You've expressed it poorly KB (possibly deliberately) 😉
It was not deliberate it was just what you said
If the defendant makes themselves look shifty, it's the defendant that's disadvantaged, not the jury.
Well yes indeed it is but we are talking about a defendant covering themselves so that expressions and body language cannot be read rather them acting " shifty".It will be harder to tell if they are acting "shifty" if they are fully covered. I am not sure how you think the jury are not disadvantaged by this tbh.
let people choose whether they want to wear silly clothes or not. If anybody assaults or batters them for that
Of course in general you are correct but I think its reasonable to enforce something in a court in the best interests of justice. I am not pro banning a woman from wearing clothes I dont like in an attempt to liberate her from male oppression.
It would only help them lie more effectively if they were able to suppress their reaction
We cannot see the reaction as they are covered , that is the point being debated here.
Wearing a mask that covers up those reactions (whether suggestive of truthfulness or lying) is a bit of a giveaway and makes the person wearing it less credible
The attire does not make them less credible nor is it a giveway it is the reverse ,it makes it harder for a person observing to judge their credibility.
Given her time Binners I think we can be fairly sure there was no propeller or it failed
her verbal and non verbal responses, ie facial expression do form a part of the evidence.
They don't. Whilst it may seem pertinent, facial expression/body language isn't a reliable way of asserting guilt. The jurors/judge will not know the defendant, won't know how that individual reacts to stress etc, so to 'look' for a particular response in the defendant would be acting with prejudice. You can't just turn round and convict someone because they 'look guilty'. You must instead base your judgement on the factual evidence presented. How do you know that someone is guilty or not, simply by looking at their face? What if they have a facial tick, or other disability? What if they have the ability to remain totally stoic? What if they are a very good actor and can fake emotion?
It's an interesting debate. No-one's yet mentioned cases where the 'victim' is protected by a screen, or has only audio testimony played in court, to protect them. And I'm wondering why this particular defendant can't be named. If they can't be named, then why the fuss over them having to show their face in court?
And seeing how jurors must be offered every protection under law, against threat or intimidation, why aren't juries behind a screen, or the jurors veiled?
Personally I can't stand burqas, niqabs or any other form of veil on women. I just think they're anti-social and disrespectful to others. However, those are my own personal feelings, and it's not up to me whether or not someone else 'chooses' to wear a veil.
I think we should be having a wider discussion on that very 'choice', really. That would be far more helpful than enforcing clothing regulations.
There are always limits to what is acceptable, Religion has no place in the running of a country and how it functions
In your opinion.
You can't just turn round and convict someone because they 'look guilty'.
No one has suggested you can have they?
I dont think anyone is suggesting we convict simply on body language or a scowl but it is part of communication and part of how we asses truthfulness and lies. Of course its not 100% accurate but i would assume removing this information and cues does not make the assessment any easier.
We cannot see the reaction as they are covered , that is the point being debated here.
Right - you can't see the signs that make them look honest or dishonest.
The jurors will see that they're masked and draw an adverse inference about their credibility.
They don't. Whilst it may seem pertinent, facial expression/body language isn't a reliable way of asserting guilt.
No one is suggesting you establish guilt on the basis of facial expression. We are arguing that it is part of deciding if a witness is credible and that is part of the jury's job.
Regarding witnesses behind screens, there are very exceptional circumstances where that is an understandable exception to make but religious belief is not one of them in my view.
Is there any guidance given to jurors on whether their interpretations of body language/facial expressions etc should be used to make their decision?
The compromise the judge has come up with seems fairly reasonable to me BTW.
KB given they cannot tell why do you think they will draw an inference and why are you so certain it will be negative?
"It's an interesting debate. No-one's yet mentioned cases where the 'victim' is protected by a screen, or has only audio testimony played in court, to protect them"
Where "special measures are granted a victim is protected from the public gallery and dock by screens the advocates jury and judge can see them, where they give evidence by recording it is in my experience always a video and shows face and body language, they are then cross examined over a live video link or in person in court where all can see.
There is a fairly strong view that the pre recorded evidence in chief lessens the credibility/impact of the evidence in the minds of a jury .
Personally I think the judges resolution in this case is the best and there for the right way forward.
I dislike public displays of religion and particularly dislike the burka but accept others have the free choice to wear it.
What is often overlooked is that the Burka may give the "classic" victim of male oppression the anonymity to come out of the house and seek support, something that may not be available if the entire community could recognise her walking into a police station solicitors office or other agency.
