Fury as Top Judge gives in to Moslem Hardliners on Veils

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Rayc, Nov 10, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Rayc

    Rayc RIP

    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!
     
  2. How is a high court judge a 'top judge'?

    No matter, he is an idiot.
     
  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. Rayc

    Rayc RIP

    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/world/international-security-britain.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&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

    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. Rayc

    Rayc RIP

    No veils are not allowed in India.

    And neither is it allowed in Pakistan!

     
  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.
     
    • Like Like x 1

  8. 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.
     
  9. 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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Rayc

    Rayc RIP

    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.
     
  11. Slow down tiger - you're beginning to sound like a fundamentalist too!
     
  12. Rayc

    Rayc RIP

    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!
     
  13. Rayc

    Rayc RIP

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

    There goes his credibility! :twisted: