Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Tricky one. . . (Updated)Follow

#1 Nov 08 2006 at 3:50 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
A local Judge had a tricky situation today.

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.


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
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#2 Nov 08 2006 at 3:57 PM Rating: Good
Removal of Church from State in my opinion renders argument #2 out of the question. When in Rome.... Honestly though is it really such a huge deal? I have no issues with expressions of faith, I veil to see how the non removal of the fail should affect the proceedings whatsoever. Unless it was really a man under that veil.


Edit* Fail and Veil are confusing.

Edited, Nov 8th 2006 at 3:59pm PST by Brill
#4 Nov 08 2006 at 4:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
King Nobby wrote:
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 about to leave for class so no time to argue but I'll point out that none of those obscure the face or your identity.

Unless you're wearing your yarmulke all wrong.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Nov 08 2006 at 4:12 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
RandomAnnon wrote:
Interesting that you bring this up, as earlier I was wondering about England's views on Church/State for political reasons.
The United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland) are constitutionally Christian states. (Even though our constitution is unwritten - go figure)

Our Head of State is the Queen, who is also Head of the Church of England, so Church and State are explicitly joined (It's known as the 'Established Church') It's still technically illegal for Royalty to marry Catholics (no mention of Jews or Muslims though)

I really struggle with the story in the OP.

I can think of legitimate reasons why the wearing of a veil might impair one's ability to carry out a role effectively (teacher, lawyer, TV journalist etc.)

Sadly, there's often a thinly veiled (no pun intended) racism behind objections to wearing the veil.

It's often ignorantly assumed to be imposed by men (which it may be sometimes, but not necessarily).

It's also usually an objection raised by people who start their sentences with "I'm not a racist, but...". The sentences often include "they come over here and take our jobs" and "they smell funny".

If the decision is based objectively on the lawyer's ability to perform her duties while veiled, I might be OK. Sadly, the decision is likely to be taken by white, male, elderly, priveliged, Oxbridge educated establishment figures, and objectivity isn't usually their strong point.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#6 Nov 08 2006 at 4:20 PM Rating: Good
@#%^
*****
15,953 posts
Just let her wear it.

If she was a smart lawyer, she may realize that this will hurt her client's visa appeal.

Justice isn't as blind as some may think.
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"

#7 Nov 08 2006 at 4:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
As long as her identity is not in question, she should be allowed to wear the veil.

At any rate, I would argue that it's more cultural than religious (and there's a fine difference for you!), as there is nothing in the Quran that specifically requires women be veiled. The call for modesty applies to men and women equally and does not specify what, exactly, constitutes modesty.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#9 Nov 08 2006 at 5:13 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
RandomAnnon wrote:


Thank you for flying Church of England, cake or death?

Tea
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#10 Nov 08 2006 at 6:46 PM Rating: Good
King Nobby wrote:
It's also usually an objection raised by people who start their sentences with "I'm not a racist, but...". The sentences often include "they come over here and take our jobs" and "they smell funny".
Dey tuk r jubs!
#11 Nov 08 2006 at 6:54 PM Rating: Good
Samira wrote:
As long as her identity is not in question, she should be allowed to wear the veil.

At any rate, I would argue that it's more cultural than religious (and there's a fine difference for you!), as there is nothing in the Quran that specifically requires women be veiled. The call for modesty applies to men and women equally and does not specify what, exactly, constitutes modesty.
YOu sure seem to know a lot about this Quaran thingy. She must be a witch! Burn her!
#12 Nov 08 2006 at 7:00 PM Rating: Good
**
811 posts
Personally I can't think of any situation where I would feel comfortable having any dealings with someone in a mask. The basic point of a mask is usually to distance yourself from those you are dealing with out of distrust. So it would seem to basically be a comment to those looking at these women with their veils that they aren't people to be trusted with even seeing the womens' faces, which is somewhat insulting on a basic level. So I feel that if these women want to wear masks that are going to basically create a level of distrust in anyone they deal with that they do have to accept it and can't really have it both ways.

