http://news.yahoo.com/court-ruling-fires-british-debate-muslim-veils-165454393.html
QuoteA British judge ruled on Monday that a Muslim woman could not give evidence at her trial wearing a full-face veil, sparking debate about whether Britain should follow other European countries and ban Islamic veils in schools and public places.
Senior politicians played down the likelihood of a ban after one minister said the coalition government should consider forbidding full-face veils, or niqabs, in schools, a measure that is gaining support from some members of parliament.
"My own view, very strongly held, is that we shouldn't end up like other countries issuing edicts or laws from parliament telling people what they should or should not wear," said Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, leader of the coalition's junior centrist party, the Liberal Democrats.
"This is a free country and people going about their own business should be free to wear what they wish."
The case comes as the government considers how to better integrate Britain's 2.7 million Muslims without restricting the right to freedom of religious expression.
The conundrum took on added significance after four British Islamists carried out deadly suicide bombings in London in 2005.
Prime Minister David Cameron has previously said state multiculturalism has failed, but Britain has steered clear of following the examples of France and Belgium, where it is illegal for women to wear full-face veils in public.
But in a significant ruling on Monday, a Muslim woman, who argued that removing her veil in court breached her human rights, was told she could not wear it when giving evidence.
"ELEPHANT IN THE COURTROOM"
"The niqab has become the elephant in the courtroom," said Judge Peter Murphy, who also made the compromise that she could wear her veil at all other times during a trial later this year over accusations she had intimidated a witness in another case.
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons and who only started wearing a niqab in May 2012, had argued it was against her beliefs to uncover her face in front of men who were not members of her close family.
But Murphy said it would "drive a coach and horses through the way in which justice has been administered in the courts of England and Wales for centuries" if jurors could not observe her reactions.
"No tradition or practice, whether religious or otherwise, can claim to occupy such a privileged position that the rule of law, open justice and the adversarial trial process are sacrificed to accommodate it," he said.
"That is not a discrimination against religion. It is a matter of upholding the rule of law in a democratic society."
Murphy, whose ruling will serve as a precedent, said he hoped parliament or a higher court would provide a definitive verdict "sooner rather than later", while the woman's lawyer said it was too early to say whether she would appeal.
There have been growing calls from some British lawmakers for a ban on veils in schools.
Last week, Birmingham Metropolitan College, a higher education institution in central England, said it would ban staff and students wearing veils, but days later reversed the decision after criticism and protests.
Home Office (interior ministry) minister Jeremy Browne said the government should contemplate a ban to protect some young Muslims who he said might be compelled to wear a veil.
"I think this is a good topic for national debate," Browne, a Liberal Democrat, told the Daily Telegraph newspaper.
However, women wearing headscarves and veils on the streets of east London, home to a large Muslim community, said the government should not get involved in religious matters.
"It didn't get in the way of my education at all. People's mindset needs to change. I don't see why I should have to change, I can't accept that," said student Nasreen Jabber, 19.
Sarah Daniela, 29, self-employed sales trader and a recent convert to Islam, said it was her choice to wear a veil.
"It's 2013, we want to go forward, not backwards. To ban it (the niqab) is very stupid, there's no reason," said Daniela, who was wearing a headscarf.
I know it is wrong, but I can't help having my opinion colored by the recency of her conversion/donning of the niqab. -_-
The bit in bold struck me as an odd sentence.
Well it's bad enough they won't let her testify. But calling her an elephant in the courtroom??
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2013, 12:49:01 PM
I know it is wrong, but I can't help having my opinion colored by the recency of her conversion/donning of the niqab. -_-
I don't think it's wrong at all. It's difficult as all hell to do, but judges have some responsibility to determine just how honestly the subject believes in.
This isn't the first time a court's done this. It's odd that it's kicked off now but I think that's largely due to politicians going wild.
My view is that this is Britain, wear what you want :mellow:
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 12:55:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2013, 12:49:01 PM
I know it is wrong, but I can't help having my opinion colored by the recency of her conversion/donning of the niqab. -_-
I don't think it's wrong at all. It's difficult as all hell to do, but judges have some responsibility to determine just how honestly the subject believes in.
Hey Beeb, is the importance of judging the credibility of the witness and the degree to which wearing a face covering might interfere with that ability a factor to be considered?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 16, 2013, 01:00:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 12:55:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2013, 12:49:01 PM
I know it is wrong, but I can't help having my opinion colored by the recency of her conversion/donning of the niqab. -_-
I don't think it's wrong at all. It's difficult as all hell to do, but judges have some responsibility to determine just how honestly the subject believes in.
Hey Beeb, is the importance of judging the credibility of the witness and the degree to which wearing a face covering might interfere with that ability a factor to be considered?
Well according to the SCC, all sorts of things are supposed to be considered, including the factor you mentioned.
http://canlii.ca/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/2012scc72/2012scc72.html
Incidentally here's the ruling:
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/The%20Queen%20-v-%20D%20(R).pdf
The argument in the article sounds reasonable. Due process > religious freedom.
Quote from: Zanza on September 16, 2013, 01:16:50 PM
The argument in the article sounds reasonable. Due process > religious freedom.
First of all there is no hierarchy of rights. Due process is not more, or less, important that religious freedom.
Second, when this issue came up last year in Canada, I was quite taken by Justice Abella's analysis (admittedly the minority) which said - wait a second, what's the big deal about seeing someone's face anyways?'.
Quote[97] This brings us to the extent to which N.S., by exercising her freedom of religion in wearing a niqab, harms the accused's fair trial rights. The right to a fair trial is crucial to the presumption of innocence and maintaining confidence in the criminal justice system. While I agree that witnesses generally and ideally testify with their faces uncovered in open court, abridgements of this "ideal" often occur in practice yet are almost always tolerated.
[98] "Demeanour" has been broadly described as "every visible or audible form of self-expression manifested by a witness whether fixed or variable, voluntary or involuntary, simple or complex": Barry R. Morrison, Laura L. Porter and Ian H. Fraser, "The Role of Demeanour in Assessing the Credibility of Witnesses" (2007), 33 Advocates' Q. 170, at p. 179. Trial judges often rely on many indicators other than facial cues in finding a witness credible, including
certitude in speaking, dignity while on the stand, exhibition of disability, exhibition of anger, exhibition of frustration, articulate speaking, thoughtful presentation, enthusiastic language, direct non-evasive answering, non-glib answering, exhibition of modesty, exhibition of flexibility, normal (as in as expected) body movement, cheerful attitude, kind manner, normal exhalation, normal inhalation. . . .
(Morrison, at p. 189)
[99] Moreover, while the ability to assess a witness' demeanour is an important component of trial fairness, many courts have noted its limitations for drawing accurate inferences about credibility. In Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354, for example, the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that relying on the "appearance of sincerity [would lead to] a purely arbitrary finding and justice would then depend upon the best actors in the witness box" (p. 356). According to the court, demeanour "is but one of the elements that enter into the credibility . . . of a witness", with other factors including the witness' opportunity for knowledge, powers of observation, judgment, memory and ability to describe clearly what he or she has seen and heard (pp. 356-57).
[100] The Court of Appeal for Alberta similarly urged caution in relying on demeanour in R. v. Pelletier 1995 ABCA 128 (CanLII), (1995), 165 A.R. 138:
I question whether the respect given to our findings of fact based on the demeanour of the witnesses is always deserved. I doubt my own ability, and sometimes that of other judges, to discern from a witness's demeanour, or the tone of his voice, whether he is telling the truth. He speaks hesitantly. Is it the mark of a cautious man, whose statements are for that reason to be respected, or is he taking time to fabricate? Is the emphatic witness putting on an act to deceive me, or is he speaking from the fullness of his heart, knowing that he is right? Is he likely to be more truthful if he looks me straight in the face than if he casts his eyes on the ground, perhaps from shyness or a natural timidity? For my part I rely on these considerations as little as I can help.
