Fury as Top Judge gives in to Moslem Hardliners on Veils

#1
Fury as top judge gives in to Muslim hardliners on veils

10/11/06
By Paul Broster and Martin Stote

A HIGH Court judge sparked outrage last night after he gave lawyers the green light to wear veils in court.

The ruling was made after a Muslim solicitor twice refused an immigration judge’s request to reveal her face – despite him explaining that he could not hear her speak.

Mr Justice Hodge, who was asked to issue guidance over the case, yesterday defended the right of lawyers to wear the niqab and said it was “important to be sensitive”.

His decision was widely condemned by critics, who claimed he had caved in to Islamic hardliners.

The controversy follows the case of Shabnam Mughal, who refused to remove her veil at a tribunal in Stoke-on-Trent on Monday.

Judge George Glossop told the 27-year-old lawyer he could not hear her properly and asked to see her face to “aid communication”.

After the case ground to a halt because of her defiance, the row was referred to Mr Justice Hodge, who is president of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.
In his ruling, which is likely to set a precedent for all courts, he said Miss Mughal had appeared at previous hearings in the black niqab without complaint.

He added: “It is important to be sensitive in such cases. The presumption is that if a representative before an asylum immigration tribunal wishes to wear a veil, has the agreement of his or her client and can be heard reasonably clearly by all parties to the proceedings, then the representative should be allowed to do so.”

David Davies, Conservative MP for Monmouth, said the decision caved in to Islamic pressure.

He added: “British courts are there to determine whether the truth is being told. How can they do that if they cannot hear? Allowing people to hide their faces in a court where all should be laid bare in the search for truth and justice is not good enough.

“If we were in a Muslim court we would be expected to abide by their rules on dress. So why is it that this lady can work in a British court and wear whatever she likes?”

Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley, said: “It is outrageous that Mr Justice Hodge has not defended his judge in this case. British justice has always been based on the principle of being completely open. How can it be open if a lawyer will not show her face?”

Massoud Shadjareh, of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said: “Just because someone wears a veil in court does not mean they can’t do their job properly.

“We should take pride in the fact that our society recognises the rights and requirements of minorities and allows us the freedom to practise our religion. It is something that we should celebrate.”

But Labour MP Shahid Malik, one of Westminster’s four Muslim MPs, said: “Where a veil inhibits you from carrying out your job or your role in life, then your right to wear it is compromised.”

Mr Justice Hodge, who is married to Government minister Margaret Hodge, said that if a judge cannot hear a lawyer “then the interests of justice are not served” and “other arrangements will need to be made”.

The ruling will remain in place pending a review by Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice, who has asked a legal committee to investigate.

Miss Mughal was unavailable for comment last night but friends insisted she plans to continue wearing the veil.

Additional reporting: Chris Riches
http://express.lineone.net/news_detail.html?sku=692
What tommy rot!

The woman lawyer is allowed to wear a veil. How on earth can one make out if she is a lawyer or not or if she is a she or a he or an in between!

Next, the witnesses will be allowed to wear veils whereby anyone can go and give witness as somebody else.

This will lead to chaos.

Imagine a niqab wearing woman with a narrow slit, smaller than a bunker loophole, with a eyes unseen because the eyes are in the shadow of the damned shroud hectoring some poor witness on a point of law. That witness will die of fright thinking that it is some alien attacking earth, if not a black gargoyle!

This is frustrating and exasperating!

No wonder British born Moslems are getting courage to run a riot!
 
#3
pander

verb

pandered, pandering

Phrasal Verb: pander to someone or something
To indulge or gratify them or their wishes or tastes.

Example: John pandered to my every need
 
#4
Scabster_Mooch said:
How is a high court judge a 'top judge'?

No matter, he is an idiot.
I wouldn't know whether a High Court Judge is a 'top' Judge or not. The Express states it so.

Beyond the semantics, this is really extraordinary. I hope you are aware that Muslim extremists are plotting at least 30 major terrorist attacks in Britain and the threats may involve chemical and nuclear devices.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/worl...gin&adxnnlx=1163183302-hsxXGjDMT6yspkSbfURjEA

Appeasement only makes the situation worse.
 