It'd be a bit like someone that espouses their hatred of cats and punts them on sight going out to a pet store and saying he'd like to buy a cat, and being upset when the pet store owner says "***** off, you just want something to punt". Even if the person did indeed want to keep a cat of his own to feed num-nums and clean the **** of or whatever.
#13 Nov 08 2006 at 8:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
.....

That is without any doubt at all one of the most bizarrely pointless analogies I have ever, and I mean EVER, read.

And it's not a mask. It's a veil. It isn't a part of a costume, or a disguise.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#14 Nov 08 2006 at 8:39 PM Rating: Good
**
811 posts
Samira wrote:
.....

That is without any doubt at all one of the most bizarrely pointless analogies I have ever, and I mean EVER, read.

And it's not a mask. It's a veil. It isn't a part of a costume, or a disguise.


I'm just saying that the judges in England have at least some reasoning that although is a bit retarded at least has some sort of logic to it.
#15 Nov 08 2006 at 8:50 PM Rating: Decent
i like mocha
#16 Nov 08 2006 at 8:50 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Had this kerfluffle over Sikhs joining the RCMP and wanting to wear there traditional turban for their Kesh.

People argued that it was against uniform code and a number of other things. In the end the courts went by the Charter of Human Rights and now you have Sikh mounties wearing turbans and even their Kirpan and in the end it worked out just fine.

Leave the melting pot and all its ethnocentric worries to America.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#17 Nov 08 2006 at 9:56 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Argument #2 doesn't hold water. In concert with the first argument a Muslim woman could wear the black muu-muu they wear, but forgo the veil to allow for facial expressions to be seen. Either that or walk around the court buck nekkid exposing her chopped off ****. I'd be fine with that.

Totem
#18 Nov 08 2006 at 10:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
In the end, if her arguements are valid, and (as Samira said) her identity is not in question, let her wear whatever the fück she wants. It shouldn't impede her ability to defend her client, although American prejudice suggests that it does, even subconsciously.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#19 Nov 08 2006 at 10:33 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
What I want to know is where this place called "Stroke-on-tents"?!?

Totem
#20 Nov 09 2006 at 3:04 AM Rating: Decent
The veil is different from the burka, or the niqab. The veil only covers the hair, so I don't think ti should even be an issue, and in most places, it's not.

Thye niqab, on the other hand, is quite different. You can't actually see any of the face, only the eyes. As Samira pointed out, this is absolutely not a necessity in the Koran, unless it is interpreted in the most harcore way possible. Which is very intersting, since it is a non-sensensical theological approach: the people who insist on this hardcore reading are "litterealists", which means they take the Koran at face value, and think that nothing should be interpreted to reflect the times we live in. They are the ones who preach Jihad as violence against others. They are the ones who think that someone who steals should get their hands cut off. The ones who think that they can live in the UK without adapting to the laws and customs of the country since it is an infidel place anyway.

And yet, it is those same people, slightly akin to people who think take the Bible litterally, who interpret "dressing modestly" as "covering your all body and face".

Go figure.

Anyway, back to the niqab. There is no doubt that in some situations, the niqab is an hindrance to the process. Teachers wearing the niqb, passport pictures were the women is wearing one, even appearing in courts. I think Judges/headmasters/officials should have the power to force people to make it so it only covers the hair, if its a hindrance to the process in question.

And none of the crucific/kippa arguments hold since none of those cover the whole face, or even pose any identification/communication problems. So we should try to deal with this issue in a "practical" manner, rather than a religious one. And I'm sorry, byut most Muslims don't think that wearing the niqb is a requirement. So if I start a religion saying we should be naked ALL the time, I can think of a few situations where that might be unpractical. religion should not be a blanket cover to justify any kind of behaviour.

In France, we have forbidden the wearing of "ostentacious" religious items/clothing in government buildings. Eventhough it is slightly hardcore, and eventhough the situation is different to England since we have a clear separation of the Church and State, I don't find it unfair.

