Wearing of Burka

[Beef Oven!]

No, you are quite wrong, imho. It was the state that was more concerned with 'political correctness' than the welfare of vulnerable children.

The adoption agencies simply wanted to help vulnerable children in exactly the same way as they had always done in the past but it was the state that demanded they had to ditch their beliefs or close down. Understandably, the agencies closed down. It would have been unthinkable for anyone to be forced to act against their principles simply at the diktat of the state. The outcome was entirely predictable and the cause of the closures was entirely due to agenda-driven politicians and not the agencies.

.....simple issue of whether any sort of face-cover should be permitted in court

Simple? Maybe.

I have to say that I don't have desperately strong views one way or another on this from a political point of view, but there is something about this issue that I can't quite put into words adequately; it's about the fundamental human relationship.

Possibly I'm wrong, but I can't think of another example of a cultural, tribal, religious or whatever custom that obliterates the face from human interaction. Is it because there is something fundamental about the human face for our identity as a species? And as such there is a completely universal understanding on the matter; or it seemed there was. I can only see this universality broken, if women somehow don't count in all of this.

A bit garbled, but if anyone knows what I'm trying to get at here, please feel free to elucidate.

[ahinton]

It is wholly irrelevant. The issue is face-cover not religious custom. Precisely the same rules on face-cover should apply to any atheist whose custom is to walk around with a saucepan over his head.

Should I assume from this response that you reject any suggestion that the wearing of this garment has the slightest connection of any kind with religious tradition, practice or requirements?

[ahinton]

Simple? Maybe.

I have to say that I don't have desperately strong views one way or another on this from a political point of view, but there is something about this issue that I can't quite put into words adequately; it's about the fundamental human relationship.

Possibly I'm wrong, but I can't think of another example of a cultural, tribal, religious or whatever custom that obliterates the face from human interaction. Is it because there is something fundamental about the human face for our identity as a species? And as such there is a completely universal understanding on the matter; or it seemed there was. I can only see this universality broken, if women somehow don't count in all of this.

A bit garbled, but if anyone knows what I'm trying to get at here, please feel free to elucidate.

I think that this makes sense. The issue is obviously about how facial concealment as provided for by means of a religious custom/tradition (and I see no evidence that this particular one has any other origins) stacks up against human interactions outside of religious practice, of which that of giving evidence in a courtroom is just one. As I have had cause to point out in discussion of other issues that concern the impact of religious tradition/custom upon subscribers to particular religions, if and when a perceived or actual conflict of interest between religious custom/tradition and secular ditto arises, something has to give somewhere and, given that (a) not all religions share the same traditions/customs and many people don't subscribe to any religion but (b) everyone has to participate in secular life regardless of religion, it would seem that the secular would have in such instances to take precedence.

[jean]

That said, do Muslims really represent less than 5% of the UK population? I'm sure you'd not have written so had you not checked reliable sources first - I'm just a little surprised by that statistic, that's all...

You've been paying too much attention to the Daily Mail again, haven't you, scotty?

Thus does propaganda achieve its aims.

In the 2011 Census, Christianity was the largest religion, with 33.2 million people (59.3 per cent of the population). The second largest religious group were Muslims with 2.7 million people (4.8 per cent of the population).

[Beef Oven!]

I think that this makes sense. The issue is obviously about how facial concealment as provided for by means of a religious custom/tradition (and I see no evidence that this particular one has any other origins) stacks up against human interactions outside of religious practice, of which that of giving evidence in a courtroom is just one. As I have had cause to point out in discussion of other issues that concern the impact of religious tradition/custom upon subscribers to particular religions, if and when a perceived or actual conflict of interest between religious custom/tradition and secular ditto arises, something has to give somewhere and, given that (a) not all religions share the same traditions/customs and many people don't subscribe to any religion but (b) everyone has to participate in secular life regardless of religion, it would seem that the secular would have in such instances to take precedence.

I think you've given an extremely clear explanation of a complicated problematic and a solution thereof . Thank you.

But it doesn't quite get us all the way (sorry!).

May I give an example? What if there is a 'work-around' in a given situation (we've already had one similar in the case that prompted this thread to what I'm going to give)?

Supposing one is going to be seen by their GP, who is female and wearing a burqa, and one is uncomfortable about that and objects.

One is then reassured by the professionally chartered practice manager that the GP is who they say they are and the certificates of qualification are clearly on display on the wall above the GP's desk; and one is told it's no different from getting the GP's advice over the 'phone.

One, still uncomfortable, wishes to be seen by the GP, but without the burqa. There is no substitute doctor available.

What should happen next, given that the 'work-around' is floundering?

Should the patient be told that they have been given perfectly reasonable reassurances and must take it or leave it?

Or, should the GP be told that although it's difficult to articulate, the patient, it almost goes without saying, needs to be able to see the face of the person providing the personal, serious, medical service to them?

[Beef Oven!]

You've been paying too much attention to the Daily Mail again, haven't you, scotty?