. . . I judge a witness to be unreliable if his evidence is, in any serious respect, inconsistent with these undisputed or indisputable facts, or of course if he contradicts himself on important points. I rely as little as possible on such deceptive matters as his demeanour. [para. 18]
(Citing a 1973 paper by Justice MacKenna and approvingly quoted in P. Devlin, The Judge (1979), at p. 63.)
See also R. v. Levert 2001 CanLII 8606 (ON CA), (2001), 159 C.C.C. (3d) 71, at p. 81.
[101] The Canadian Judicial Council's model jury instructions also acknowledge the inherent limitations in relying on demeanour:
What was the witness's manner when he or she testified? Do not jump to conclusions, however, based entirely on the witness's manner. Looks can be deceiving. Giving evidence in a trial is not a common experience for many witnesses. People react and appear differently. Witnesses come from different backgrounds. They have different intellects, abilities, values, and life experiences. There are simply too many variables to make the manner in which a witness testifies the only or the most important factor in your decision.
(Model Jury Instructions, Part I, Preliminary Instructions, 4.11 Assessing Testimony (online))
[102] And courts regularly accept the testimony of witnesses whose demeanour can only be partially observed. Section 14 of the Charter, for example, states that a witness who cannot hear, or who does not understand or speak the language used in the proceedings, has the right to the assistance of an interpreter. In such cases, "the trial judge has to make credibility findings through the filters of the interpreters": R. v. A.F. 2005 ABCA 447 (CanLII), (2005), 376 A.R. 124 (C.A.), at para. 3; see also R. v. R.S.M., 1999 BCCA 218 (CanLII), 1999 BCCA 218 (CanLII), at paras. 12-14. The use of an interpreter may well have an impact on how the witness' demeanour is understood, but it is beyond dispute that interpreters render the assessment of demeanour neither impossible nor impracticable. As stated by the Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. Davis 1995 ABCA 188 (CanLII), (1995), 165 A.R. 243:
The interpreter is usually calm and professional and so the English interpretation heard by the judge is done in a calm, non-contentious manner. There is a brief time delay allowing the witness, who [might] understand English, more time to provide her answer. An interpreter no doubt communicates in appropriate language when possible, and may well improve upon the explanation of the witness. I do not suggest for a moment that is done dishonestly, but rather because there may often be no more appropriate translation.
This is not to say that witnesses who testify through interpreters can never demonstrate demeanour. They can and do, and the assessment of that demeanour may help a fact-finder determine truth. [Emphasis added; paras. 18-19.]
[103] A witness may also have physical or medical limitations that affect a judge's or lawyer's ability to assess demeanour. A stroke may interfere with facial expressions; an illness may affect body movements; and a speech impairment may affect the manner of speaking. All of these are departures from the demeanour ideal, yet none has ever been held to disqualify the witness from giving his or her evidence on the grounds that the accused's fair trial rights are thereby impaired.
[104] There are other situations where we accept a witness' evidence without being able to assess demeanour at all. The Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, permits a judge to order and admit a transcript of evidence by a witness who is unable to attend the trial because of a disability, even when the accused's counsel is not present for the taking of the evidence: ss. 709 and 713. Courts also allow witnesses, including material witnesses, to give evidence and be cross-examined by telephone: Criminal Code, s. 714.3; see also R. v. Chapdelaine, 2004 ABQB 39 (CanLII), 2004 ABQB 39 (CanLII); R. v. Butt 2008 CanLII 50489 (NL PC), (2008), 280 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 129 (N.L. Prov. Ct.).
[105] Exceptions to hearsay evidence are another example where the trier of fact is completely unable to assess the demeanour of the person whose statement is being admitted as evidence. In R. v. Khan, 1990 CanLII 77 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531, McLachlin J. developed a principled exception to the hearsay rule where the statement met the requirements of necessity and reliability (p. 542), with the result that the Court in a sexual assault case admitted the statement of a three-year-old child to her mother because it was unrealistic to require the child to testify and undergo cross-examination. The Court noted that "in most cases the concerns of the accused as to credibility [can] be addressed by submissions as to the weight to be accorded to the evidence" (p. 547).
