An overall French style ban might be a step too far, but in situations where everyone has to show their face there should be no religious exceptions. Either we all show our faces or we all get to choose not to.
An overall French style ban might be a step too far, but in situations where everyone has to show their face there should be no religious exceptions. Either we all show our faces or we all get to choose not to.
Not sure if the French have just banned the veil covering the whole face minus the eyes, or have banned just the actual scarf whereby the whole face is showing.
For me, I'd be for a ban, though it would only be for the full face veil.
Just hate the thought that in London, women are going about looking like that.
I don't think we should be making exceptions in our legal system for religious and cultural reasons. Surely a cornerstone of the legal system should be everyone is treated equally?
It is, however it would be wrong to equate equality with uniformity. The goal of the legal system is justice - and the rules, whatever they are, should be whatever it takes to get a fair trial and a just outcome. There is an argument for allowing exemptions if it is to serve the goal of the process - so, for example, some witnesses are allowed to remain anonymous or give evidence behind a screen because they would not otherwise do so. If body language is so important for a jury to see (and I am not convinced by that to be honest) then wouldn't it give an unfair disadvantage to someone if you force them to uncover... I should have thought their distress at this might mask any telling body language.
I would prefer people showed their faces in court too - but I am prepared to accept that forcing them to might undermine justice and that is not acceptable.
Not sure if the French have just banned the veil covering the whole face minus the eyes, or have banned just the actual scarf whereby the whole face is showing.
For me, I'd be for a ban, though it would only be for the full face veil.
Just hate the thought that in London, women are going about looking like that.
The first ban was about 'conspicuous religious symbols' in places like schools and included the headscarf. The more recent ban was to do with banning face coverings in public, and that included the burkha and niqab.
One rule for one section of society and one for everyone else.
How would the judge react if somebody turned up for a trial in a balaclava I wonder?
Sigh.
Exactly.
Whenever this question comes up I go back to my tale asbout the charity collector I encountered in Eastbourne who was dressed in a Batman suit.
"Where's your mask Batman? ", I asked.
"Police told me I couldn't wear it in a public area mate" was his reply
I imagine they told Muslim ladies to uncover their face too - or perhaps not.
It is permissible for a woman to uncover her face when she is giving testimony in court, whether she is a witness in a case or is there to witness a deal, and it is permissible for the qaadi (judge) to look at her in order to know who she is and to protect the rights of all concerned.
Shaykh al-Dardeer said: “It is not permitted to give testimony against a woman in niqaab until she uncovers her face so that it may be known who she is and what she looks like.” (Al-Sharh al-Kabeer li’l- Shaykh al-Dardeer, 4/194)
Ibn Qudaamah said: “The witness may look at the face of the woman against whom he is testifying so that his testimony will speak about her in specific terms. Ahmad said: ‘He cannot testify against a woman unless he knows who she is.’” (Al-Mughni, 7/459; al-Sharh al-Kabeer ‘ala Matan al-Muqni’, 7/348, bi haamish al-Mughni; al-Hidaayah ma’a Takmilat Fath al-Qadeer, 10/26).
V – In court cases
It is permissible for a woman to uncover her face in front of a qaadi (judge) who is to rule either in her favour or against her, and in this situation he may look at her face in order to know who she is and for the sake of protecting people’s rights.
The same rules that apply to giving testimony or bearing witness also apply in court cases, because they serve the same purpose. (See Al-Durar al-Mukhtaar, 5/237; Al-Hadiyah al-‘Alaa’iyah, p. 244; Al-Hadiyah ma’a Takmilat Fath al-Qadeer, 10/26).
I have yet to read a compelling argument as to WHY we need to see the persons face.
Are people judging the honestly of the person based on what they look like, or based on facial expression?
The only argument I can think of is that when we as a society communicate face to face.......it should mean just that, face to face.
I haven't spoken in my life to any woman wearing the full face veil and if I were to, I'd know I'd feel uncomfortable, due to the fact I'd find it off putting as I wouldn't know whether she has worn that voluntarily or whether she's been forced to wear it....
However Islam isn't 'one thing' and what one scholarly group thinks is different to another. It's a bit like saying 'contraception is fine because the Archbishop of Canterbury says so' to a devout Roman Catholic.
There are pros and cons. Yes, you lose facial expressions. But there have been several cases where women have refused to appear as a witness in a case because they feel that they cannot remove their veil. It can be an issue in domestic violence cases, for example, where the alleged perpetrator cannot be brought to trial because his wife will not appear in court.
