Muslim Folks: help me defeat this xenophobic nonsense

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.