#5
Ray , Mr. Justice Hodge has been critical before, one of his chief concerns has been the fact that cases do not go quick enough , and those that need to be deported following such cases , are not.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4643004.stm

Judges expelling migrants from Britain feel they can make little difference because too many are not being sent home, MPs have been told.
The fears were voiced by Mr Justice Hodge, head of the board which judges appeals on immigration decisions.

He said removing people was a "big, big problem" for the system.

And he said the government had underestimated the backlog in appeals, with 12,000 more found in "cupboards" than previously thought.


The Conservatives say the system is suffering from the government's lack of competence.

Ministers have instead highlighted moves designed to cut the backlogs.

Mr Justice Hodge appeared before the home affairs committee with leading High Court judge Mr Justice Collins.

Disincentive?

Conservative MP Richard Benyon asked whether the volume of cases could be substantially reduced if there was an efficient removals system.

Mr Justice Hodge said asylum claims had dropped across western Europe.

But on immigration cases, he said: "One of my judiciary's concerns always is we work hard to produce a result and it does not result in anything very much.

"Members of Parliament probably feel exactly the same and so does the Daily Mail and other worthy journals... An efficient removals system would be great."

The Home Office and Foreign Office should together redouble efforts to persuade other countries to take back migrants, he said.

And he argued that if people found to be in the UK wrongly were likely to be sent home it would reduce the incentive to come to Britain in the first place.
Before something becomes 'precedent' what else has to happen Ray?

My feeling on this, is Justice Hodge effectively thought "Damn woman is holding up the case, get on with it"

Though I appreciate Ray , you may be seeing things differently from your side of the line of control.

Is the veil allowed to be worn in Indian courts?
 
#6
No veils are not allowed in India.

And neither is it allowed in Pakistan!

Pakistan judge bars women lawyers from wearing veils in courtrooms
From Afzal Khan (Our correspondent)

6 November 2006


ISLAMABAD — Peshawar High Court (PHC) Chief Justice Tariq Pervaiz Khan has ordered women lawyers not to wear veils in courtrooms, saying they (the women lawyers) could neither be identified nor assist the court well in veils.

“You (women lawyers) are professionals. You should be dressed as lawyers. We (the judges) cannot identify women lawyers wearing veils and suspect that some veiled lawyers appear in court several times seeking adjournments for other lawyers’ cases,” Justice Pervaiz told a veiled lawyer, Raees Anjum, who was seeking adjournment of a case.

The court could barely hear Anjum’s name when she was asked to make an appearance in a case. She had to repeat her name several times because of her veil and this led the chief justice’s observation.

“I was embarrassed when the chief justice asked me not to wear a veil in the courtroom,” Anjum told reporters. “I feel more confident in my hijab (veil). I am a progressive Muslim woman who has the courage to follow her faith while living and working in this conservative society.... hijab reflects a woman’s modesty,” she said.

Anjum added that several women judges in the NWFP wore veils and all MMA women MPAs are also veiled. “On the one hand, Peshawar Sessions Judge Hayat Ali Shah tells women lawyers to wear veils when coming to his court, while the PHC chief justice wants women lawyers appearing in court without veils.”

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Display...ontinent_November171.xml&section=subcontinent
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#7
Looks like they've got more sense and balls and less politically correct nonsense that we have.

All this crap is just a bunch of people seeing just what they can get away with. Each time they succeed, they up the anti.

The erosion has set in. This is a weak country being exploited by minorities.
 
#8
Biscuits_AB said:
Looks like they've got more sense and balls and less politically correct nonsense that we have.

All this crap is just a bunch of people seeing just what they can get away with. Each time they succeed, they up the anti.

The erosion has set in. This is a weak country being exploited by minorities.

Agreed. The Daily Express, Sun, Star, Mail, Sport, Evening Standard, News of the World, Mirror, Times, Telegraph - together, they all add up to a very small minority.
 