The 'security situation' is not really an issue: all you need is for a female staff member to check the person's identity, as is already commonly done in various situations.
Then those people should be issued with a form of subpoena compelling them to attend under threat of penalty. Foreign cultural and superstitious nonsense should not take precedence over the justice system and the requirement that everybody in court is visible making the proceedings transparent.
There is an argument for allowing exemptions if it is to serve the goal of the process - so, for example, some witnesses are allowed to remain anonymous or give evidence behind a screen because they would not otherwise do so. .
But this applies to all people, not just those of a particular religion or culture. Therefore its not a two tier system, unlike allowing certain people to wear the veil, but not others.
If a white male demanded to wear a veil when defending himself, then how can Britain's top judge argue against this now?
well if they allow the veil to be worn in court surely everyone else can wear face masks too if they like we are all equal in the uk. but if we all wear masks how will anyone recognise anyone so justice wont work. its a complete non starter and shows how out of touch the elite are
I have yet to read a compelling argument as to WHY we need to see the persons face.
Are people judging the honestly of the person based on what they look like, or based on facial expression?
Yes, certainly facial expression. It is probably the primary visual cue that we take from others when we communicate with them. I think that is somewhat imperative in a court of justice where a person faces accusation and judgment.
There are pros and cons. Yes, you lose facial expressions. But there have been several cases where women have refused to appear as a witness in a case because they feel that they cannot remove their veil. It can be an issue in domestic violence cases, for example, where the alleged perpetrator cannot be brought to trial because his wife will not appear in court.
The 'security situation' is not really an issue: all you need is for a female staff member to check the person's identity, as is already commonly done in various situations.
Can't we just have full Sharia courts? That way the woman doesn't need to remove her veil and gets stoned to death for daring to rebel against her abusive husband.
Thirdly what about those who are hard of hearing and who may rely on looking at someone's mouth to ensure they fully understand what is being said?
I see your point with the rest and agree but not this bit if someone is so hard of hearing they have to lip read it means the person talking has to look at them the whole time and can't even turn their heads or look up or down.
But this applies to all people, not just those of a particular religion or culture. Therefore its not a two tier system, unlike allowing certain people to wear the veil, but not others.
If a white male demanded to wear a veil when defending himself, then how can Britain's top judge argue against this now?
Because the impact is different. It is a classic conundrum in all equality rules - and each case needs to be judged on its merits (and very cautiously in my view). In this case a witness or defendant may be disadvantaged by being forced to reveal their face because of the meaning that has to them - they could be too distressed to give evidence properly, thus not serving the purpose of the court (to get to the truth). That has to be weighed against the disadvantage to the court of not seeing their face in terms of facial expression etc.
A classic example is oaths - why should we allow religious people to give religious oaths.. why shouldn't everyone just 'affirm'? The answer to that is that a religious person may not feel compelled to tell the truth by affirming in the way they would by swearing on their holy book. The court's purpose is therefore better served by allowing the different approach.
In the case we are discussing, the factors that matter are whether the purpose of the court (to get justice) is being properly served by allowing or disallowing the veil. Making it about 'giving in to Muslims' isn't the argument that should matter - the only consideration should be whether it supports or undermines justice.
In the case we are discussing, the factors that matter are whether the purpose of the court (to get justice) is being properly served by allowing or disallowing the veil. Making it about 'giving in to Muslims' isn't the argument that should matter - the only consideration should be whether it supports or undermines justice.
Only in cases of witness intimidation should identity be obscured. Otherwise, the default status should be that all participants should be visible. Cultural or religious preference carries no weight as a reason to allow veiled or masked people in court.
A classic example is oaths - why should we allow religious people to give religious oaths.. why shouldn't everyone just 'affirm'? The answer to that is that a religious person may not feel compelled to tell the truth by affirming in the way they would by swearing on their holy book. The court's purpose is therefore better served by allowing the different approach.
In the case we are discussing, the factors that matter are whether the purpose of the court (to get justice) is being properly served by allowing or disallowing the veil. Making it about 'giving in to Muslims' isn't the argument that should matter - the only consideration should be whether it supports or undermines justice.
The oath issue is a red herring as no one is being treated differently here - everyone can choose which oath they want to take.
We have already discussed that wearing a veil disadvantages justice as it means facial expressions cannot be seen. The jury might as well wear blindfolds.
Comments
An overall French style ban might be a step too far, but in situations where everyone has to show their face there should be no religious exceptions. Either we all show our faces or we all get to choose not to.
