that evidence collecting is examining how witness, victim and accused accounts make sense.

Witness intimation is more subjective than other crimes. It is not like a murder where you have a dead body to prove that the crime actually happened. Evidence of the crime is witness statements and the ablity of the defendent to explain herself. Covering the face is a barrier to good communication.

Even when there is solid evidence, the level of sentencing is the judge's discretion. A judge will consider the level of cooperation and remorse of the defendent when sentencing.

sarahtigh Sat 24-Aug-13 16:17:58

she does not have to take off the hijab that is covering her hair etc just the bit covering her face so she can be identified to court it is essential that the accused can be identified by the witnesses etc

a lot of people myself included that have minor hearing problems rely on seeing mouth to hear better it is a combination of sort of lip reading I can hear and understand people speaking on TV better than radio with identical volumes,

it is not so much trying to see face to tell whether telling the truth but seeing facial expressions gives non verbal clues which are a large part of effective communication

sashh Sat 24-Aug-13 16:51:13

I pity the judge actually, it is not an easy matter and he's probably going to cop shit for whatever decision he makes.

I think he is very wise adjourning and taking advice.

You live in a country, you're subject to its laws. End of. I could be arrested if I wrote the local word for "fuck" or "cunt" in my newspaper column in the country where I live. If I were detained, I would most likely be threatened with all sorts until we could agree on the right bribe. Should I claim some sort of protection based on what my rights would be in my native common law country? Should I expect anything but derision if I did?

I cannot speak as to the sincerity of this woman's beliefs any more than you can, Sallying (unless you are she; in which case, follow your lawyer's advice and stop discussing your case on the internet wink ).

I do know that most alleged crims will try almost anything to avoid a conviction. Sadly, their lawyers often abet them.

ivykaty44 Sat 24-Aug-13 17:08:43

I asked why does this woman treat men differently from woman? Why will this woman not show a male judge her face but offers to show a female police officer her face?

Sallyingforth Sat 24-Aug-13 17:24:47

I cannot speak as to the sincerity of this woman's beliefs any more than you can, Sallying
And yet you did speak to it. You straight away called it BS.
Is your column in the Daily Mail by any chance?

Like several others on here, I believe that the lady in question should be required to follow the normal rules of the court. But we have all tried to discuss it in a less emotive manner than you have chosen.

ivykaty44 Sat 24-Aug-13 17:33:52

agentzig - so if a christian couple refuse to let a gay couple stay in their bed and breakfast it would be ok if there reasons for doing so are of a religious nature?

If a woman refuses to remove her veil in court to protect men for a religious reason

no I do not agree if you discriminate against a group of people for whatever reason it is not acceptable

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. smile

Crumbledwalnuts Sat 24-Aug-13 17:45:05

ha ha falcon but I think you are being a little prejudicial grin

By the way, I enjoyed the "Daily Mail Reporter" barb. I think that's the best insult I've ever received. Thank you. (Sincerely.) smile

The Mail isn't published in this country, Allah be praised.

Crumbledwalnuts Sat 24-Aug-13 18:06:53

my dear - it's the worst possible insult hmm

for shame

somewherewest Sat 24-Aug-13 20:30:23

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.

AgentZigzag Sat 24-Aug-13 21:33:14

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 grin

sarahtigh Sat 24-Aug-13 21:49:24

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)

Pixel Sat 24-Aug-13 21:57:16

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?

ivykaty44 Sat 24-Aug-13 22:08:25

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.

AgentZigzag Sat 24-Aug-13 22:14:40

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.

Crumbledwalnuts Sat 24-Aug-13 22:29:03

On what grounds might this woman be granted anonymity AZZ?

wharrgarbl Sat 24-Aug-13 22:31:25

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.

Crumbledwalnuts Sat 24-Aug-13 22:35:40

I think it's really the woman making a big fuss, not the court. A big fuss over nothing too.

AgentZigzag Sun 25-Aug-13 00:00:09

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.

Crumbledwalnuts Sun 25-Aug-13 00:06:09

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.

AgentZigzag Sun 25-Aug-13 00:29:31

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).

Crumbledwalnuts Sun 25-Aug-13 01:08:50

CPS

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.

Crumbledwalnuts Sun 25-Aug-13 01:11:05

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.

AgentZigzag Sun 25-Aug-13 01:20:58

You're right, I was really talking generally about courts but thinking specifically about witnesses.

Crumbledwalnuts Sun 25-Aug-13 01:24:45

Good lord. That's never happened before. It feels like fairy dust has been sprinkled over the debate. smile

AgentZigzag Sun 25-Aug-13 01:38:01

Sorry blush

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 grin

missingmumxox Sun 25-Aug-13 03:24:23

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.

Wellwobbly Sun 25-Aug-13 07:17:14

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.

Perfect outcome.

QuinionsRainbow Sun 25-Aug-13 12:20:08

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!

thebody Sun 25-Aug-13 12:25:04

the judge is completely right.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now