32 2 mins 15 yrs

hussainDM_468x656.jpgUK institutional submission to Islam draws closer with the news that a magistrate faces legal prosecution after he walked out in protest after a women appeared wearing a Niqab in his court. Magistrate Ian Murray pulled out of the hearing when Zoobia Hussain appeared in a niqab, which covers the head and the face apart from the eyes.

Hussain, 32, believed to be a mother of five, appeared for what was due to be a brief administrative hearing this week before bench chairman Mr Murray and two colleagues at Manchester Magistrates Court. She denies causing £5,000 worth of criminal damage including graffiti to a housing association property from which she had been evicted. Her solicitor, Judith Hawkins, said Hussain wanted to appear in the dock in the niqab because she “observed the Muslim religion and remains covered in public places when men are present”.

Mr Murray then stunned those in court by saying he was withdrawing from the case because she was wearing a niqab, adding: “I do not feel I have to give any reasons. This is my personal view.”

Hussain, from the Crumpsall district of Manchester, told her solicitor his walkout was “scandalous”. She added: “There is a human being under here.”

Yes, I don’t doubt that, and one that stands indicted of serious criminal charges and who must be made to show her face and be stripped off the sickening mask of Islam. This country is not Islamic and should not tolerate this contrived effort by Islamic activists to advance the acceptance of the ROP.  The magistrate should not have walked out however, had it been me I would have had Hussein thrown out, fined and forced to return dressed in a manner more appropriate for a British as opposed to a Pakistani Court. 

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


  1. Well if you read the whole article it sounds like it is already addressed fairly well with the guidelines that are out. Tolerance of religion where possible, but the needs of justice come first. Unfortunately the magistrate seems to be the wrong side of the guidelines in this case though I sympathise with him.

    Anyway, what that guy needs to do is now state that it is against his religion to be in the presence of a veiled woman, and say "now what?". I really don’t see the difference between what he did and the stories of Muslims refusing to serve cigarettes or pharmacists refusing to sell "abortifacients" etc. Once everyone gets to demand unlimited respect for their beliefs and that everyone else must adjust than this is the insanity that results.

  2. indeed frank, I fancy becoming a rasta, so’s I can turn up in court smoking a large reefer, anyone complains I say " Leave it alone, It’s just de herb man " 🙂

  3. yo mccann thanks for bigging it up for the smokers on yer thread, remind me to roll yuz a fat one when you’re down for Notting Hill Carnival. mixing and enjoying the good vibes of multi-culturalism
    Respect !

  4. I can’t get my head around this judge!!! Isn’t he abdicating his duty? Aren’t judges obliged to protect society by locking up people who come to court for going off their rocker this way?

    PC gone bloody mad.

    Lock her up and search out her cohorts who tried to blow london to bits.

  5. Two trials Frank, one for the damage and another for deportation.Verdicts= Guilty for the first and a boat ticket for the second.

  6. .
    Perhaps we could adopt the convention where all Judges, court officers and the jury also wear hoods during judicial processes.

    Only for these types of cases I might add – "you dress up sir/madam so we’re also gonna dress up".

    Hey man, its only fair – anonymity for all.

  7. Reminds me of a scene from Withnail & I (a film):

    Danny: For reasons I can’t really discuss with you the coal man had to go to Jamaica. Got busted coming back through Heathrow, had a weight under his fez. We
    worked out that it would be handy carma for him to get hold of a suit but he’s a very low temperature
    spade the coal man, went into court wearing a kaftan and a bell. This doesn’t go down at all well.
    They can handle the kaftan but they can’t handle the bell. So there’s this judge sitting in a cape
    like f*****g batman with this really rather far out looking hat ..

    Withnail: A wig.

    Danny: No man, this was more like a long white hat. So he looks at the coalman and says ‘what’s all this.
    This is a court man. This ain’t fancy dress’ and the coal man looks at him and says ‘you think you look
    normal, your honour?’

  8. What the Magistrate should have done was ordered the woman to remove her veil, if not go to jail contempt of court. The HRA has to answer for all this nonsense.

  9. Shrouded women (?)…..it’s a matter of identity…we, in this country, like to see who we are dealing with.

    What egos these women must have to think that a glimpse of the face sends every man into a frenzy, although the shroud is a boon for ugly bitches.

  10. The magistrate should have politely asked her to show her face. When she refused she should have been sent down for contempt of court. Simple really.

  11. Peter,

    "The magistrate should have politely asked her to show her face"

    Why? There was no need as she wasn’t giving evidence that day. If it was necessary, fine.

