He was hearing a Visa Appeal application, and the defence lawyer (a female muslim) was wearing a full face veil.
Linky
Quote:
Row over face veil halts tribunal
An immigration tribunal has been adjourned after a lawyer refused to remove her veil.
The lawyer, appearing at a hearing in Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent, was twice asked by Judge George Glossop to remove her face veil but refused to do so.
He then adjourned the hearing, about an appeal over a visitor's visa, to take advice about how to proceed.
A Tribunals Service spokeswoman said the matter had been referred to the service's president for advice.
An immigration tribunal has been adjourned after a lawyer refused to remove her veil.
The lawyer, appearing at a hearing in Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent, was twice asked by Judge George Glossop to remove her face veil but refused to do so.
He then adjourned the hearing, about an appeal over a visitor's visa, to take advice about how to proceed.
A Tribunals Service spokeswoman said the matter had been referred to the service's president for advice.
Argument one
People who wish to participate in Western Democratic society should conform to its norms. Being able to see a person's face is a vital part of communication, and something as important as a court hearing makes it doubly important.
Argument two
The woman is wearing the veil as an expression of her faith, and is entitled to do so. Could a judge legitimately require a Jewish lawyer to remove his Yarmulke, a Christian remove a crucifix, or a Sikh to remove his turban and Karra?
I'm discounting the oft-cited argument that muslim women are forced or subjugated by their husband/father to wear the veil. Most women I know who wear the veil do so from choice, and I know a few muslim husbands who would rather their wives weren't veiled, but accept their choice
Edited, Nov 13th 2006 at 4:30pm PST by Nobby