[106] Wearing a niqab presents only a partial obstacle to the assessment of demeanour. A witness wearing a niqab may still express herself through her eyes, body language, and gestures. Moreover, the niqab has no effect on the witness'verbal testimony, including the tone and inflection of her voice, the cadence of her speech, or, most significantly, the substance of the answers she gives. Unlike out-of-court statements, defence counsel still has the opportunity to rigorously cross-examine N.S. on the witness stand.
[107] It is clear from all of this that trial fairness cannot reasonably expect ideal testimony from an ideal witness in every case, and that demeanour itself represents only one factor in the assessment of a witness' credibility. As Morden A.C.J.O. noted in R. v. Levogiannis reflex, (1990), 1 O.R. (3d) 351 (C.A.), the ideal is subject to several exceptions and qualifications in the interests of justice:
Accepting that [face-to-face confrontation] is a right, of a kind, I do not think that it can be said to be an absolute right, in itself, which reflects a basic tenet of our legal system. It is a right which is subject to qualification in the interests of justice.
The reason underlying the right is said to be that it is more difficult not to tell the truth about a person when looking at that person eye to eye. . . . But . . . it is difficult to dogmatize about this — and in some cases . . . eye to eye contact may frustrate the obtaining of as true an account from the witness as is possible. This is why I think the right is more accurately considered to be one that is subject to exceptions or qualifications rather than a fundamental or absolute one. [p. 367]
[108] And since, realistically, not being able to see a witness' whole face is only a partial interference with what is, in any event, only one part of an imprecise measuring tool of credibility, we are left to wonder why we demand full "demeanour access" where religious belief prevents it.
[109] In my view, therefore, the harmful effects of requiring a witness to remove her niqab, with the result that she will likely not testify, bring charges in the first place, or, if she is the accused, be unable to testify in her own defence, is a significantly more harmful consequence than not being able to see a witness' whole face.
Does Yookay have the right to not self-incriminate? If so this judgement seems pretty moot.
Would it be ok for someone to speakerphone in their testimony?
Quote from: frunk on September 16, 2013, 01:55:07 PM
Would it be ok for someone to speakerphone in their testimony?
In certain circumstances, yes. I've done it before.
:zipped:
Sarah Daniela, 29, self-employed sales trader and a recent convert to Islam, said it was her choice to wear a veil.
"It's 2013, we want to go forward, not backwards. To ban it (the niqab) is very stupid, there's no reason," said Daniela, who was wearing a headscarf.
->going forward is not done by converting to islam, especially not as a woman.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 16, 2013, 01:56:33 PM
Sarah Daniela, 29, self-employed sales trader and a recent convert to Islam, said it was her choice to wear a veil.
"It's 2013, we want to go forward, not backwards. To ban it (the niqab) is very stupid, there's no reason," said Daniela, who was wearing a headscarf.
->going forward is not done by converting to islam, especially not as a woman.
Oh how lovely to have caught you. I think I'll throw you back.
So BB - let's say a court lets the witness testify in the niqab, using the reasoning of the minority.
Should defense counsel be allowed to argue to the jury that in assessing the credibility that witness' testimony, the jury should consider that they didn't have a chance to view her demeanor, as opposed to other witnesses.?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 16, 2013, 01:59:54 PM
So BB - let's say a court lets the witness testify in the niqab, using the reasoning of the minority.
Should defense counsel be allowed to argue to the jury that in assessing the credibility that witness' testimony, the jury should consider that they didn't have a chance to view her demeanor, as opposed to other witnesses.?
I would say yes, together with the already existing warning about the questionable usefulness of demeanour evidence to begin with.
Unlike the UK case (which as Yi pointed out is weird) these kinds of cases usually come up when the person wearing the niqab has been victimized. So try and empower the victim. Tell her "you have the right to wear the Niqab. It's up to you. But if you do take it off it the jury might find you more credible'.
