On Radio 4's 'Today' programme, using a feminism argument to justify the wearing of a burka in court (when you're the accused).
The mind did boggle; not sure what was more incredulous: the idea that having the right to cover your face when you're being questioned in court is defensible, or using a feminist argument in the context of a religious dictate that subjugates women.
[img] 
[/img]
Did you hear the one about the person (bloke?) on the internet that thought they could tell other people what their opinions are?
Funny how you always leap to the defence of Christianity against any slight on here - yet you're quite happy with a nice bit of Islamophobia.
I'm not sure about the court issue, but it does seem to be a popular misconception amongst a certain section of western men (perpetuated by a media with a hidden agenda) to assume that Muslim women necessarily feel oppressed by the traditional clothing..
I'm not saying that it's all a bed of roses by any stretch of the imagination, but from my reading, many women are fiercely proud to wear a burkha, and from my own experience of Muslim families, home life is often matriarchal in nature..
Which would seem to indicate that in a society with different cultural ideologies to our own (imagine that if you can!) feminism and traditional clothing can indeed go hand in hand
yawn
Don't be silly yunki. We can laugh at this completely contradictory muslim idea of what feminism is, because we in westernised societies know that the true feminist path to enlightened female emancipation is for them to take their clothes off.
Thats right innit?
*makes tea*
the idea that having the right to cover your face when you're being questioned in court is defensible
Isn't it?
a religious dictate that subjugates women.
Please elaborate.
westernised societies know that the true feminist path to enlightened female emancipation is for them to take their clothes off.
binners - burka = full body covering, niqab = face covering. Seems like you & the [s]trolling[/s] OP are on the same lines.
I will defend an individual's right to practise Islam free of bigotry as staunchly as Christianity but I won't defend it when someone is trying to argue that covering your head in a court of law is a defensible idea based on religious freedoms.
Also, the idea that Islamic women do not feel oppressed by the wearing of a burka is fine but it is still the very definition of hegemony. That's also fine, I just find it startlingly ironic.
No, but I did hear the one about the inflatable dolls that blow themselves up.
Why do people care what these women wear on their faces? Seriously!?
It's not like "Oh, I wanted to go around with my face covered and they wouldn't let me.." or "I really want to see what they look like.." or, jeez I dunno. But why? Idon'tgetit.
Did you hear the one about the person (bloke?) on the internet that thought they could tell other people what their opinions are?
Exactly, we all know that anyone who does this should be rounded up and set upon by lazer-wolves.
[quote=Pimpmaster Jazz said]*makes tea*
That's the women's job.
Why do people care what these women wear on their faces? Seriously!?
Well, specifically in this case, it was because the woman concerned was the defendant in a court of law and was being questioned by the prosecutor as to her alleged offenses (intimidating witnesses was mentioned) and the consequence of her face being covered up would have been that the jury would not have been able to see her face when she answered questions.
can we all just agree that people that believe in god(s) are stupid and move on 😉
I will defend an individual's right to practise Islam free of bigotry as staunchly as Christianity
Bollocks. You clearly have a problem with the idea that Muslims can be feminists, which makes you a bigot.
FWIW I don't agree that there should be different rules on face covering in court depending on religious belief.
Bollocks. You clearly have a problem with the idea that Muslims can be feminists, which makes you a bigot.
I think that there's humour in that comment right? It's cool if not. But yes, the idea that 'feminism' and 'islam' are perfectly compatible does make me go hmmm.
FWIW I don't agree that there should be different rules on face covering in court depending on religious belief.
Honestly that is mostly what I was questioning here. There should be no face covering of any kind. It's kind of important to be able to see the face of a person when they are answering questions under oath.
Bollocks. You clearly have a problem with the idea that Muslims can be feminists, which makes you a bigot.
I think he was against using feminism as an argument to support unequal dress codes for men and women as being bollocks. Not the same as being muslim and feminist, which clearly by definition couldn't support inequality between the sexes.
