Right to thought, conscience and religion.
Magistrate Reprimanded
- Thread starter cashman
- Start date
Right to thought, conscience and religion.
In prison you lose your full rights, regardless, so its a completely different issue. Thats what they say in the IVF cases anyway
So even though there may be male guards in a women's prison, their rights to modesty are not protected?
Seems to me like the law is inconsistent.
Suprise, suprise.
And you KNOW i'm in the library because I've said elsewhere that I have no internet in my house, so I'm studying seen as I'm lancaster by myself til term starts and housemates get back. Pretty depressing but work needs to be done I guess! Havent eaten yet today and I can see the cafe out the window. Overpriced though so I will starve instead 
Its unfair but true, just as I mentioned, some prisoners try to get IVF to have families with their partners who aren't in prison with them and its refused, they try to argue breach of Article 8. I dont think I need to say what that is
argument hasn't stood up in court so far though and I dont think it ever will.
And you KNOW i'm in the library because I've said elsewhere that I have no internet in my house, so I'm studying seen as I'm lancaster by myself til term starts and housemates get back. Pretty depressing but work needs to be done I guess! Havent eaten yet today and I can see the cafe out the window. Overpriced though so I will starve instead
Lazy madam!
Go and use the pans you aquired in the summer.
Lazy madam!
Go and use the pans you aquired in the summer.
I only have apples and some mince. What can I get with that?
True, though the library is far from warm. I'm sure a comedian once commented about how his gran said, when talking about 3rd world countries, 'at least they get the sun.' Wouldn't it be nice if it was such a luxury for them like it is to us?
I care about the poverty stricken countries, I dont try and disassociate it by calling it the third world, its part of OUR world. I hate that terminology for poor countries. Not that i'm saying its your fault, you didnt invent the term. Just dislike the way it sounds.
I dont have BUTTER! and certainly no golden syrup
sounded good though, I was hopefully then. I used my last potato on a homemade shepherds pie.
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.
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?
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
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.
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!
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. 
If you're ignorant on AccyWeb I will tolerate you too.
Last edited: