Wearing of Burka

[french frank]

I wonder about this...isn't a jury supposed to reach its decision strictly on the evidence presented, rather than indulging in amateur lie-detecting?

Evidence? Isn't that connected with 'evident'? The jury is surely required to evaluate the truth of that evidence, not simply accept it as presented by a witness.

[Pabmusic]

I wonder about this...isn't a jury supposed to reach its decision strictly on the evidence presented, rather than indulging in amateur lie-detecting?

The way in which a witness gives evidence is long established as part of the evidence. Judges will often tell juries that they must take into account the demeanour of a witness.

[Pabmusic]

That's what I think too, jean, which is why I suggested two simple identification procedures that would not require the Moslem lady to remove her burqa.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Here's the very first Google entry (it's American, but exactly the same as English law):

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/demeanor

The principle is not only long established in English law (Scots too, I believe), but it is a fundamental principle of open justice.

If it were not, we could introduce all evidence in written form and never have a live witness appear.

[Edit]: Here's an English legal paper that makes the issue of demeanour quite clear. It is not just a matter of opinion that a witness should be seen:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Tribunals/17%20Assessing%20credibility%20-%20Genn.pdf

[scottycelt]

What you believe and what those who do force women to wear it believe are clearly two quite different things. As Pab and FF point out above, there are times when wearing such a garment is in any case inappropriate.

a) Yes, I do not believe in women being 'forced' to do anything. I also don't believe in non-Moslems, especially secular Western males, lecturing them on religious dress practice.

b) Haven't I pointed that out as well? Hooded white-skinned Papist monks suddenly come flooding back to mind.:laugh:

They have not; indeed, in some societies and nations, they've not been replaced at all, by anything!

Certainly have in some societies and nations!

Well, as soon as you become elected as President of and Islamic country, I have no doubt that you will strive to force through legislation there that gives Muslim women that particular right to decide but, until then, such a freedom wilil continue to be denied to many such women; that said, to those who have any dealings with Muslim women, the matter is "their own business"!

I'm not Islamic and have no wish to be elected President of Anywhere. After the initial irrelevant ramblings about me, you somehow managed to get it dead right after the semi-colon!

[Richard Barrett]

feminist-indoctrinated Western male

And proud of it.

[jean]

But with enough sense to realise that lecturing them on religious dress practice may be counterproductive.

Feminists (and those indoctrinated by them) are well aware of the dangers of lecturing. The case of FGM, mentioned by ams above, is a more serious example where we know serious suffering results from our standing back and respecting the cultural practices of others.

But what's seen as interfering often results in those practices becoming further entrenched.

[BBMmk2]

Agreed, but it goes deeper than that. Any witness should be seen. The way in which a witness gives evidence - facial expressions and body language - is important in assessing whether someone is telling the truth. Also, we have an open system of justice, which cannot be served by people hiding themselves for cultural reasons.

We must remember that the Courts of Justice are a secular institution and so religious dress etc, should not be an issue. Therefore, the Judge is quite right about the woman covering her face.

[Richard Barrett]

But with enough sense to realise that lecturing them on religious dress practice may be counterproductive.

Feminists (and those indoctrinated by them) are well aware of the dangers of lecturing. The case of FGM, mentioned by ams above, is a more serious example where we know serious suffering results from our standing back and respecting the cultural practices of others.

But what's seen as interfering often results in those practices becoming further entrenched.

Yes indeed; I was just having a moment of wondering what scottycelt thinks is so shameful about men whose thinking is influenced by feminism (not really "indoctrinated" of course).

[french frank]

[Edit]: Here's an English legal paper that makes the issue of demeanour quite clear. It is not just a matter of opinion that a witness should be seen:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...20-%20Genn.pdf

And a very recent quote from the OED:

"2009 L. F. Edwards People & their Peace ii. iv. 113 When doubts arose about testimony, they usually involved the credibility of the speakers, rather than the substance of what they said."

How do you judge the credibility of the speaker, as distinct from the credibility of 'the evidence presented'?

[scottycelt]

Yes indeed; I was just having a moment of wondering what scottycelt thinks is so shameful about men whose thinking is influenced by feminism (not really "indoctrinated" of course).

Of course not ... the 'indoctrinated' ones always belong to religious and never secular "cults".

We all know that!

[Richard Barrett]

So feminism is a "cult" now is it? Interesting.

[Flosshilde]

Any witness should be seen. The way in which a witness gives evidence - facial expressions and body language - is important in assessing whether someone is telling the truth.

I'd be worried about this if I was giving evidence - either as a witness or the accused. What might be interpreted as 'a guilty manner' by a jury member (especially one who might be prejudiced against me) could simply be the product of nervousness or uncertainty in an unfamiliar situation. If I were a jury member I would try to get past any 'behavioural' evidence & focus on what the witness was saying.

[ahinton]

Yes, I do not believe in women being 'forced' to do anything. I also don't believe in non-Moslems, especially secular Western males, lecturing them on religious dress practice.

Fine insofar s it goes, but isn't the "lecturing" of which you seek to accuse "secular Western males" (and do you believe that it's only these? - i.e. never Christian ones or Western women?) usually if not always in terms of religious dress practice in Western non-Muslim countries? - i.e. do you hear equal amounts of such lecturing by Westerners about religious dress codes in Muslim countries?

Certainly have in some societies and nations!

Would you care to name some examples, with evidence?

I'm not Islamic and have no wish to be elected President of Anywhere. After the initial irrelevant ramblings about me, you somehow managed to get it dead right after the semi-colon!

Something of an own goal there, scotty, arising, one presumes, from what appears to be an implied presumtion on your part that we're unlikely to agree on anything and that, in such circumstances, you are invariably "right" and I "wrong"!

[ahinton]

Yes indeed; I was just having a moment of wondering what scottycelt thinks is so shameful about men whose thinking is influenced by feminism (not really "indoctrinated" of course).

As well you might (and I think that most of us understood your use of "indoctrinated" here) - but there are some who held a belief that there would never even have been a need for a feminist movement had men in all cultures always treated women equally and with the respect that they deserve by reason of their status as human beings; what's your take on that?

[Pabmusic]

I'd be worried about this if I was giving evidence - either as a witness or the accused. What might be interpreted as 'a guilty manner' by a jury member (especially one who might be prejudiced against me) could simply be the product of nervousness or uncertainty in an unfamiliar situation. If I were a jury member I would try to get past any 'behavioural' evidence & focus on what the witness was saying.

Yes, of course, it's very worrying (I have given evidence a few times - pretty formal stuff actually - and it's very intimidating). But this is how we usually make judgements about people in everyday life, after all. Some judges remind juries that they don't leave their common sense at the door of the court, but they apply the same sort of common sense as they use when making an important decision in their everyday lives.

Again, if this approach were not taken, we might just decide trials on written testimonies.