So back to the OP, if its a veil, she should be able to keep it. If it's a niqb, she should turn it into a veil.

Allah is compassionate, he'll understand I'm sure.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#21 Nov 09 2006 at 3:24 AM Rating: Decent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
Old Danish saying: "Skik følge eller land fly."

The direct translation would be "Customs follow or land flee," which means "Do things our way or leave our country." I think the English version is "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

I read some drama in the newspapers about a journalist who apparently made it all the way in and out of airport security, wearing a burka. At one point, during the passport check, they told her to reveal her face, but she didn't and they sent her through anyways.

Smiley: dubious

Edit because it could be directly translated after all.

Edited, Nov 9th 2006 at 3:35am PST by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#22 Nov 09 2006 at 3:36 AM Rating: Decent
Mazra the Meaningless wrote:
It can't be translated completely, but it says "Do things our way or leave our country." I think the English version is "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."


Except that in the UK, we are a multicutltural society, with no imposed dress code. People are free to practice their religion as they wish, so long as it doesn't harm others.

So theoretically, if people want to cover their faces, then they should be able to. And they do. I used to live near Edgware Road in london, which is heavily populated by Muslims, and the street was full of women wearing the niqab. It never bothered me, and after a while you don't even notice it anymore.

When it comes down to things such as teaching, or the passport situation you mention, then I agree it should be different. People should not have an absolute right to not show their face, especially when it's potentially harmful to society. Not only that, but wearing a niqab is not completely accepted by Muslim scholars. The article in the Koran states that:

The Koran wrote:
The Noble Qur'an - Al-Ahzab 33:59

O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils)* all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed.


Some read "their bodies" as "the body and the face", and some as just "the body". So, no matter how you put it, it's far from clear-cut whether it's obligatory.

Hence, if there is doubt, it can't be an absolute law (like not eating pork).


Edited for tiredness.

Edited, Nov 9th 2006 at 3:39am PST by RedPhoenixxxxxx
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#23 Nov 09 2006 at 3:58 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Therein lies the rub, Red. If a Muzzie lawyer (or barrister for Nob's sake) demands to wear the whole enchilada and the precedent has been set by allowing the veil, then the British court has little recourse but to allow that as well. Better to restrict the wearing of the veil now than to let that camel get its nose under the tent. But like I said, if she wants to show her shorn bits I'd be fine with that. However, if she expects to get any sympathy from those stuffy Englishhmen, she'd better have big tits and dress up as a naughty governness with a cane in hand ready to whip any misbehaving schoolboys. Otherwise she'd better expect to lose nearly every case because she's not assimilating into Western society.

Totem
#24 Nov 09 2006 at 4:14 AM Rating: Decent
I understand what you mean Totem. I too would like to see naked female barristers in court.

As for the precedent of veil against the use of niqab, I don't think it would work. The precedent is for a piece of clothing that covers the hair, like a baseball cap. It is very different to wearing a niqab. In one case you hide the hair, in the other you hide the whole face. It's not the same, and legally there is undoubtedly a difference. remember that barristers wear wigs in the UK, wigs that hide the hair, and are therefore not completely different to wearing a veil. Though slightly less amusing, granted.

Another issue is taht there is a dress code for barristers. the wig, but also the robe. Same for judges. These guys, in their official capacity, can't turn up to court wearing speedos and sombreros. Or ********** headmistress dresses. Unfortunately.

So from there, it's not much of a stretch to prevent them from wearing a niqab at all. It's even quite logical.

Sikh policemen get a special turban-helmet in the UK. I think that's pretty cool, and a great exemple of how England is accomodating to the minorities. It would never happen in France.

But I doubt they would allow women police officers to wear a niqab, for exemple. It just wouldn't work. Same for teachers.

