Wearing of Burka

[BBMmk2]

A circuit Judge said he cannot preside over a case, if the defendant is only showing her eyes? Is he right in saying this, or could this be a religious point of view that should be respected, at the risk of the right defendant being taken by another person?

[Alison]

This won't tempt back Mr Hornspieler . . .

[eighthobstruction]

....tee hee....nicely done....

[Serial_Apologist]

The eyes have it.

[Flosshilde]

aye aye.

[scottycelt]

A circuit Judge said he cannot preside over a case, if the defendant is only showing her eyes? Is he right in saying this, or could this be a religious point of view that should be respected, at the risk of the right defendant being taken by another person?

Good question, Bbm!

The judge is absolutely right.

It's a secular court and respect for that should take precedent over any religious custom which is in clear conflict with the pursuit of justice in the most transparent way possible. There can be no exemptions apart from an officially-certified medical reason for a face-cover

Once (and if) the lady leaves the court she can then revert to normal religious practice. Not sure what the current prison rules are if she is convicted and sentenced, though. Pab should know?

At the grave forum danger of being called a racist and horrid misogynist exactly the same rules should apply to a hooded, white-skinned Papist monk.

[french frank]

a hooded, white-skinned Papist monk.

http://www.themourners.org/images/about_mourner.jpg

[amateur51]

exactly the same rules should apply to a hooded, white-skinned Papist monk.

Kendo Nagasaki too, I hope scotty

http://kendonagasaki.org/

[Flosshilde]

the same rules should apply to a hooded, white-skinned Papist monk.

You're not suggesting that Papist monks commit crimes, are you :yikes: ?

(or, if they do, that they should be subject to secular law rather than be whisked away by the Vatican)

[jean]

At the grave forum danger of being called a racist and horrid misogynist...

I think you're going to be disappointed.

[Pabmusic]

Good question, Bbm!

The judge is absolutely right.

It's a secular court and respect for that should take precedent over any religious custom which is in clear conflict with the pursuit of justice in the most transparent way possible. There can be no exemptions apart from an officially-certified medical reason for a face-cover

Once (and if) the lady leaves the court she can then revert to normal religious practice. Not sure what the current prison rules are if she is convicted and sentenced, though. Pab should know?

At the grave forum danger of being called a racist and horrid misogynist exactly the same rules should apply to a hooded, white-skinned Papist monk.

I agree with you, Scotty. Where identification is important (such as a court) it should not be permitted. There are no circumstances in which religious or cultural customs should override the law*, though of course people usually try to be sensitive about the situation.** It's the same at airports, of course - no-one expects the check-in staff - let alone passport control - to accept identification based on an eye-slit.

And it's the same in prisons. I never worked in a female establishment [breathes a huge sigh of relief!] but identification of prisoners is important (think of all of those POW camp films). It would not be acceptable to say that "we didn't check her as rigorously because of her religious or cultural beliefs". You'd just get a huge number of applications to change religion.

By the way, you do get a huge number of applications to change religion already, usually connected with Ramadan. Moslems are allowed to have specially cooked food (curries, like an not) in vacuum flasks, so they can eat after sunset. Prisoners like curries, hence the increase in applications to become a moslem when Ramadan (and especially the feast of Eid) are approaching.

* Just imagine how people would feel if any group were to be excused paying income tax because it's against their religion.

** For instance, courts are sensitive about the oath a witness takes. A Moslem can swear on the Koran - "I swear by Allah...". Atheists, Buddhists and Quakers can affirm - "I do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm..." (Atheists and Buddhists have no God; Quakers will not swear oaths to God.)

[amateur51]

I agree with you, Scotty. Where identification is important (such as a court) it should not be permitted. There are no circumstances in which religious or cultural customs should override the law*, though of course people usually try to be sensitive about the situation.** It's the same at airports, of course - no-one expects the check-in staff - let alone passport control - to accept identification based on an eye-slit.

And it's the same in prisons. I never worked in a female establishment [breathes a huge sigh of relief!] but identification of prisoners is important (think of all of those POW camp films). It would not be acceptable to say that "we didn't check her as rigorously because of her religious or cultural beliefs". You'd just get a huge number of applications to change religion.

By the way, you do get a huge number of applications to change religion already, usually connected with Ramadan. Moslems are allowed to have specially cooked food (curries, like an not) in vacuum flasks, so they can eat after sunset. Prisoners like curries, hence the increase in applications to become a moslem when Ramadan (and especially the feast of Eid) are approaching.

* Just imagine how people would feel if any group were to be excused paying income tax because it's against their religion.

** For instance, courts are sensitive about the oath a witness takes. A Moslem can swear on the Koran - "I swear by Allah...". Atheists, Buddhists and Quakers can affirm - "I do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm..." (Atheists and Buddhists have no God; Quakers will not swear oaths to God.)

You gotta love those Quakers - stroppy AND principled and generally such nice people too, so quiet :smiley:

[scottycelt]

You're not suggesting that Papist monks commit crimes, are you :yikes: ?

(or, if they do, that they should be subject to secular law rather than be whisked away by the Vatican)

Believe it or not, I'm sure quite a few have over the centuries, Fossie. After all I understand they are human like you and me ... well, you anyway. Hard to grasp, I know.

Yes, I've spotted these masked, dark-clothed Vatican guys in Lamborghinis poised to whisk away any hooded, white-skinned Papist monk spotted near a secular courtroom.

They call themselves Jesuits, apparently, and one has even recently reached godfather status within the clerical cosa nostra, I recently read somewhere. (no, not the Guardian)

[scottycelt]

You gotta love those Quakers - stroppy AND principled and generally such nice people too, so quiet :smiley:

Yes, I am sure that they are all simply gorgeous, amsey, but their belief is that there should be no fixed set of beliefs.

So no wonder it is extremely hard for anyone to argue with them over anything.

Easy.

[amateur51]

Yes, I am sure that they are all simply gorgeous, amsey, but their belief is that there should be no fixed set of beliefs.

So no wonder it is extremely hard for anyone to argue with them over anything.

Easy.

I've worked with a number of Quaker organisations over the years and always found them and their members to be very easy people to debate with because they are so clear about that they hold to be important about the topics that we have discussed.