It's definitely not something the government should be legislating on but IMO if there's a legitimate reason for banning clothing (at certain places) that covers your face then it should apply unilaterally - religion shouldn't be reason enough for exemption.
the idea that 'feminism' and 'islam' are perfectly compatible does make me go hmmm.
I find that about Christianity, mind you that's the relegion I have most experience with.
It's definitely not something the government should be legislating on
In court I think that it probably should.
Bollocks, I've got to go out and do some stuff but can't.... Turn.... Laptop......... Off..
I think it's fair to say that the general ideals behind feminism are in opposition to the general ideas behind traditional Islamic dress for women.
When blokes (of any religious persuasion) start covering themselves up in public cos it's more godly I might have more time to defend the women's rights to do so.
Since watching those Crazzzee mericans jousting ,I quite fancy one of these.[img] 
[/img]
Obviously ,it would be visor down in Airports,banks,and petrol stations 🙂
Maybe we should all have anonymity in court.
I wonder how many people are instantly guilty because they look a bit shifty.
There was a young lady speaking after the interview this post refers to who seem to put forward a more balanced view. (Women's Hour)
She was representing a muslim body(not sure which) and said their study had shown women wear the traditional veils for a variety of reasons: Religious, Conformity and also often family pressure, but that in her opinion the Koran did not obligate women to cover up.
She also suggested this particular young women in court now was an exception and most people would not mind removing a veil and that in fact she was just being stubborn to make a point and doing more harm than good.
Personally I'm with the French on this one.
That's the women's job.
I can't see her face and feel threatened.
She demands tea, I make it. 😉
using a feminist argument in the context of a religious dictate that subjugates women.
I'm gonna liberate them women until they do what I want them to!
can we all just agree that people that believe in god(s) are stupid and move on
No. Because that would be stupid.
The Lib Dems are going to have an interesting time on this whole issue this week. There are some like Jeremy Browne who seem opposed and are calling for a national debate on whether to ban today and there is Clegg who is more opposed to governments telling people how to dress. For a party, that stands for limited state and greater personal freedom (among other things) I think Clegg is more aligned to his party's philosophy than Browne.
Interesting that this debate is rarely extended to other religions - slight tangent, but are nuns oppressed?
Ah, the irony of telling a woman what to wear to stop her being oppressed 😉
When blokes (of any religious persuasion) start covering themselves up in public cos it's more godly I might have more time to defend the women's rights to do so.
Lots of men do - there are rules of dress for both women and men in Islam, Jewish and Sikh men both wear head coverings, etc etc.
but are nuns oppressed?
Probably, but comparing them to women who wear theveil/burka/niqab or whatever isn't going to work. They're two different situations.
It's an interesting debate, in my view the authority of a secular justice system is a much more important part of our society than the freedom to express a religious belief. (feminism aside)
Did you hear the one about the person (bloke?) on the internet that thought they could tell other people what their opinions are?
It is your opinion that the OP shouldn't be expressing his opinion?
Do any religions make men cover their faces ?
Interesting that this debate is rarely extended to other religions - are nuns oppressed?
Did you know that there are women in England who obey religious laws laid down by misogynstic men in undemocratic overseas regimes and that they're forbidden to speak unnecessarily, choose their own clothing or own property?
http://www.benedictinenuns.org.uk/Community/Community/FAQ.html
So where we are now is as follows:
- To what extent are the principles of feminism and Islam fundamentally incompatible?
- To what extent are the principles of feminism and other religions fundamentally incompatible?
- To what extent can the principles of an open and transparent justice system be compromised on the grounds of religious freedom?
- What's for lunch?
in my view the authority of a secular justice system is a much more important part of our society than the freedom to express a religious belief.
But it already is. The requirements of the legals system already trump any 'freedom' to express religious belief. 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.
The Islam v Feminism issue is an entirely different matter.
- 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....
[img] 
[/img]
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....
[img] 
[/img]
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.
[i]Do any religions make men cover their faces ?[/i]
Only with beards.
Apart from this group keen to ban the burqa...
Warning Irony overload
[img] 
[/img]
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.
[img] 
[/img]
? 😯
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.
[img]
[/img]
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 [i]dis[/i]advantages 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.
