Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

To think that this woman is damaging Islam

103 replies

ReallyTired · 23/08/2013 22:33

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.

OP posts:

Crumbledwalnuts · 24/08/2013 14:18

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

AgentZigzag · 24/08/2013 14:24

'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 · 24/08/2013 14:27

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 · 24/08/2013 14:28

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

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

Crumbledwalnuts · 24/08/2013 14:30

"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 · 24/08/2013 14:33

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 · 24/08/2013 14:35

'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?

pigletmania · 24/08/2013 14:35

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 · 24/08/2013 14:36

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

Sallyingforth · 24/08/2013 14:36

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 · 24/08/2013 14:43

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 · 24/08/2013 14:45

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 · 24/08/2013 14:51

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 · 24/08/2013 14:58

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.

themaltesefalcon · 24/08/2013 15:01

This sort of BS needs to stomped out now.

Sallyingforth · 24/08/2013 15:06

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 · 24/08/2013 15:09

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 · 24/08/2013 15:14

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 · 24/08/2013 15:16

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 · 24/08/2013 15:17

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

Crowler · 24/08/2013 15:18

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.

Original poster

ReallyTired · 24/08/2013 15:20

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.

OP posts:

sarahtigh · 24/08/2013 16:17

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 · 24/08/2013 16:51

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.

themaltesefalcon · 24/08/2013 17:06

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 ).

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

Flip

1 2 3 4 5