  12. Frank

    Surely the court proceedings are impaired, if not reduced to farce, if the defendant is permitted to hide their face from the magistrates and other witnesses. To my way of thinking it’s the equivalent of a two fingered salute to the court.

  13. If she wants to follow Islamic customs like not showing her face in front of men, she should move to an Islamic country.

  14. Peter,

    There is no need for the court to issue what may be regarded as (or exploited as) gratuitous insults. The purpose of the court is uphold the law (part of which is religious freedom) not to stick it to the Muslims.

    If the proceedings are genuinely impaired, no argument.

    Again, if you read the whole article those are the guidelines that were issued and that is the way it is now.


    If you don’t like religious freedom then YOU should move to a theocracy.

  15. Frank: Why is it that her freedom to cover her face trumps the magistrate’s freedom to see her face?

  16. Patty, if there is a freedom to see faces, show me yours.

    You don’t even show your name.

  17. Patty,

    "Frank: "show me yours."

    You first. "

    I’m not the one claiming there is such a freedom as "freedom to see a face". Clearly there is no such thing, and as I have just demonstrated if anything the opposite is true.

    So, there is no such freedom, and the judge has no ‘freedom to see her face’. Your question was therefore stupid. The COURT does have the power to command her presence and also to see her face IF IT NEEDS TO.

    However since the purpose of the court is to uphold the law of the land and not to uphold your bigotry, there was no need to see her face that day.

  18. FMC, not sure if that is addressed to me. But I will try to answer. Of course it is highly debatable that face covering is required by the koran just as it is highly debatable that much of Catholicism is required by the Bible.

    So yes I take your point, which I presume is whether this practice is really entitled to religious protections. I would personally prefer though that we started to question the level of respect given to religious beliefs. As I said in my first response, if we have to give unlimited respect to every belief then that is not possible.

    Still, it seems to me that the most important principles here are that the courts must be available to all, and that the needs of the court and justice come before those of religion. Hence if the court needs to see her face then it must be able to. But if it doesn’t then there is no need to gratuitously demand it.

  19. Fatmammycat, the Koran doesn’t stipulate that women should veil their faces – in fact it implies that they are free to leave them uncovered, as it mentions only covering the hair, breasts, etc when discussing modesty in dress etc. .

    The practice of veiling the face is actually believed by many historians to have started in Christian Byzantium, and from there spread to Arab regions.

    There are many references to women (and men) veiled in both the Old Testament and the Koran. Jacob married the wrong girl as her face was hidden by a veil, Moses also wore a veil on his face except when giving a speech, etc. Veils were used as a mark of respect and religious holiness – they not only covered people but also parts of buildings and objects. There were, for example, several layers of veils in the Jewish Temple, denoting different levels of sacredness.

    Women used to wear veils even in the West, they were common among noble women in the Balkans and even in Venice. Noblewomen in Norman Britain also wore them on occasion, and the practice of a woman veiling her face when in mourning or on her wedding day continued until relatively recently.

    So, we’re all related to one another somehow, and this is really nothing to feel got at by, IMO. Veils could in fact be seen as a curious reminder of byegone days and where we culturally come from.

  20. "And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments…. "
    The Book of Light 24:31

    The problem is FMC – the ancient veiling technique is taken in respect of the above koranic passage and the various rules that come with Islam to mean cover your face. They took an old technique as outlined beautifully by Cunningham and made it obligatory. Many women in Islam are now seeking to review the literalist texts to give women the choice but its hard within Islam because of the patriarchal structure within it. Some are forced and others like this woman in the post use it as theatre to draw attention to themselves and grand stand on religion.

    Franks point on ‘if we have to give unlimited respect to every belief then that is not possible’ is a good one. We are not a uniquely christian society anymore so everyones beliefs have to me taken into account unless we look at a more secular approach to these things.

  21. This issue is an important one. If I were a man and showed up in a court with a mask on, it would not be tolerated. Why? It would be assumed I had something to hide from the court. Years ago Sir William Mullock ruled that the Ku Klux Klan paraded in hoods in order to intimidate and thus the Klan was forced to stop their activities.

    The courtroom is not exactly a "public place" in the normal sense. It is a "court" where one is allowed to be if the judge so decides. The judge needs to see the faces of the actors in the trial to determine who is lying and who is telling the truth.

    The fact that the veil is a disguise is proved by the fact that Moslem clerics use it to make their escape from the authorities. -Br.Bulldog

Comments are closed.