Did you hear the one about the muslim feminist?

– To what extent are the principles of feminism and Islam fundamentally incompatible?

Sounds like a question for Muslim feminists to work out.

Does anyone know if I turned up in court with my face painted, like this….

they could make me take it off?

The issue wit this particular case is just that there is no legal precedent established which would give a judge the power to force anyone to remove a veil in court. No good reason has been given as to why the woman should show her face in the courtroom (and if there were, then she would have to abide with the order of the court). The court has rightly respected the woman’s religious beliefs as much as possible, and a compromised agreed. It’s a bit of a non-story really, only in the media because of the fervour whipped up by the Daily Mail, UKIP, EDL etc.

That’s it, but sort of backwards. There doesn’t need to be a precedent for face covering removal – the judge inherently has the power to manage proceedings in her or his court. The judge could quite easily have told the defendant to go get knotted, take the face covering off, or be in contempt of court, but s/he decided not to. The authority of the “secular” judicial system (seems weird to call it secular when there’s an established church) wasn’t challenged at all.

The credibility of the defendant etc wasn’t relevant because it was an appearance to enter a plea. There was no testimony and no jury in attendance.

Do any religions make men cover their faces ?

faces, not aware of, unless you count beards.

FWIW, veil bad, headscarf no issue at all.

simply about seeing the face of the person you are talking to, which in a court matters.

Does anyone know if I turned up in court with my face painted, like this….

they could make me take it off?

It depends; would it be an improvement on your ‘normal’ appearance?

Most definitely, yes.

I might look into the whole burka thing

FWIW, veil bad, headscarf no issue at all.

You missed out an ‘IMO’ in there.

simply about seeing the face of the person you are talking to, which in a court matters.

Why did it matter in the case at hand? The judge didn’t seem too bothered.

Do any religions make men cover their faces ?

Lots of religions make their men wear beards, then there’s the silly hats that the Jews and Sikhs wear, but the only grouping that makes men cover their faces that I can think of are ninjas.

Why did it matter in the case at hand?

It mattered on the grounds of establishing identity.

The wider debate that was being had on The Today programme was about the degree to which it was important for other aspects of the judicial process, for example, a jury being able to decide if a person is telling the truth, and it was being argued whether being able to see someone’s face was important enough to warrant requiring a woman to remove the veil.

It mattered on the grounds of establishing identity.

That issues was dealt with via an agreed compromise.

Next.

That issues was dealt with via an agreed compromise.

Next.

for a judge to be happy the defendent is the defendent, the compromise worked. Now we move on to a court room where there are 12 jurors who are being asked to decide if she is guilty or not.

The question is, will the jurors be compromised in the decision making if they are unable to see the defendents face, see how she reacts to questions, holds herself etc.

Or shall we compromise and say a women judge, 12 women jurors, women lawyers etc etc.

The question is, will the jurors be compromised in the decision making if they are unable to see the defendents face, see how she reacts to questions, holds herself etc.

Seeing as how a jury is expected to return a verdict based solely on the facts of the case, and disregard any personal emotional responses or prejudices, then what has the defendant’s body language or facial expression got to do with anything?

She could have been sticking her tongue out them. Underneath the veil she could be doing this….

many women are fiercely proud to wear a burkha

I’ve heard this before and always wonder how much is free will and how much is institutionalisation.

Surely, wearing clothes that suit the activity and weather would be best.
Why would someone be fiercely proud to wear something so impractical ?

how much is free will and how much is institutionalisation.

Probably in the same ratio as men who wear tights and skirts and those who don’t. It’s mostly institutionalisation.

Do any religions make men cover their faces ?
Only with beards.

Apart from this group keen to ban the burqa…

Warning Irony overload

I wear tights when cycling in cold weather.

To be fair at least the EDL have a very good reason for wanting to cover their faces – they don’t want to be identified when engaged in criminal activity. There’s no excuse for law-abiding women to do the same.

I wear tights when cycling in cold weather.

? 😯

hels’ comment…. +1

Seeing as how a jury is expected to return a verdict based solely on the facts of the case, and disregard any personal emotional responses or prejudices, then what has the defendant’s body language or facial expression got to do with anything?

Because it helps you determine if the witness is telling the truth or not.

It’s a composite determination of course, but the visual information coming from a witness’s reaction to questioning is an important factor.

Because it helps you determine if the witness is telling the truth or not.

Specially if you can see whether they are black or have tattoos.

So, would courts work better if all witnesses and defendants were behind screens with their voice or accent disguised somehow ?

Seeing as how a jury is expected to return a verdict based solely on the facts of the case, and disregard any personal emotional responses or prejudices, then what has the defendant’s body language or facial expression got to do with anything?

