Wearing of Burka

[MrGongGong]

Indeed, a very tricky issue. Do we ban blind jurors?

The idea that somehow not being able to see someone means you can't communicate is a bit ridiculous and in evidence I would like to present a recording or Richard Burton reading Dylan Thomas

[scottycelt]

Especially as it's now available on a subscribers-only part of said organ.

I assume there is a point to this curious statement. Are you inferring I subscribe to this particular 'organ'?

Is there some general significance regarding subscription-only 'organs' when discussing the wearing of burkas?

[jean]

I assume there is a point to this curious statement. Are you inferring I subscribe to this particular 'organ'?

You're here, so you clearly do!

[aeolium]

I think the judge's comments in this case show a fair assessment of the complexity of the issues and indicate that no discrimination on religious grounds is intended:

"I reject the view, which has its adherents among the public and the press, that the niqab is somehow incompatible with participation in public life in England and Wales; or is nothing more than a form of abuse, imposed under the guise of religion, on women by men. There may be individual cases where that is true. But the niqab is worn by choice by many spiritually-minded, thoughtful and intelligent women, who do not deserve to be demeaned by superficial and uninformed criticisms of their choice.

Balancing the right of religious manifestation against the rights and freedoms of the public, the press, and other interested parties such as the complainant in the proper administration of justice, the latter must prevail over (the defendant’s) right to manifest her religion or belief during the proceedings against her to the extent necessary in the interests of justice. No tradition or practice, whether religious or otherwise, can claim to occupy such a privileged position that the rule of law, open justice, and the adversarial trial process are sacrificed to accommodate it. That is not a discrimination against religion. It is a matter of upholding the rule of law in a democratic society."

It is a judgement also consistent with one by the House of Lords in which the trial of a defendant on a murder charge was ruled to be unfair because a key witness was hidden from the defendant when giving evidence. This is also consistent with principles both in the European Convention and the 6th Amendment of the US Constitution that guarantee a defendant the right to confront a witness. Part of that is for the defendant (or plaintiff), the judge and the jury to be able to assess the non-verbal reactions of a witness. This is not an issue about religion but would equally apply to someone who wanted to cover his face with a balaclava or Ku Klux Klan hood.

I'd be interested to hear this issue debated in the excellent R4 programme Unreliable Evidence.

[Resurrection Man]

This is a complex and tricky issue
BUT
the non argument about how difficult it is to communicate with someone who's face you can't see is daft
Stevie Wonder seems to manage fine as do thousands of other people
and the telephone seems to work ok


I was working with a blind music teacher last term. So I guess they should be sacked ?

If we are to imprison a man for NOT wearing clothes and forbid people from wearing certain other clothes ??

There ARE people who are oppressed by being forced to dress in certain ways , however, having worked with women in schools who do wear the Burka I can say that in my experience there is no problem with communication and it's a big assumption to say that ALL people who do wear it are being forced. Will it be illegal for Jewish women to wear wigs ?

A blind person has had a long time to pick up nuances in the spoken word.

[Resurrection Man]

.....but would equally apply to someone who wanted to cover his face with a.... Ku Klux Klan hood.

......

Ah but according to MrGG that is perfectly reasonable.

[MrGongGong]

Ah but according to MrGG that is perfectly reasonable.

Try reading what people say ?
or are you competing for twat of the week with Peester ?

[MrGongGong]

A blind person has had a long time to pick up nuances in the spoken word.

which "blind person" are you referring to ?

[Mr Pee]

or are you competing for twat of the week with Peester ?

Such juvenile crudity, and blatant disregard of the house rules, yet again, from GG.

No wonder FF sent this board to the sidebar.

[Resurrection Man]

which "blind person" are you referring to ?

Well, apart from you perhaps who is deliberately being obtuse as you know exactly what I mean. Your arrogance in thinking that you are the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong is breathtaking.

I think that you have reached your 'sell-by' date as far as I am concerned. It's the Ignore flag for you (again).

[MrGongGong]

Well, apart from you perhaps who is deliberately being obtuse as you know exactly what I mean. Your arrogance in thinking that you are the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong is breathtaking.

I think that you have reached your 'sell-by' date as far as I am concerned. It's the Ignore flag for you (again).

Sorry mate
it's your assumption that somehow your way of thinking is "right" and everything else is fantasy is tiresome in the extreme
so take your ball inside and put your fingers in your ears and scream if you like

[Mr Pee]

I think that you have reached your 'sell-by' date as far as I am concerned. It's the Ignore flag for you (again).

That will make two of us.

[ahinton]

That will make two of us.

What? You mean that you and RM are going to ignore one another? Will any material difference be noticed around these parts if so?

[amateur51]

I think the judge's comments in this case show a fair assessment of the complexity of the issues and indicate that no discrimination on religious grounds is intended:

"I reject the view, which has its adherents among the public and the press, that the niqab is somehow incompatible with participation in public life in England and Wales; or is nothing more than a form of abuse, imposed under the guise of religion, on women by men. There may be individual cases where that is true. But the niqab is worn by choice by many spiritually-minded, thoughtful and intelligent women, who do not deserve to be demeaned by superficial and uninformed criticisms of their choice.

Balancing the right of religious manifestation against the rights and freedoms of the public, the press, and other interested parties such as the complainant in the proper administration of justice, the latter must prevail over (the defendant’s) right to manifest her religion or belief during the proceedings against her to the extent necessary in the interests of justice. No tradition or practice, whether religious or otherwise, can claim to occupy such a privileged position that the rule of law, open justice, and the adversarial trial process are sacrificed to accommodate it. That is not a discrimination against religion. It is a matter of upholding the rule of law in a democratic society."

It is a judgement also consistent with one by the House of Lords in which the trial of a defendant on a murder charge was ruled to be unfair because a key witness was hidden from the defendant when giving evidence. This is also consistent with principles both in the European Convention and the 6th Amendment of the US Constitution that guarantee a defendant the right to confront a witness. Part of that is for the defendant (or plaintiff), the judge and the jury to be able to assess the non-verbal reactions of a witness. This is not an issue about religion but would equally apply to someone who wanted to cover his face with a balaclava or Ku Klux Klan hood.

I'd be interested to hear this issue debated in the excellent R4 programme Unreliable Evidence.

Excellent and enlightening, thank you aeolium.

[Mr Pee]

What? You mean that you and RM are going to ignore one another? Will any material difference be noticed around these parts if so?

No, as is perfectly obvious, we are both going to ignore Mr.GG. I have put him on ignore a few times over the years, but then given him another chance in the vain hope that he might have improved the content of his posts and desisted from his name-calling, but as he has demonstrated on this thread, he has done neither.