Did you hear the one about the muslim feminist?

Home Forum Chat Forum Did you hear the one about the muslim feminist?

Viewing 45 posts - 46 through 90 (of 123 total)
  • Did you hear the one about the muslim feminist?
  • Premier Icon binners
    Subscriber

    Most definitely, yes.

    I might look into the whole burka thing

    redpanda
    Member

    FWIW, veil bad, headscarf no issue at all.

    You missed out an ‘IMO’ in there.

    konabunny
    Member

    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.

    mogrim
    Member

    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.

    geetee1972
    Member

    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.

    redpanda
    Member

    It mattered on the grounds of establishing identity.

    That issues was dealt with via an agreed compromise.

    Next.

    mrmo
    Member

    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.

    redpanda
    Member

    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?

    Premier Icon binners
    Subscriber

    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.

    Dave
    Member

    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.

    Premier Icon binners
    Subscriber

    I wear tights when cycling in cold weather.

    ? 😯

    slowjo
    Member

    hels’ comment…. +1

    geetee1972
    Member

    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 ?

    mrmo
    Member

    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.

    mrmo
    Member

    :
    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.

    Premier Icon stumpyjon
    Subscriber

    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.

    konabunny
    Member

    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.

    Junkyard
    Member

    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.

    patriotpro
    Member

    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.

    geetee1972
    Member

    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.

    gonefishin
    Member

    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. 😉

    mrmo
    Member

    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?

    konabunny
    Member

    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…

    IanMunro
    Member

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

    Seems like a reasonable chap.

    Junkyard
    Member

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

    WTF are they they for then?

    Jamie
    Member

    WTF are they they for then?

    Free tea and biscuits.

    konabunny
    Member

    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.

    Well said kona I think a lot of people feel uncomfortable with the idea of the niqab and would therefore view the women with more suspicion that normal.

    But on a slightly different note radio 4 also covered a story of anlady who had completed a triathlon in full islamic dress . . . . Feminsm? Im not sure, but showed conviction to her beliefs and did admit her transition times were very poor

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

    Why should it? The jury should be making a decision based on evidence, not on what a person looks like, or if they look like they are lying.

    mrmo
    Member

    Why should it? The jury should be making a decision based on evidence, not on what a person looks like, or if they look like they are lying.

    because how a person responds when asked a question is evidence.

    And people do use body language to read a person, it is why sarcasm is so hard to do in text on the internet.

    Just to be clear there is no such thing as total freedom, every country has laws about what is and is not acceptable. You can argue that the UK allows complete freedom of expression, but it does not and never has. There are always limits to what is acceptable, Religion has no place in the running of a country and how it functions. If you want to indoctrinate someone about Christianity or Islam then do it on your own time. It is not the place of the state!

    Women want to wear burkas fine it still looks silly though!

    patriotpro
    Member

    Oh, wait…it is but it goes unreported for fear of further violence.

    There we go.

    geetee1972
    Member

    They don’t have any stake in the verdict – guilty or innocent, it’s no skin off the jurors’ noses.

    Having sat on a jury I can tell you that was not my experience. I felt a great weight of responsibility for the verdict I was being asked to reach. It was most definitely not ‘no skin off my nose’.

    Only about 30% of face to face communication is down to the words we use. The rest is a combination of context, situation and body language, of which facial expressions are a key part.

    The autonomic nervous system will betray our lies in many instances and so being able to cover up some or all of our face, would help someone to lie more effectively.

    Premier Icon binners
    Subscriber

    But on a slightly different note radio 4 also covered a story of a lady who had completed a triathlon in full Islamic dress . . . . Feminism?

    Or cheating? Could she have secreted an electric motor under there? She could have been using a propeller during the swim!

    It’s interesting how much reverse logic is being displayed on this thread

    It is. But you do it so well!

    Suppose full face covering comes in handy, saves having to switch the lights off when you’re swinging

    konabunny
    Member

    Oh, wait…it is but it goes unreported for fear of further violence.
    There we go.

    Here’s an idea: let people choose whether they want to wear silly clothes or not. If anybody assaults or batters them for that, lock them up. It’s already been illegal for hundreds of years to threaten people.

    Society didn’t make it illegal to be straight because gay people got assaulted or battered for being gay, it went after the people committing the crime. You wouldn’t suggest making it illegal for anyone to not wear miniskirts because some women’s fathers and husbands would assault or batter them for wearing miniskirts.

    The great thing about the common law is that it’s been around so long that it doesn’t need to go rushing into poorly-conceived legislation every time there is a moral panic. The stuff that has survived and emerged through the last thousand years of wars, crises and panics has done so mostly because it’s a good idea.

    The autonomic nervous system will betray our lies in many instances and so being able to cover up some or all of our face, would help someone to lie more effectively.

    It would only help them lie more effectively if they were able to suppress their reaction. 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. And it that’s the way they want to come across by wearing the magic fairy clothes, that’s their problem. You can’t force people to be credible.

Viewing 45 posts - 46 through 90 (of 123 total)

The topic ‘Did you hear the one about the muslim feminist?’ is closed to new replies.