Certain western items of clothing are banned in some Islamic countries arent they ?
Speedos?
Are they?
I assume some Islamic countries are less liberal and tolerant than the west in terms of dress and conduct
But are any particular items of clothing actually banned?
redpanda - MemberBut are any particular items of clothing actually banned?
Junkyard - lazarusI assume some Islamic countries are less liberal and tolerant than the west in terms of dress and conduct
Well, if you want to visit the Vatican, or many Catholic churches in Europe you have to cover your knees and shoulders.
However, this applies to both men and women.
As to Islam and female clothing:
Many women oppose sexual equality legislation.
Should we repeal this legislation to take into account their cultural beliefs?
Well, if you want to visit the Vatican, or many Catholic churches in Europe you have to cover your knees and shoulders.
However, this applies to both men and women
That's lack of clothing rather than clothing items which have banned. Similar rules sometimes apply in British pubs.
Certain western items of clothing are banned in some Islamic countries arent they ?
Ah is this the bit where we aim to prove how much more enlightened we are than the illiberal Muslims by being more illiberal like they are in some Muslim countries? 😕
Certain western items of clothing are banned in some Islamic countries arent they ?
I don't know for sure, but they area certainly frowned upon.
My folks lived in Bahrain for several years and my Mum made sure her skirts hung down to the ankle and her tops covered her elbow. Essentially, while she was obviously 'different', she was making an effort not to offend by following local custom.
However, it was quite common for Americans from the US Navy base to wander around displaying flesh. I saw two large navy wives in bikinis and short shorts rumbling through Manama souq - poor stall keepers could barely keep their eyes in their head.
I don't believe it was illegal, just incredibly thoughtless.
Ah is this the bit where we aim to prove how much more enlightened we are than the illiberal Muslims by being more illiberal like they are in some Muslim countries?
Absolutely. 😆
grum - MemberCertain western items of clothing are banned in some Islamic countries arent they ?
Ah is this the bit where we aim to prove how much more enlightened we are than the illiberal Muslims by being more illiberal like they are in some Muslim countries?
Ah, the dichotomy of equality. 🙂
just incredibly thoughtless.
Oh absolutely, I mean how terrible...
Women aloud driving licenses in Saudi yet?
No one is defending them or what they do what they are saying is that us being assholes as well does not equal it out.
Surely you can understand that?
Women aloud driving licenses in Saudi yet?
So why haven't we banned women driving in the UK ? We're suppose to be behaving like the Saudis, right?
Maybe a read of [url= http://www.missionislam.com/family/hijab.htm ]this[/url] will enlighten everyone, Eddie Izzard you'll rot in hell.....
From that link:
"Our Mission
To increase awareness as to the extent of oppression against Muslims throughout the world and the conspiracy that exists to exterminate Muslims and the religion of Islam from the face of the Earth."
So yeah I won't take anything they say as representative of anything but wingnuts. Nice try though.
😆 They've got a section on the New World Order for goodness sake!
Did you hear the one about David Icke converting to Islam?
Women aloud...
Is this the latest incarnation of Girls Aloud?
Women aloud driving licenses in Saudi yet?
It's very limited, but I believe they are [i]allowed[/i] in certain situations, such as the school run.
You can argue that it's still incredibly limiting, but you could also argue that us in the west would call it progress.
(and there is an emphasis on "us in the west" . Some in - say - Iraq might see it as a step towards western decadence and imperialism)
Interestingly in the UK, I would hazard a guess that the majority of people who drive their kids to school are being decadent in their behaviour.
Not sure that it is particulalrly 'imperialist' thoough.
Some in - say - Iraq might see it as a step towards western decadence and imperialism
Personally I would call it a mistake. Why can't women understand how roundabouts work ?
Interestingly in the UK, I would hazard a guess that the majority of people who drive their kids to school are being decadent in their behaviour.
I'd agree with that, especially as we live in a country where petrol is substantially more expensive than drinking water.
Personally I would call it a mistake. Why can't women understand how roundabouts work ?
Genuine 😆
Interestingly in the UK, I would hazard a guess that the majority of people who drive their kids to school are being decadent in their behaviour.
Posted on a website devoted to adults playing with ludicrously expensive children's toys. 😯
Posted on a website devoted to adults playing with ludicrously expensive children's toys.
Apologies everyone, didn't realise the petrol lobby was here. I take back all my comments, it's not decadent at all it's just an expression of your human right to freedom of movement!
Posted on a website devoted to adults playing with ludicrously expensive children's toys.