For me, I'd be for a ban, though it would only be for the full face veil.
Just hate the thought that in London, women are going about looking like that.
It is, however it would be wrong to equate equality with uniformity. The goal of the legal system is justice - and the rules, whatever they are, should be whatever it takes to get a fair trial and a just outcome. There is an argument for allowing exemptions if it is to serve the goal of the process - so, for example, some witnesses are allowed to remain anonymous or give evidence behind a screen because they would not otherwise do so. If body language is so important for a jury to see (and I am not convinced by that to be honest) then wouldn't it give an unfair disadvantage to someone if you force them to uncover... I should have thought their distress at this might mask any telling body language.
I would prefer people showed their faces in court too - but I am prepared to accept that forcing them to might undermine justice and that is not acceptable.
The first ban was about 'conspicuous religious symbols' in places like schools and included the headscarf. The more recent ban was to do with banning face coverings in public, and that included the burkha and niqab.
Are people judging the honestly of the person based on what they look like, or based on facial expression?
Exactly.
Whenever this question comes up I go back to my tale asbout the charity collector I encountered in Eastbourne who was dressed in a Batman suit.
"Where's your mask Batman? ", I asked.
"Police told me I couldn't wear it in a public area mate" was his reply
I imagine they told Muslim ladies to uncover their face too - or perhaps not.
http://islamqa.info/en/2198
Interesting. Case of non-Muslims deciding what offends Muslims perhaps.
I haven't spoken in my life to any woman wearing the full face veil and if I were to, I'd know I'd feel uncomfortable, due to the fact I'd find it off putting as I wouldn't know whether she has worn that voluntarily or whether she's been forced to wear it....
However Islam isn't 'one thing' and what one scholarly group thinks is different to another. It's a bit like saying 'contraception is fine because the Archbishop of Canterbury says so' to a devout Roman Catholic.
Furthermore in terms of practice, prosecutor's and defendants pay close attention to facial cue's in other to see what line of questioning to pursue.
Ie if facial expressions show uncertainty, prosecutor's often pursue a line of questioning to expose a witnesses flawed account, or experts.
I agree with the above.
Then those people should be issued with a form of subpoena compelling them to attend under threat of penalty. Foreign cultural and superstitious nonsense should not take precedence over the justice system and the requirement that everybody in court is visible making the proceedings transparent.
But this applies to all people, not just those of a particular religion or culture. Therefore its not a two tier system, unlike allowing certain people to wear the veil, but not others.
If a white male demanded to wear a veil when defending himself, then how can Britain's top judge argue against this now?
Yes, certainly facial expression. It is probably the primary visual cue that we take from others when we communicate with them. I think that is somewhat imperative in a court of justice where a person faces accusation and judgment.
We could get back to the good old days where the jury are wearing white hoods.
The only positive is that it will save money by not needing curtains around the witness box.
Can't we just have full Sharia courts? That way the woman doesn't need to remove her veil and gets stoned to death for daring to rebel against her abusive husband.
I see your point with the rest and agree but not this bit if someone is so hard of hearing they have to lip read it means the person talking has to look at them the whole time and can't even turn their heads or look up or down.
Because the impact is different. It is a classic conundrum in all equality rules - and each case needs to be judged on its merits (and very cautiously in my view). In this case a witness or defendant may be disadvantaged by being forced to reveal their face because of the meaning that has to them - they could be too distressed to give evidence properly, thus not serving the purpose of the court (to get to the truth). That has to be weighed against the disadvantage to the court of not seeing their face in terms of facial expression etc.
A classic example is oaths - why should we allow religious people to give religious oaths.. why shouldn't everyone just 'affirm'? The answer to that is that a religious person may not feel compelled to tell the truth by affirming in the way they would by swearing on their holy book. The court's purpose is therefore better served by allowing the different approach.
In the case we are discussing, the factors that matter are whether the purpose of the court (to get justice) is being properly served by allowing or disallowing the veil. Making it about 'giving in to Muslims' isn't the argument that should matter - the only consideration should be whether it supports or undermines justice.
Only in cases of witness intimidation should identity be obscured. Otherwise, the default status should be that all participants should be visible. Cultural or religious preference carries no weight as a reason to allow veiled or masked people in court.
The oath issue is a red herring as no one is being treated differently here - everyone can choose which oath they want to take.
We have already discussed that wearing a veil disadvantages justice as it means facial expressions cannot be seen. The jury might as well wear blindfolds.
What's the next approach? Muslim only male juries to try Muslims, with a Muslim judge?