#10
Rayc said:
Scabster_Mooch said:
How is a high court judge a 'top judge'?

No matter, he is an idiot.
I wouldn't know whether a High Court Judge is a 'top' Judge or not. The Express states it so.

Beyond the semantics, this is really extraordinary. I hope you are aware that Muslim extremists are plotting at least 30 major terrorist attacks in Britain and the threats may involve chemical and nuclear devices.

Appeasement only makes the situation worse.
There's a garagantuan rationale hole in your leap between wearing a veil in court and the threat from poss chemical or nuclear wpns.

It is this type of comment that ferments the banal (and dangerous) inter-culture bigotry. There is (as far as I can establish) no connection between a female lawyer wearing a veil in court and a terrorist murdering people. By suggesting that there is simply takes the debate to an unfounded, irrational, illogical and puerile level.
 
#11
If Pakistan, which is an Islamic Republic, and which has the Hudood and the Sharia Law operative, finds the veil as an impediment to hearing of a case or identifying individuals, I wonder what is the good reason why Britain has to bend backwards to appease.

All the worthy Judges have to do is bring to the notice of these fundmentalist zealots that if in Islamic countries wearing of the shroud or niqab is not allowed, then why should a secular country like UK be blackmailed into allowing it.

The more you give in, the more embolden the fundamentalists are getting and they are gradually raising the ante!

Soon they will demand that the Courts should recess while they say their prayers at the prescribed time or when the muezzin starts the clarion call or whatever it is called.

This virus will then slowly embolden others around the world and things will spin out of control worldwide like the Mohammed Cartoon case.
 
#12
Rayc said:
If Pakistan, which is an Islamic Republic, and which has the Hudood and the Sharia Law operative, finds the veil as an impediment to hearing of a case or identifying individuals, I wonder what is the good reason why Britain has to bend backwards to appease.

All the worthy Judges have to do is bring to the notice of these fundmentalist zealots that if in Islamic countries wearing of the shroud or niqab is not allowed, then why should a secular country like UK be blackmailed into allowing it.

The more you give in, the more embolden the fundamentalists are getting and they are gradually raising the ante!

Soon they will demand that the Courts should recess while they say their prayers at the prescribed time or when the muezzin starts the clarion call or whatever it is called.

This virus will then slowly embolden others around the world and things will spin out of control worldwide like the Mohammed Cartoon case.
Slow down tiger - you're beginning to sound like a fundamentalist too!
 
#13
tattybadger said:
Rayc said:
Scabster_Mooch said:
How is a high court judge a 'top judge'?

No matter, he is an idiot.
I wouldn't know whether a High Court Judge is a 'top' Judge or not. The Express states it so.

Beyond the semantics, this is really extraordinary. I hope you are aware that Muslim extremists are plotting at least 30 major terrorist attacks in Britain and the threats may involve chemical and nuclear devices.

Appeasement only makes the situation worse.
There's a garagantuan rationale hole in your leap between wearing a veil in court and the threat from poss chemical or nuclear wpns.

It is this type of comment that ferments the banal (and dangerous) inter-culture bigotry. There is (as far as I can establish) no connection between a female lawyer wearing a veil in court and a terrorist murdering people. By suggesting that there is simply takes the debate to an unfounded, irrational, illogical and puerile level.
Tatty,

Hardly a gargantuan rationale hole and hardly a banal and dangerous inter cultural bigotry I dare say.

The rationale that leads you to draw such a conclusion is precisely the rationale that should be tempered with reality. This rationale wherein one runs away from reality and instead cling to the fervent longing that the problem will wish itself away as a bad dream is what alarms. One should not veil one’s vision just because veils are the fashion of the day. The rationale that you advocate is but a romantic pseudo intellectual libertine escapism, far far away from the reality of the moment.

The fact that British born Moslems could bomb their own country i.e. Britain which nurtured them from the womb with State munificence and without a tick on their conscience is itself a salute to the rationale you advocate.