Is it about religious freedom or cultural freedom? The credibility of a person who wears a mask because the magic sky fairy told her to is fairly low. The credibility of a person who wears a mask because she wants to is higher.
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 01:29:35 PM
First of all there is no hierarchy of rights. Due process is not more, or less, important that religious freedom.
The judge in the ruling seems to establish a hierarchy of rights and our constitutional judges also seem to often weigh conflicting rights and make decisions on which right trumps which.
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 12:55:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2013, 12:49:01 PM
I know it is wrong, but I can't help having my opinion colored by the recency of her conversion/donning of the niqab. -_-
I don't think it's wrong at all. It's difficult as all hell to do, but judges have some responsibility to determine just how honestly the subject believes in.
Except that, if the judge is right, then no amount of belief would justify her wearing the niqab during testimony. But I am with Garbo that the religious conversion all seemed very convenient, and I am glad she was shot down.
Quote from: Zanza on September 16, 2013, 03:33:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 01:29:35 PM
First of all there is no hierarchy of rights. Due process is not more, or less, important that religious freedom.
The judge in the ruling seems to establish a hierarchy of rights and our constitutional judges also seem to often weigh conflicting rights and make decisions on which right trumps which.
Hmm... interesting. I hadn't actually read the UK decision, and skipped right to the case I knew well - R v NS.
However it seems that the judge in this case actually cites R v NS with approval, but makes the following observation:
QuoteValuable assistance is to be found in the judgment of the Supreme Court of
Canada in R. v. NS, 2012 SCC 72, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 726, and below, I gratefully adopt
some of the propositions laid down in that case. But the decision must be approached
5 with caution with respect to the issue now before me, for two reasons. First, the case
concerned the wearing of a niqaab, not by a defendant, but by a prosecution witness,
which as I have indicated above, may raise different and challenging issues. Second,
the right to freedom of conscience and religion under s.2(a) of the Canadian Charter,
on which the witness in NS relied in claiming that she was entitled to wear the niqaab
while giving evidence, appears to be a primary constitutional right in Canada. As
such, it appears to be entitled, under Canadian law, to far greater weight in the balance
of conflicting interests than the qualified right of manifestation of religious belief
under art. 9 of the Convention, on which reliance is placed in this case. Indeed, under
Canadian law, it may be equal in status to the right to a fair trial.
So he seems to imply that in the UK, the manifestation of religious belief is NOT equal in status to the right to a fair trial.
But I still think trying to create a hierarchy of rights is a terrible idea, because as soon as you say one right is more important than another, then you have very thoroughly denigrated that lesser right. Then, any violation of that right, no matter how severe, can be justified by pointing to even trivial implications for the more important right.
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 03:56:14 PM
So he seems to imply that in the UK, the manifestation of religious belief is NOT equal in status to the right to a fair trial.
But I still think trying to create a hierarchy of rights is a terrible idea, because as soon as you say one right is more important than another, then you have very thoroughly denigrated that lesser right. Then, any violation of that right, no matter how severe, can be justified by pointing to even trivial implications for the more important right.
No, all he was saying is that the right the Canadian court was considering is a Charter right and that Charter rights are supreme. In the UK he was considering a right that is not enshrined with the same kinds of constitutional protections. His analysis on that point was correct.
Quote from: grumbler on September 16, 2013, 03:41:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 12:55:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2013, 12:49:01 PM
I know it is wrong, but I can't help having my opinion colored by the recency of her conversion/donning of the niqab. -_-
I don't think it's wrong at all. It's difficult as all hell to do, but judges have some responsibility to determine just how honestly the subject believes in.
Except that, if the judge is right, then no amount of belief would justify her wearing the niqab during testimony. But I am with Garbo that the religious conversion all seemed very convenient, and I am glad she was shot down.
This judge says that, despite the very recency of the conversion, he declined to make any inquiry as to the authenticity of her belief. Which I think went to the ruling he ultimately wanted to make.
