Magistrate Reprimanded

should veils be allowed in all cases?

  • yes they should

    Votes: 1 2.5%

  • the lunatics have won. (NO)

    Votes: 39 97.5%
  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .
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.
 
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.
 
WillowTheWhisp said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry Willow, read your post after I made mine.
 
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 ......
:confused: :confused:
 
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?
 
Balaclavas have been mentioned but no-one would be permitted to wear a face concealing balaclava in a court of law, even if it was one of the new ones in gaudy colours.
 
derekgas said:
why do people keep falling for Blazey's obvious wind ups?
Click to expand...
i know they are windups, what worrys me is i think she means what she says.:cool:i just hope Greg Pope reads this thread, would be interested to know his or other political members views, they seem to avoid subjects like this.
 
Last edited:
cashman said:
i know they are windups, what worrys me is i think she means what she says.:cool:
Click to expand...

Why put a poll up in the first place Cashy in the mode of for/against if you don't agree with anyone who puts 'for' :rolleyes::confused: Not very democratic methinks.

Strange questions anyway, should have been: 'Should they wear veil in court or not !?' yes or no ?.. not 'yes/the lunatics have won/no' ? (showing your prejudice with the comment) I would have voted 'no' but can't vote on the negative as it is influenced .. all very confusing.
 
Last edited:
its not a matter of i agree or not katex, was wondering how many thought this was an acceptable thing to do, obviously 30-1 not many. also trying to draw out these so-called political folk, who NEVER comment on these things.:)after all the public vote em in, do they really represent us? i wonder.;)
 
blazey said:
I voted yes. The veil is simply to cover the face from male view and a woman employee of the court can easily check in private that is indeed the correct person.
Click to expand...

You need to see a persons face to use their body language to decide if they are telling the truth or not. Something quite useful in a court room.
 
cashman said:
also trying to draw out these so-called political folk, who NEVER comment on these things.:)after all the public vote em in, do they really represent us? i wonder.;)
Click to expand...

and maybe even the political wannabes :D :D



( why is there no smiley face with a big wooden spoon ? ) ;)
 
Would a veiled woman be allowed to keep her veil on if she was a suspect taking part in an identity parade?
 
garinda said:
I only asked because this woman, a shop girl at Heathrow, Samina Malik, was shown on the news yesterday leaving court during her trial, prior to her being found guilty last month of terrorist offences, wearing a full face veil.

Friend of ‘Lyrical Terrorist’ caught at airport with military equipment - Times Online
Click to expand...

If all the facts in the Times story are correct it seems to me the biggest threat to the security to the UK is not from the terrorists but from a 5th column of traitors in the British legal profession :confused: :confused:
 
steeljack said:
If all the facts in the Times story are correct it seems to me the biggest threat to the security to the UK is not from the terrorists but from a 5th column of traitors in the British legal profession :confused: :confused:
Click to expand...
that may not be too wide off the mark.:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top