In this troubled times, the societal permission and permissiveness that you advocate to allow people to mask their identity in any form will only aggrandises the danger since it will become common place and will not cause alarm. It would be ideal for a terrorist to take advantage of such complacency and libertine PC of giving all the benefit of doubt.

.
There is no inter cultural bigotry in the first place if there is no wilful confrontation of cultures. Note: wilful confrontation. Individual rights should be honoured so long as it does not affect governance or administration. As soon as it affects the functioning of the State, it becomes a matter of concern. Prevention of carriage of justice because of an impediment caused by a dress is obviously prevention of matters of the State and governance. It may interest you to note that an Islamic country i.e. Pakistan take cognizance of this fact and hence does not allow veils in their court. Therefore, when y Pakistan does not allow and Britain meekly allows, then there is definitely a lack of will to implement the obvious!

The connection of terrorist and this case of the veil you ridicule with bombastic syntax. But that does not impress me nor am I cowed down by it. The connection that you do not wish to see and instead pander to PC is that today, it is the veil, tomorrow something else and so it builds up. The fundamentalists are getting bolder day by day and are testing the waters with new ways to see how far they can push the system. The more the appeasement, the bolder they will get and then without fear that they maybe be challenged while moving in crowded and other areas will use this type of ploy for terrorist acts. If the shroud becomes commonplace in govt buildings and high security areas, then it will be a ball for the terrorists. Who knows what sex is behind the shroud or what instrument of terror lurks within. That is the connection.

Of course, you will say that security systems are in place, but then nothing is foolproof I may add.

If living with the Sword of Damocles hanging over your head or being psychologically blackmailed makes you comfortable, then good luck to you, sir.

My apologies for having raised the issue without realising that giving into to outlandish demands that affect the governance of the State and the Justice system is what you advocate and that persevering with the age old custom that is prevalent elsewhere, as laid down by the British colonials, is but a banal and dangerous inter cultural bigotry!
 
#14
I am no fundamentalist.

I am a merely a pragmatist shorn of PC.

I have experienced terrorism under the burkha and the firan!

You have to give in to the customs and yet behind some burkhas and firan lurks the instrument of death and destruction!

Not a fundmentalist. Just a person who has experience of terrorism through the burkha and the firan and has seen the huge problems caused by PC.
 
#17
Rayc said:
tattybadger said:
Rayc said:
Scabster_Mooch said:
How is a high court judge a 'top judge'?

No matter, he is an idiot.
I wouldn't know whether a High Court Judge is a 'top' Judge or not. The Express states it so.

Beyond the semantics, this is really extraordinary. I hope you are aware that Muslim extremists are plotting at least 30 major terrorist attacks in Britain and the threats may involve chemical and nuclear devices.

Appeasement only makes the situation worse.
There's a garagantuan rationale hole in your leap between wearing a veil in court and the threat from poss chemical or nuclear wpns.

It is this type of comment that ferments the banal (and dangerous) inter-culture bigotry. There is (as far as I can establish) no connection between a female lawyer wearing a veil in court and a terrorist murdering people. By suggesting that there is simply takes the debate to an unfounded, irrational, illogical and puerile level.
Tatty,

Hardly a gargantuan rationale hole and hardly a banal and dangerous inter cultural bigotry I dare say.

The rationale that leads you to draw such a conclusion is precisely the rationale that should be tempered with reality. This rationale wherein one runs away from reality and instead cling to the fervent longing that the problem will wish itself away as a bad dream is what alarms. One should not veil one’s vision just because veils are the fashion of the day. The rationale that you advocate is but a romantic pseudo intellectual libertine escapism, far far away from the reality of the moment.

The fact that British born Moslems could bomb their own country i.e. Britain which nurtured them from the womb with State munificence and without a tick on their conscience is itself a salute to the rationale you advocate.

In this troubled times, the societal permission and permissiveness that you advocate to allow people to mask their identity in any form will only aggrandises the danger since it will become common place and will not cause alarm. It would be ideal for a terrorist to take advantage of such complacency and libertine PC of giving all the benefit of doubt.

