Judge refuses Muslims woman plea because of Veil.

Judge refuses Muslims woman plea because of Veil.

www.bbc.co.uk

The 21-year-old from Hackney, who is charged with intimidating a witness, said she could not remove the veil in front of men because of her religion

Judge Peter Murphy said however, she could not stand trial in the veil, which only reveals her eyes, because her identity could not be confirmed

(visit the link for the full news article)

About time..

The judge says that the court must be able to verify the persons identity as that is the fundamental right of a open justice system.

The first thing that must be addressed here is that she is using a long used fallacy re Muslim dress to just be awkward. As any ordinary Muslim will tell you the Quran does NOT specify covering your face, the book merely calls for women to show modesty which was translated to mean to cover the arms, legs and not wear tight fitting garb.

Since then the Shariah / Wussabi males have created their own rules of dress but these are man made and not part of the book of which Islam is based so this isn't part of the religion, its personal choice / man man attrition.

About time our legal system stopped people pushing their luck to be awkward to the system.

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Judge makes a lot of sense...

How could anyone expect a judge to preside over preoceedings, when they cannot 100% vouch the person before them, as being the person on the charge sheet.

Can only hope this judge has taken the first step in ending pc madness.

Agreed on it being about time. There are fundamental differences in cultures and no one ...NO ONE..should expect that they can force change in a culture outside their own. I don't live in a Muslim nation because there is a whole host of issues they live by and happily so it seems, which I find totally unacceptable and absolutely beyond tolerance.

Do I?

A.) Move there to suck off what is good while expecting and demanding they change what *I* don't like about their nation?

or

B.) Live elsewhere and maybe visit someday as a tourist ...keeping my mouth shut, even then, about what I really detest about another culture or ...would refuse to submit to?

She doesn't like the law? Go home. Otherwise.... accept that business cannot be done while hiding one's face in a Western nation. Tough luck.

reply to post by Mclaneinc


Thank you for that report was good, glad to see it, if females want to dress like that they have no right to live here, they come over to the UK to grab our befits yet like to carry on as if they live in Muslim states, no go home, ET said it GO HOME.

(Yeah, I know it's a fake, it's just always the image that comes to mind when issues like this come up.)

I wonder how long it's going to be, before this judge has something bad happen to him. he has just insulted Islam. I wonder if he now has police protection.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


Totally agree with you Wrabbit!

I have been to Afghanistan (Kabul) back in 2004 with the military and you'd be supprised how many women are wearing Jeans and sweaters there (depends where). So it is BS when they say it is mandatory for their religion.

Then they come here and ask us to change OUR habits and laws to accommodate THEM. When we went there in 50C + degree weather patrolling, we had to keep our sleeves long not to show too much skin as it could offend them. We didn't argue as we were on their territory. It should be the same here.

I think the Veil should be illegal period (keep that for inside their home then fine). If we cannot even tell the gender of the person walking towards us, how is this acceptable. Now if a Canadian citizen walks around with a mask on his face(other than halloween), you'll get a fine or arrested. depending on where you are.

Let's just start a new trend where whenever a veiled woman walks into a business, everyone dive to the floor!!! that should fix the problem fast enough..lol

I have absolutely nothing against immigration, but when you chose to go to another country, any country, you should abide their laws to a T without question or stay home.

Rules are rules. They are in place for a reason. About 10 years ago we had a Sikh lawyer come into the joint I was working at and got totally bent that he couldn't wear his ceremonial dagger inside. Sorry dude, no exceptions. There has to be some latitude with immigrants but there is a line. This is a good example of where that line is.

reply to post by jimmyx


The judge has not insulted anything or anyone by that as OP stated Quran do not say they have to cover their faces. Covering faces is oppression and nothing else.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


Even you wish to change few things " abroad " you can´t as you are infidel to them. It seems the change needs to come from the inside that society.. as long as politics are opposite to human rights and the power are in the hands of religious fanatics the road to there is long and difficult more like impossible.

reply to post by Mclaneinc

The judge approached this incorrectly.