Thus does propaganda achieve its aims.

In the 2011 Census, Christianity was the largest religion, with 33.2 million people (59.3 per cent of the population). The second largest religious group were Muslims with 2.7 million people (4.8 per cent of the population).

Now I'm really confused!

Choosing between Census information and the Daily Mail!!!!!

[ahinton]

I think you've given an extremely clear explanation of a complicated problematic and a solution thereof . Thank you.

One tries to do one's best!

But it doesn't quite get us all the way (sorry!).

Sometimes, one's best risks not being good enough!

May I give an example? What if there is a 'work-around' in a given situation (we've already had one similar in the case that prompted this thread to what I'm going to give)?

Supposing one is going to be seen by their GP, who is female and wearing a burqa, and one is uncomfortable about that and objects.

One is then reassured by the professionally chartered practice manager that the GP is who they say they are and the certificates of qualification are clearly on display on the wall above the GP's desk; and one is told it's no different from getting the GP's advice over the 'phone.

One, still uncomfortable, wishes to be seen by the GP, but without the burqa. There is no substitute doctor available.

What should happen next, given that the 'work-around' is floundering?

Should the patient be told that they have been given perfectly reasonable reassurances and must take it or leave it?

Or, should the GP be told that although it's difficult to articulate, the patient, it almost goes without saying, needs to be able to see the face of the person providing the personal, serious, medical service to them?

That's an interesting example, to be sure. It's niqab and not burq'a, as Richard Barrett and others have noted, but your point is still valid, of course. I think that the only way around this would need to relate to what Imentioned earlier about the religious situation and the secular situation. The decision to attend one's GP is not a religious one but is made for medical reasons. The appointment will thus have been made for secular purposes and the doctor, however she may be dressed, would be on duty to attend to her patients' medical needs and not their religious ones; she would also be aware that her patients would not necessarily all share her religious belief or subscribe to the traditions and customs of her religion and, as a medical professional rather than a religious one, she should be prepared to set aside any overt manifestations of her religion when her patients are consulting her. I have no idea what NHS would have to say about such a situation or whether the NHS GP code of practice makes any kind of provision for a situation such as you describe here, but I would have thought that the maintenance of proper standards of professionalism alone would be sufficient to prompt the GP herself to desist from wearing something that might make some patients - especially some non-Muslim ones - feel more unconfortable than they would were she instead wearing an item of jewelley including a cross, for example - and by discomfort here I refer specifically to the garment hiding her face, which a cross would not do. A patient / GP consultation is a one-to-one matter, after all. In the end, a patient cannot be forced to see through a GP appointment if they're not happy to do so and, if another GP was not present at the time and if the niqab-wearing GP refused to remove that garment, that patient would need to make another appointment with a GP who'd not be wearing one and might then feel inclined to complain about the inconvenience caused, although I've no idea how such a complaint might proceed in practice.

[scottycelt]

Should I assume from this response that you reject any suggestion that the wearing of this garment has the slightest connection of any kind with religious tradition, practice or requirements?

Of course there is a connection but the issue is not one of deciding whether these traditions, practices and requirements are wrong in themselves. No one, as far as I know, is attempting to stop Moslem women abiding by their dress code, or someone wearing a Halloween face-mask, outside of a secular criminal court.

Christian men and women have been prevented from wearing religious symbols at work. Atheists and Agnostics in employment have been stopped from wearing secular badges. Whatever side of the fence one is on if such rulings are made across the board by employers that seems fair enough to me. That is not to say there is anything intrinsically wrong with religious symbols and secular badges but that the wearing of these are over-ridden by a common, equitable staff-discipline.

If that is considered to be fair and reasonable I cannot see what the problem is when it comes to everybody having to show their face in a court of law. If a secular anarchist has to remove his/her face-mask to be properly identified in court so should anybody else including a Moslem woman or an over-hooded Catholic monk. There can be no official presumption that one is necessarily more trustworthy than any other.

That is the issue here, nothing else. Yes, it's that simple, imo.

[ahinton]

Of course there is a connection but the issue is not one of deciding whether these traditions, practices and requirements are wrong in themselves. No one, as far as I know, is attempting to stop Moslem women abiding by their dress code, or someone wearing a Halloween face-mask, outside of a secular criminal court.

Not necessarily "wrong" as such, in the sense of them being treated as wholly indefensible under any circumstances, but at least one of them (i.e. the one currenly under discussion here) is being questioned in terms of its appropriateness or otherwise in certain circumstances not limited to appearances in any secular court (not just a criminal one); Beef Oven!'s cited a relevant hypothetical one of a GP consultation, but in practice almost any one-to-one meeting could well fall under the same kind of category, particularly where professionals are involved on one side or the other, for instance the classroom, the office, the bank - you name it. So, whilst no one is yet "attempting to stop Muslim women from abiding by their dress code", there are instances when a part of that dress code is being called into question.