So I still think the veil and the niqab are very different. And hopefully Judges in England are impartial enough not to let a piece of cloth on the head influence their judgment.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#25 Nov 09 2006 at 4:19 AM Rating: Decent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
Well, they came to our country, not the other way around. Do you know what happens if a woman from over here goes to a highly orthodox part of a Muslim country? She'll be forced to wear a burka.

But, oh, let's not hurt their feelings, although they do like to hurt ours with their burning of flags and complete disrespect for western laws and customs. They come to our countries and demand that we aknowledge their religion and laws (which are a bit too closely knit together, in my opinion) or otherwise we're being discriminative.

Well ***** them! If they don't like the way we run things, why don't they get the @#%^ out of here?

And I'm by no means a racist or anything, but if I decided to move to, say, Iraq permanently, I would take up their customs and laws as well. Not their religion, but at least their customs and laws. If I was a woman and decided to move to a highly orthodox Muslim country permanently, I would wear the burka as well, because that's their customs.

Eight out of ten times you hear about something in the local (national) news, it's in direct relation with middle-eastern immigrants. Just recently a 24-year-old man was shot to death by accident when some middle-eastern immigrants opened fire on a night club in downtime Copenhagen. A few days earlier a guy was stopped by some middle-eastern immigrants who needed some help with directions. The guy helped them out and in return they opened fire on him. Sexual assaults, assaults, murders, you name it. It's always "them" doing most of it. A few months ago a kid was beaten and thrown on the railway tracks by some middle-eastern immigrant kids. There are parts of the town I live in where people completely avoid going because they risk getting beat up by these middle-eastern immigrant gangs, consisting of 14-year-olds with guns!

Watching the news and reading the newspapers, it appears that somewhere along the line of evolution, these guys got hooked off.

What makes them act like this? They're guests in OUR country and they treat us like @#%^ing dirt, burn our flags whenever their relatives back in godknowswhatcountry decides to boycott us because a guy made some drawings. Do we boycott them when one of their guys decides to blow up a bus full of children in the name of Allah? No, we don't. Primarily because their crapass countries bring nothing to the table except trouble. Which is why they show up at our place and seek asylum.

Imagine asking a friend if you can come and spend the night at his place. No, wait, let me rephrase that. You show up at his doorstep, without any bags or anything, and you tell him to get you a room for the night. Then you complain about the dinner because you're a vegetarian. Then you complain about the drinks because you prefer water over milk. Then you complain about the roomservice because it's not fast enough. When you've been staying at your friend's house for a while, you start complaining about your friend and his manners towards you. You tell him that he's a racist and you start burning his family portraits. You spend all your money on bling bling and freshly stolen cars, but you never once decide to pay your friend for the time spent there. You try to convert your friend to your own religion, knowing full well that he won't. You also try to convert his children to fight a holy war for you because you are to @#%^ing scared to do it yourself. Finally you steal your friend's savings and leave the house.

After having spent the summer at your own place, you return to your friend's house again.

Now, that's more or less what's going on.

I'm sick and tired of hearing the bullsh*t about Muslims being discriminated. I'm afraid of even going to their countries because I risk being kidnapped and decapitated with a dull axe on live television. And they worry about us asking to remove a headdress? When I was a kid, I was told to take off my cap at school and in church. Now people can wear @#%^ing robes to school because it's against their religion to do otherwise. They completely disrespect our laws and ways of doing things, but all we can do is shrug and look the other way, because happy sappy hippie people who don't see these problems decide that we're all racists if we do something about it.

It's ridiculous.

Edited, Nov 9th 2006 at 4:25am PST by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#26 Nov 09 2006 at 4:26 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
/nods

I can see your point, Red. I still say I'm on to something with the naughty governness thing. It has its attractions, particularly if they're good looking. On the upside, if they have a weak case no one would have heard a word of it...

By-the-by, Nobs, just what is it about stern busty chicks that gets you Limeys so giggly? From everything I know about Darkflame, you and her fit right into that profile. She doesn't cane you for being bad, does she?

Totem
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 336 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (336)