The debate isn't about whether oppressing women is wrong, it's about whether the veil is oppressing women.
But it does come down to "knowing what is best" for people. We do it all the time BTW. I made an earlier point that because you can find people who may claim that forced marriage/FGM has been the best thing that ever happened to them (certainly with the latter) I suspect that most people would agree that this is a terrible practice and those that commit it upon their children should be punished. We dont need to analyse their culture to come to that conclusion.
I do think it is a sign of oppresion but it is less overtly obvious to the observer.
In terms of telling people not to wear it or providing a practical solution to what I dont like to see, then it does become more difficult.
Only if you consider giving evidence that refutes it to be supporting it.
Again, it kind of supports my viewpoint. There shouldn't be special oaths for different religious viewpoints full stop, it only serves to highlight differences between groups. Differences that people are killing each other over in the Islamic world.
Here's an idea anyway - lets try framing a Burqa ban within Isaiah Berlin's "Two Concepts of Liberty" (eg Positive and Negative Liberty) and also "Rousseau's Theory of Freedom".
There shouldn't be special oaths for different religious viewpoints full stop, it only serves to highlight differences between groups.
Hmmm, seems like you don't have the guts to condemn what is the real problem, the oppression of women, and are instead hand-wringing over inconsequential matters like the finer details of swearing oaths in court.
WHAT ABOUT THE OPPRESSION OF WOMEN IN SAUDI ARABIA? HMMMMMM? 😉
Hmmm, seems like you don't have the guts to condemn what is the real problem, the oppression of women, and are instead hand-wringing over inconsequential matters like the finer details of swearing oaths in court.
Except giving special consideration to religious or non-religious viewpoints is at the heart of the problem we are talking about (eg special treatment beiing given to peoples personal beliefs)... in this country the wearing of a Burqua or any religious symbol should not take precedent over law or company policy.
It seems this judge would agree with me. http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/aug/23/judge-refuses-muslim-to-wear-burqa-court
But the judge said: "It seems to me to be quite fundamental that the court is sure who it is dealing with. Furthermore, this court, as long as I am sitting, has the highest respect for any religious tradition a person has."In my courtroom also, this sometimes conflicts with the interests of a paramount need for the administration of justice. In my courtroom, that's going to come first.
"There is the principle of open justice and it can't be subject to the religion of the defendant whether the principle is observed or not.
"I am not saying this because of the particular form of dress by this defendant, I apply that to any form of dress that had the same issues."
Claire Burtwistle, the woman's barrister, told the court the woman was not prepared to lower her veil at all while men were in the room. The woman cannot be named for legal reasons."In front of women, it is not an issue. It is simply men that she will not allow to see her face," the barrister said.
Burtwistle suggested that she, a female police officer or a female prison guard could identify the defendant and confirm to the court that it was the same person as in the police arrest photos.
Sarah Counsell, prosecuting, said the police officer in charge of the case was content that he recognised the defendant while she was in the burqa.
Judge making it a problem when both the prosecutor, police and defense are happy with the identification of the defendant/suggested ways identification could be made. What a waste of time and money.
Judge making it a problem when both the prosecutor, police and defense are happy with the identification of the defendant/suggested ways identification could be made. What a waste of time and money.
There is a lot of "wasted money" where the law is concerned however there is an important point here and assuming the defendent was wearing (our old friend) a balaclava! through some deeply held belief. What would we expect the courts decision to be?
It would almost certainly be cause for appeal!!
I like to think he's doing it out of principle, everyone including the jury needs to be sure who the defendant is. Even if third party (eg police woman) identifies the suspect then I still think that could undermine trust within the court.
If you can't tust the police to identify someone how can you trust anything they say in court?
If you can't tust the police to identify someone how can you trust anything they say in court?
Heh. That's funny, I mean apart from the numerous miscarriages of justice the police have managed to bring about....what happens if the defendant was also a policewoman? Would there not then be a conflict of interest?
I don't have a problem with having to show your face if that's generally considered a requirement of the court for everyone. Is it?
I don't have a problem with having to show your face if that's generally considered a requirement of the court for everyone.
Precisely, one rule for everyone.
I mean if we forget that, next Christians will be wanting to ban gays from their B&Bs on religious grounds. Oh wait....
Except giving special consideration to religious or non-religious viewpoints is at the heart of the problem we are talking about (eg special treatment being given to peoples personal beliefs)
I see only three choices [ if we have an oath]
1. A religious oath
2. A non religious oath
3. Pick your oath
3 is what we have and allows choice. 1 or 2 involves special treatment that you oppose.
... in this country the wearing of a Burqua or any religious symbol should not take precedent over law or company policy.
I would agree with the law [ does it actually break the law in that case though - honestly I dont know??] but not company policy. They are things that exist to make money - it is not a great moral authority I wish to recognise above peoples personal choices.
What If the company asks me to wear a T- shirt that says all jews should die - can I not morally object ? Granted its unlikely/ludicrous but you get the point.
everyone including the jury needs to be sure who the defendant is.
Many witnesses , in sexual abuses cases, are hidden from the jury and when Spies or others testify. I assume someone checks they are who they say they are first. I tend to agree with your broad point though but mainly because I would like to see their reaction to what is presented.
Even if third party (eg police woman) identifies the suspect then I still think that could undermine trust within the court.
Well if you cannot trust the police to tell the truth then who can you trust 😉
Many witnesses , in sexual abuses cases, are hidden from the jury and when Spies or others testify. I assume someone checks they are who they say they are first. I tend to agree with your broad point though but mainly because I would like to see their reaction to what is presented.
Not the defendant though and yes, I would have thought reading the facial reaction to what is presented is rather important. Good point, thanks. 😛
Well if you cannot trust the police to tell the truth then who can you trust
For the jury to decide.
I see only three choices [ if we have an oath]
1. A religious oath
2. A non religious oath
3. Pick your oath
All oaths should be replaced with one secular oath.
All oaths should be replaced with one secular oath.
Promise to tell the truth Guv, honest FWIW
Je jure de dire toute la vérité, rien que la vérité
Curiously it's assumed an accused uttering these words will then lie and it's up to a jury to decide if they might just be telling the truth.