Of-course her identify can be verified (by a female privately for example), it would just need to be done prior to her "revealing" herself to "everyone".

What the judge should have done is approach it from a perspective of fundamental rights, as opposed to a case by case basis, though I dont know what UK law is based on.

Constitutionally, I think it would be more complicated, since freedom of religion is supposed to be a protected right in the US.

reply to post by Mclaneinc


Good for the judge, like somebody else said, you move to a country that is not where you were born into, you better be ready to abide by that countries laws.

If you don't like it then stay in your own darn country.



This is one of the many examples of why Islamic laws do not go along with the established laws of the nation that they trying to take over, that is why is nothing but an agenda and a take over.

reply to post by gladtobehere


Freedom of Religion in the US means that no system of government have the right to impose one national religion, no that religions can impose over the laws of the land with their own believes.

So that means no religion can change the laws.

That is why Islam as a law can never go along with the Established laws of the land in the US.

I former house mate of mine was sitting in a bar we used to frequent by a busy road in Manchester in 2000.... he watched a car rear end another that was stopped at a crossing immediately outside.

Out of the offending vehicle stepped two ladies with full headwear (idk the correct term) that had only a letterbox style slit for vision, and over that was a net/mesh to obscure things further!! They were the only occupants of the vehicle.

I've always lived in multicultural areas, and am pretty darn observant - i've only seen fully obscured female drivers a handfull of times as an adult (and i'm 40), but it does happen. I've no idea where the law stands on this but sheesh!

Without digging deeper into the OP's sources etc etc my thoughts are that the lady in question should be informed that she will held in contempt if she does not comply after time in custody to reflect on things, and take advice from an Immam, family etc. Then held in custody untill she can confirm her id in a suitable fashion - for example to a female judge or police officer and so forth. This would need to be confirmed at each hearing.

Seems reasonable to me.

reply to post by gladtobehere


The judge approached this incorrectly.


No, the judge did not, as Islam has squatted in a plethora of nations demanding rights and recognition with little to no regard of local norms.


And trying to justify those actions thru a sick and twisted fallacy, just like the other organized religions, brings little to no sympathy from those able to think above and beyond.


Islam sucks ass, radical or not, as the values and culture border on insanity. And shame on all the apologists too insecure to confront a problem that has festered like a boil for far too long. Time to pop it...

reply to post by marg6043

If you don't like it then stay in your own darn country.

what about a British Muslim convert who choses to wear the veil?

reply to post by Mclaneinc


All governments should note, any individual who chooses through their own free will to move from their native land to live in another land be it full time or part time, they must adhere to the cultures of those countries they want to take up residence in.... that goes for all world countries whatever creed, or race,

Religion and politics are fine in their respective places, but may not be used as tools for self gain, or any other by gain which should be seen as abusive and carry a penal conviction.....

reply to post by logical7


Let them wear the darn veil. But when it comes to the laws of the country, they are not for just a specific group they are for everybody.

If the laws in the country are weak then the agenda will be fulfilled.

In the US the laws supersede anything else, you have freedom but within the laws.

I'm sure that if I walked into any court in any Country wearing a Balaclava, the judge would order me to remove it.

I don't think he/she would accept one of the clerks looking at my uncovered face in a backroom as an acceptable reason for me to keep it on in court, even if it was my own Religion.

reply to post by marg6043

Thats actually not the case.

The US has been granting religious exemptions for a very long time.

There are so many examples, I'm not sure where to begin.

Take the idea of being a conscientious objector. What began as a religious exemption has become policy.

The wikipedia entry cites Quakers as one example. To this day, the Quakers are still fighting for this religion based exemption.

I mean just look at Utah's history with polygamy. Still a current day issue.

But the BIG religious exemption issue of the day is with regards to Obamacare.

So granting religious exemptions is nothing new.

I realize that youve been led to believe that Moslems are the root of all evil, but theres a lot more to this issue, at-least with regards to the US.

Not sure about the UK.