Magistrate Reprimanded

[blazey]

Originally Posted by garinda

Lazy madam!

Go and use the pans you aquired in the summer.

Plus i'd have to get the bus home and then come all the way back, its just too cold.

Back on topic though, when you think about it, a muslim in prison here wouldn't get to wear her veil as she'd lose that right, but in her home country she'd probably be stoned to death for bringing shame on the family or something radical and OTT. I'm sure she'd chose our system over her native one.

[blazey]

I am going to leave accyweb for the day now, and go on the scary venture back home. I might be back, but chances are I wont, at least not until tomorrow Mince and apple for tea and whatever other scraps I can find. Wish me luck!

[cashman]

well so far all my poll has proved is 15 people are wrong and Blazey is right,as usual.

[nikkival]

Originally Posted by cashman

a magistrate has been reprimanded for refusing to try the case of a muslim woman who was charged with criminal damage,because she refused to remove her veil.whilst i acknowledge people wear em for religious reasons, in certain instances this cannot be acceptable to me. court appearences,passport control,etc being some of them, to me the lunatics have taken over the asylum,P.C. gone mad, whats your thoughts on this?

It shouldn't be acceptable to wear a traditional veil in court, we hear quite often of Jehovah's Witnesses whose children are made wards of court because their religious beliefs do not allow blood transfusions, the courts disregard their religion and beliefs and quite categorically over-rule them without exception. Why should any other faith be treated differently?

[lancsdave]

Originally Posted by cashman

well so far all my poll has proved is 15 people are wrong and Blazey is right,as usual.

Probably 15 people who aren't slim

[Wynonie Harris]

I've no objection to people wearing their traditional dress in court, whether it's a turban, African dress or even Amercian Indian gear. However, I think that a face veil is different; surely, in a courtroom situation, you need to be able to see a person's face, their expressions, how they react to certain questions etc. As Jack Straw put it when talking about his constituents coming to see him, it's better without a veil because "you can - literally - see what the other person means, and not just hear what they say."

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

I've no objection to people wearing their traditional dress in court, whether it's a turban, African dress or even Amercian Indian gear. However, I think that a face veil is different; surely, in a courtroom situation, you need to be able to see a person's face, their expressions, how they react to certain questions etc. As Jack Straw put it when talking about his constituents coming to see him, it's better without a veil because "you can - literally - see what the other person means, and not just hear what they say."

ah good common sense, but its not what article 9 of the Human right Acts says, you have been warned.

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by cashman

ah good common sense, but its not what article 9 of the Human right Acts says, you have been warned.

From what I've seen, the Human Rights Act seems to contravene common sense in a number of ways. However, up until 1997, any UK government could ignore the more ludicrous aspects of it, as it was not part of our national laws. This present government insisted on incorporating it into UK law in that year and now we're stuck with it!

[cashman]

some people like the ludicrous.

[WillowTheWhisp]

This full face veil being a necessary part of their religion is a fallacy. That should be apparant when you see women of the same family with some wearing it and some not - but the clincher for me was when a muslim showed me a quotation from Mohammed which said the only parts of a woman which should be visible should be her face and hands. In other words he did NOT say that she should cover her face. He did specify that she should cover most of her body for the sake of modesty, and that I can relate to as we have standards of modesty in the LDS church too and would be hurt if we were expected to go against those standards, but some people seem to have taken it to extremes and decided that Mohammed was wrong and that they know better than their beloved prophet. I'm surprised that this isn't regarded as heresy. It would be a great step forward for Islam if the day ever comes when it is recognised as such.

If you're ignorant on AccyWeb I will tolerate you too.

[katex]

Oh Cashy !! Not this one again.. thank God (LOL) I am an atheist.

Course they should take these blooming veils off in court, how is a magistrate able to judge their emotions, etc., to a question. (as per Wynonie)

All been said 'again' now in this thread and bored with the whole subject, except, this week asked a lady at work who insists on wearing a scarf if she had any hair under there ? Course she had .. her husband doesn't want her to wear it, just doing it of her own volition. Guess she just wants to get noticed more in all this controversy. Looks a bloody mess and that scarf never looks clean to me.

[shakermaker]

Article 9 is about a right to religion.
Wearing a veil over one's face is a cultural norm, not a religious ruling. It has nothing to do with Bible or Qu'ran or any religious text.
Thus no one's religion would be attacked should veil's be made illegal inside a court room.

A veil has as much right to be worn over a woman's face in a court room as a chav has to wear a burberry scarf covering his/her face with cap on & hood up in the same place.

[shakermaker]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

This full face veil being a necessary part of their religion is a fallacy. That should be apparant when you see women of the same family with some wearing it and some not - but the clincher for me was when a muslim showed me a quotation from Mohammed which said the only parts of a woman which should be visible should be her face and hands. In other words he did NOT say that she should cover her face. He did specify that she should cover most of her body for the sake of modesty, and that I can relate to as we have standards of modesty in the LDS church too and would be hurt if we were expected to go against those standards, but some people seem to have taken it to extremes and decided that Mohammed was wrong and that they know better than their beloved prophet. I'm surprised that this isn't regarded as heresy. It would be a great step forward for Islam if the day ever comes when it is recognised as such.

Sorry Willow, read your post after I made mine.

[steeljack]

Anyone who has taken a plane to either Saudi Arabia or Iran will tell you this head/face covering is a crock , the plane on departure from Europe will be full of some best looking women in the world , beautiful bodies in close fitting clothes and long shoulder length hair , 1/2 an hour before landing the parade to the toilets begins ...in goes a good looking woman/girl and out comes this black garbed bag, so in no way is this covering up a religious thing , the 'black bags' just conforming to local Saudi traditions .
This covering up the hair by Iranian women is a new thing , previously it was banned in the 30s by the late Shah's father (around the same time Attaturk banned the viel/headscarf in Turkey) it was only after the Iman Khomeni returned that the head covering came back , the logic being that some Iranian Scientist/Mullah had made the startling discovery that womens hair emits invisible rays which turn men into sex crazed beasts and therefore should be covered as a way of protecting the men from being bewitched ......

[derekgas]

I think that in the main, this headwear (which seems to me to be a more recent thing since the publicity a few months ago), is another excuse to try to be different from OUR culture and ways, I also think that if our ways are not adopted sometimes, (when in rome etc), then it is another step towards our becoming a muslim state, if a muslim wants to insist on clothing for 'religious' reasons, then transfer all documentation and let her be tried in her own country, and accept the punishment there. I am late joining this thread due to work, but having read it, why do people keep falling for Blazey's obvious wind ups?