.
There is no inter cultural bigotry in the first place if there is no wilful confrontation of cultures. Note: wilful confrontation. Individual rights should be honoured so long as it does not affect governance or administration. As soon as it affects the functioning of the State, it becomes a matter of concern. Prevention of carriage of justice because of an impediment caused by a dress is obviously prevention of matters of the State and governance. It may interest you to note that an Islamic country i.e. Pakistan take cognizance of this fact and hence does not allow veils in their court. Therefore, when y Pakistan does not allow and Britain meekly allows, then there is definitely a lack of will to implement the obvious!

The connection of terrorist and this case of the veil you ridicule with bombastic syntax. But that does not impress me nor am I cowed down by it. The connection that you do not wish to see and instead pander to PC is that today, it is the veil, tomorrow something else and so it builds up. The fundamentalists are getting bolder day by day and are testing the waters with new ways to see how far they can push the system. The more the appeasement, the bolder they will get and then without fear that they maybe be challenged while moving in crowded and other areas will use this type of ploy for terrorist acts. If the shroud becomes commonplace in govt buildings and high security areas, then it will be a ball for the terrorists. Who knows what sex is behind the shroud or what instrument of terror lurks within. That is the connection.

Of course, you will say that security systems are in place, but then nothing is foolproof I may add.

If living with the Sword of Damocles hanging over your head or being psychologically blackmailed makes you comfortable, then good luck to you, sir.

My apologies for having raised the issue without realising that giving into to outlandish demands that affect the governance of the State and the Justice system is what you advocate and that persevering with the age old custom that is prevalent elsewhere, as laid down by the British colonials, is but a banal and dangerous inter cultural bigotry!
Your reply fails singularly to address the issue of your initial supposition - which is an inferred suggestion that a female lawyer's wearing of a veil in court is intrinsically linked to terrorism. If one applies a logical and rational thought process to this issue, it is difficult to establish, beyond any reasonable doubt, that there is a prima facie case to answer here. There is, simply, no substantiated evidence to support what you suggest.

I infer from your post that you assume that I pander to political correctness. Again, you are incorrect. I don't. I am, however, concerned when irrational arguments are bandied around.

I have an idea what it feels like to be on the receiving end of irrational, fundamentalist drivel. I lived in Saudi for two years and was subjected to it endlessly (although most of it was not aggressively delivered), which is why I find it slightly distasteful in a liberal democracy.
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#18
Scabster_Mooch said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4643004.stm

Mr Justice Hodge said asylum claims had dropped across western Europe.

"Members of Parliament probably feel exactly the same and so does the Daily Mail and other worthy journals... An efficient removals system would be great."
.
There goes his credibility! :twisted:
I think that this may be sly British humour from the judiciary, and I rather like the fact that MPs are bundled in with red tops 'and other worthy journals'...
 
#19
I had a curious thought while reading this thread. If Rayc is correct, then wearing veils is frowned upon in Indian and Pakistani courts. Yet this Islamic lawyer is trying to pull a fast one...

How many Arrsers have tried the gardening sweater, side-hat, lightweight trousers and chukka boots version of BD when on an RAF or RN station??

Looks like this lawyer-woman is trying to pull the same sort of flanker, presumably to avoid make-up, coiffure et cetera!
 
#20
Cuddles said:
I had a curious thought while reading this thread. If Rayc is correct, then wearing veils is frowned upon in Indian and Pakistani courts. Yet this Islamic lawyer is trying to pull a fast one...

How many Arrsers have tried the gardening sweater, side-hat, lightweight trousers and chukka boots version of BD when on an RAF or RN station??

Looks like this lawyer-woman is trying to pull the same sort of flanker, presumably to avoid make-up, coiffure et cetera!
Thank you Cuddles for a Fri evening chuckle - babysitting the ankle biters is always more amusing when you are on line (particularly when I have sunk the best part of a bottle of claret!!) :D
 

Similar threads

Top