As it is quite likely the defendant will be cross examined, and will give answers, her verbal and non verbal responses, ie facial expression do form a part of the evidence.

:
A Muslim woman will be allowed to stand trial wearing a full-face veil but must remove it while giving evidence, a judge has ruled. More details soon …

from the guardian ticker.

A Muslim woman will be allowed to stand trial wearing a full-face veil but must remove it while giving evidence, a judge has ruled. More details soon …

Seems reasonable to me, you can see her reaction to being questioned, if she’s not on the stand then it’s not so relevant.

Probably won’t win her a lot of sympathy though as it’ll make her different from many members of a jury, it’s easier to convict someone if you have less empathy.

So in summary wear want you want (apart from in a few specific cases) but expect to live with the consequences if you wish to exhibit your differentness.

I believe a lot of the problem comes from de-humanising the wearer.

We gain a lot of information through watching the face of a speaker*, which I would hazard to guess is very important in a trial situation. Religion aside, would it be acceptable for me to turn up to a trial and give evidence while wearing a motorbike helmet?

I would hope/imagine that for the judge to consider the trail ‘fair’ then she will have to remove it while speaking, if nothing else to make the trial a level playing field (so to speak).

At the end of the day this is a democratic state, not a religious one. Because of this my understanding is that the law takes precedence over religion, but do correct if wrong**.

*This is why I am constantly misunderstood on this forum – *sigh*

**As I am sure it will be.

I would hope/imagine that for the judge to consider the trail ‘fair’ then she will have to remove it while speaking, if nothing else to make the trial a level playing field (so to speak).

Why the assumption that having their face covered favours the defendant? If it’s true that people don’t trust someone who gives evidence because they can’t see their face, then most jurors will give less weight to their testimony. In other words, if they insist on wearing their veil, they’re only doing themselves a disservice, in the same way someone as who insisted on ostentatiously crossing their fingers while giving evidence or ending every sentence with “….not” would.

It mattered on the grounds of establishing identity.

No, it didn’t. It was quite easily dealt with.

Surely, wearing clothes that suit the activity and weather would be best.
Why would someone be fiercely proud to wear something so impractical ?

Yes, it would be a disgrace to British justice if people insisted on showed up in court wearing ridiculous garb from the Middle Ages that was totally impractical purely because they’d been institutuonalised into believing it was necessary to their dignity.

Superb set up and visual joke KB 😀

Still think your face should be uncovered in court. IMHO you can tell things from the facial reaction and expressions.

Apart from this group keen to ban the burqa…

What religion are they then… and how can you tell from that pic…And do you think they would be permitted to wear that whilst be tried in court?

Lots of religions make their men wear beards

I can understand how peer-pressure from followers of a religion can ‘force’ people to wear certain things but how can a ‘religion’ make anyone do anything…It comes down to choice surely unless the choice is enforced in some way, i.e, threats of violence, etc.

Men wearing beards isn’t restricted to Islam either, it’s more of an expression of masculinity than anything else imo, and that goes for men of all origins.

Why the assumption that having their face covered favours the defendant?

I don’t think that was the assumption being made. I think the assumption (rightly) is that it disadvantages the jury.

Does anyone know if I turned up in court with my face painted, like this….

Binners

Only if you are planning on having the defendant sing so that you can tell whether or not they are guilty.

Why the assumption that having their face covered favours the defendant?

I didn’t say that…

You’re making your own assumptions. 😉

chatting to someone i work with, they are a little deaf and use lipreading to help with the hearing aid…

Are jurors allowed who are partially deaf?

I don’t think that was the assumption being made. I think the assumption (rightly) is that it disadvantages the jury.

How does it disadvantage the jury if the defendant doesn’t display credible body language? The jury doesn’t have an interest if whether the defendant is convicted or acquitted.

It’s interesting how much reverse logic is being displayed on this thread: the end point is that women who wear veils should be forced to remove them, now you just need to decide why.

I can understand how peer-pressure from followers of a religion can ‘force’ people to wear certain things but how can a ‘religion’ make anyone do anything…It comes down to choice surely unless the choice is enforced in some way, i.e, threats of violence, etc.

I agree. It should be illegal to threaten violence against people. Oh, wait…

There’s a Muslim feminist on Newsnight at the moment.

Seems like a reasonable chap.

The jury doesn’t have an interest if whether the defendant is convicted or acquitted.

WTF are they they for then?

WTF are they they for then?

Free tea and biscuits.

WTF are they they for then?

You’ve misunderstood (possibly deliberately). They don’t have any stake in the verdict – guilty or innocent, it’s no skin off the jurors’ noses. If the defendant makes themselves look shifty, it’s the defendant that’s disadvantaged, not the jury.