20 1 min 9 yrs

Always nice to salute a Judge for making the right call!

A judge has refused to let a Muslim woman in a full-length burka enter a plea until she reveals her face. The 21-year-old from Hackney, who is charged with intimidating a witness, said she could not remove the veil in front of men because of her religion. Judge Peter Murphy said however, she could not stand trial in the veil, which only reveals her eyes, because her identity could not be confirmed.

In the United Kingdom, she has no right to conceal her face for what she deems “religious reasons”. If she persists with this attitude, she should be deemed guilty and sentenced accordingly!

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

20 thoughts on “THE RIGHT JUDGEMENT….

  1. OT but interesting. I read that following the murder by three “bored” teenagers of Australian baseball player Chris Lane, the reverend(?) Jesse Jackson has ‘tweeted’ that the murder should be “frowned upon” – yes, “frowned upon”.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/08/22/jesse-jacksons-tepid-tweet-murder-white-australian-three-bored-teens-fro

    – Let’s compare Jackson’s reaction to what he wrote on July 15 in a Chicago Sun-Times column about the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin situation:

    We need a national investigation of the racial context that led to Trayvon Martin’s slaying. Congress must act. And it’s time to call on the United Nations Human Rights Commission for an in-depth investigation of whether the U.S. is upholding its obligations under international human rights laws and treaties. Trayvon Martin’s death demands much more than a jury’s verdict on George Zimmerman. It calls for us to hear the evidence and render a verdict on the racial reality that never had its day in court at the trial.

    (From Lucianne Goldberg) “Jesse Jackson says killing an Australian runner for fun is “frowned upon.” Is that anything like using the wrong fork to eat your salad?”

    Well, yes it is if you are a professional black American race-baiter.

  2. She may be home grown, Phantom.

    The judge is absolutely right. David posts these burka type cases a couple of times a year and I always find it galling that certain muslims prefer living in democracies which practice a consistent rule of law, such as the UK or Europe, over illiberal Islamic countries, which don’t. Then have no problem trotting out their religious beliefs (excuses) to avoid the consequences of living in such stable, liberal societies when accused of criminal activity.

    Religion isn’t a get out of jail free card. The head bag needs to go if you’re standing in court.

  3. The Koran is a repository of all sorts of Arabian nonsense, but forcing women to stumble around in trash bags isn’t in there.

    It’s a tribal custom at best, and is not a response to any religious requirement.

  4. Interestingly, niqabs are an issue in Muslim countries too. Pakistan banned them in the courtroom last year (but I can’t remember if the ban applied to female lawyers or plaintiffs/witnesses/defendants), Egypt has been dealing with the issue on and off over the years, Turkey banned them at public institutions/gov’t buildings as did Tunisia. Morocco santions discrimination against face veils IIRC. It is mostly a Saudi peninsula thing though some north African sects are big on them.
    In the U.S., different states have different laws and SCOTUS hasn’t ruled on it because it’s pretty much understood that there cannot be a blanket ban on veils based on the constitution so the issue is doomed to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis…unless there’s a compelling state interest…yadda, yadda, yadda…to interfere w/religious freedom etc, etc and if the state interferes, it must do so in the least restrictive way and on and on.
    Personally, I find them creepy but I see more and more of them here in NYC. I’m just waiting for a KKK member to challenge the ban on them wearing niqabs—if Muslim woman can do it, why can’t the KKK????????

  5. Well I think it’s disgraceful this woman was forced to remove her veil.

    (Just kidding. It was the right decision.)

  6. Terrified of what?

    Probably of being beaten up by their husbands for bringing shame onto them in some way.

  7. We should hold a contest here on ATW to establish exactly which were the comments spoken by this truly courageous and enlightened warden.

    After all, if you can’t insult, offend or otherwise challenge someone in a public park, what’s the point?

    Wonder what a SinnFeinIRA spokesman would respond if someone called them sponsors and apologists for terrorists and murderers?

  8. Over to you, Allan…:-)

    Is this what things have come to? I cited the fact of Jesse Jackson stating that the murder of a white man should be “frowned upon” only to be linked to a US-government-run ‘white power’ group.

  9. Allan, my comment had nothing to do with your comment or link in this thread…I neither clicked on it or read it in it’s entirety because it wasn’t applicable to the topic at hand. My comment pertained the history of law regarding face coverings…the KKK has had that ‘right’ restricted. The KKK are white supremacists. You have stated many times that you are too. Lighten up.

  10. Aaah, Griffith Park – where I almost learned to play football and later got my first kiss.

    And in this mellow mood I agree with the judge’s decision.

  11. Mairin – that’s why I used the magic letters ‘OT’ at the start of the post of 11.59pm though I understand why you wouldn’t want to read it.

  12. Duh! Allan…the letters are why I skipped it…in any event, I don’t care much what Jackson had to say about either shooting. He’s not on my radar. Though I just googled “Jackson tweeted” and see that he made more emphatic statements on other social media sites. I don’t have enough ingterest in his commentary to find out if what you quote he said about Trayvon, he tweeted or said/wrote elsewhere or on twitter.

Comments are closed.