Christian men and women have been prevented from wearing religious symbols at work. Atheists and Agnostics in employment have been stopped from wearing secular badges. Whatever side of the fence one is on if such rulings are made across the board by employers that seems fair enough to me. That is not to say there is anything intrinsically wrong with religious symbols and secular badges but that the wearing of these are over-ridden by a common, equitable staff-discipline.

Whilst I broadly agree with this in principle, the wearing of the crosses and badges that you mention is a rather different matter in tems of whether they would or could cause actual offence to others in the workplace (as for example wearing a swastika badge almost certainly would); this is about not being able to see the face of the person with whom one is dealing.

If that is considered to be fair and reasonable I cannot see what the problem is when it comes to everybody having to show their face in a court of law. If a secular anarchist has to remove his/her face-mask to be properly identified in court so should anybody else including a Moslem woman or an over-hooded Catholic monk. There can be no official presumption that one is necessarily more trustworthy than any other.

That is the issue here, nothing else. Yes, it's that simple, imo.

That is the issue indeed except that, as I wrote, it's a far more wide-ranging one - albeit for the same or similar reasons - than just court appearances.

[Padraig]

That is the issue indeed except that, as I wrote, it's a far more wide-ranging one - albeit for the same or similar reasons - than just court appearances.

For a moment there I thought that unanimity had been achieved between ah and scotty. I had my congratulations ready, and they are still poised for bestowal.
Best face forward!

PS Where is the fellow who used to value unanimity. Has anybody here seen him?

[MrGongGong]

Given that most communications these days take place perfectly well without actually seeing the face of the person speaking, I really fail to see why this is seen to be such a huge deal ?

David Blunkett seems to have had little problem in getting himself understood ........


Yes Scotty it is OT
BUT

This

"The adoption agencies simply wanted to help vulnerable children in exactly the same way as they had always done in the past but it was the state that demanded they had to ditch their beliefs or close down. Understandably, the agencies closed down. It would have been unthinkable for anyone to be forced to act against their principles simply at the diktat of the state. " = well its perfectly understandable , who gives a toss about children anyway ? What the pope says is much more important.......... it's sad that people like to use others to excuse their unethical behaviour


but back to the scarf

[Padraig]

Given that most communications these days take place perfectly well without actually seeing the face of the person speaking, I really fail to see why this is seen to be such a huge deal ?

Many can, MrGongGong, but surely important communications need to be dealt with face-to-face. How many times have you said you'ld have to SEE about that.

Communications here on the MBs would, I think, be improved by being able to SEE if a writer were angry, amused etc. The lack of that facility can lead to great misunderstandings between us. Emoticons are a poor substitute for emotions.

So at that level alone, never mind the legalities, religious exceptions and etiquette, I think it's reasonable to be able to SEE those involved in a court case in which you are involved.

[MrGongGong]

Many can, MrGongGong, but surely important communications need to be dealt with face-to-face. How many times have you said you'ld have to SEE about that.

I don't agree at all
I have been working recently with a blind dancer and have composed complex music via the internet and face to face with both sighted and non sighted people. Also I have had frequent important communications with people on the autistic spectrum who "don't do" eye contact...... no problem at all

There are issues about this BUT the idea that one has to be able to SEE to understand seems to fly in the face of experience

[ahinton]

For a moment there I thought that unanimity had been achieved between ah and scotty. I had my congratulations ready, and they are still poised for bestowal.
Best face forward!

PS Where is the fellow who used to value unanimity. Has anybody here seen him?

I have no idea what you're talking about in your last sentence but just because scotty and I disagree over various things does not and indeed should not mean that I will not accept anything that he writes; I read and listen to what people write and say and try to respond as best and as honestly as I can. I make no particular claims for my success in this but I simply do the best of which I feel able. I do not expect or deserve to be "congratulated" just for that.

[ahinton]

Many can, MrGongGong, but surely important communications need to be dealt with face-to-face. How many times have you said you'ld have to SEE about that.

Of course there's a place for communication without eye contact and, whilst technology has obviously expanded the possibilities of that immensely in recent times, it's hardly anything new; authors, journalists, &c., write and their readers read - peolpe write letters and put them in the mail for their recipients to read - telehpne calls (until recently) involved being able to hear but not see the caller. Likewise, however, there is a place for communication where face to face is essential and, as I responded to scotty, standing up in court as a witness, plaintiff or defendant or in a professional capacity as a barrister, judge, &c. is by no means the only kind of circumstance in which it is so.

Communications here on the MBs would, I think, be improved by being able to SEE if a writer were angry, amused etc. The lack of that facility can lead to great misunderstandings between us.

True, but then that's what messageboards are all about and those who join them presumably do so on that understanding.

Emoticons are a poor substitute for emotions.

No substitute at all! That's one reason why I never use them.

So at that level alone, never mind the legalities, religious exceptions and etiquette, I think it's reasonable to be able to SEE those involved in a court case in which you are involved.

Indeed - and likewise in all manner of other circumstances; imagine a job interview conducted via email or a chat facility!...