Hmm... just as I was taken with the dissent in NS, the judge here was taken with the concurring judgment of LeBel, which says Niqabs should be completely banned in courtrooms.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 16, 2013, 04:01:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 03:56:14 PM
So he seems to imply that in the UK, the manifestation of religious belief is NOT equal in status to the right to a fair trial.
But I still think trying to create a hierarchy of rights is a terrible idea, because as soon as you say one right is more important than another, then you have very thoroughly denigrated that lesser right. Then, any violation of that right, no matter how severe, can be justified by pointing to even trivial implications for the more important right.
No, all he was saying is that the right the Canadian court was considering is a Charter right and that Charter rights are supreme. In the UK he was considering a right that is not enshrined with the same kinds of constitutional protections. His analysis on that point was correct.
Except that, given the UK's unwritten constitution, the right to a fair trial has precisely the same level of protection.
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 04:04:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 16, 2013, 04:01:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 03:56:14 PM
So he seems to imply that in the UK, the manifestation of religious belief is NOT equal in status to the right to a fair trial.
But I still think trying to create a hierarchy of rights is a terrible idea, because as soon as you say one right is more important than another, then you have very thoroughly denigrated that lesser right. Then, any violation of that right, no matter how severe, can be justified by pointing to even trivial implications for the more important right.
No, all he was saying is that the right the Canadian court was considering is a Charter right and that Charter rights are supreme. In the UK he was considering a right that is not enshrined with the same kinds of constitutional protections. His analysis on that point was correct.
Except that, given the UK's unwritten constitution, the right to a fair trial has precisely the same level of protection.
You are missing the point. The Religious protection under the Charter is not the same. ;)
I will give the judge this - he raises one interesting point that I had not considered (but unfortunately, he is not able to answer).
How, exactly, do full on shari'a courts, following islamic law, deal with women wearing niqabs? The judge then does some web searches which might indicate they do, in fact, ask the women to remove the niqab.
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 03:56:14 PM
But I still think trying to create a hierarchy of rights is a terrible idea, because as soon as you say one right is more important than another, then you have very thoroughly denigrated that lesser right. Then, any violation of that right, no matter how severe, can be justified by pointing to even trivial implications for the more important right.
From what I can tell, our constitutional judges never establish an absolute hierarchy that is valid in all contexts, but they often put more weight on one or the other right when two conflict in a given, case-specific context. From my understanding that's what constitutional judges are for. And proportionality obviously always plays a role, so a trivial implication for one right does never invalidate the other. The idea is of course to always protect both rights as far as possible.
Quote from: Zanza on September 16, 2013, 04:19:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 03:56:14 PM
But I still think trying to create a hierarchy of rights is a terrible idea, because as soon as you say one right is more important than another, then you have very thoroughly denigrated that lesser right. Then, any violation of that right, no matter how severe, can be justified by pointing to even trivial implications for the more important right.
From what I can tell, our constitutional judges never establish an absolute hierarchy that is valid in all contexts, but they often put more weight on one or the other right when two conflict in a given, case-specific context. From my understanding that's what constitutional judges are for. And proportionality obviously always plays a role, so a trivial implication for one right does never invalidate the other. The idea is of course to always protect both rights as far as possible.
And I, of course, completely agree with that approach. When rights come into conflict, as they inevitably do, you want to protect all rights as much as possible.
I'm wearing a Batman mask.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 16, 2013, 04:48:58 PM
I'm wearing a Batman mask.
How is your sex-life relevant to this discussion?
Monkeybutt's sex party: Dorothy, the Tin Man, the Cowardly Lion, and the Bat.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2013, 01:51:30 PM
Does Yookay have the right to not self-incriminate? If so this judgement seems pretty moot.
It was moot in the UK use of the word :lol:
From reading the judgement the issue came up when he asked her to remove the niqab for identification. But the court decided on a wider point of defendants in niqabs. The goal was to establish a definitive ruling for this trial but also one that could be used by lower courts until it's taken to the High Court, rather than wasting time (and money) arguing the point at each trial - as I say this isn't the first time this has come up, but I think it's the first time a judge has tried to rule definitively.
QuoteSo he seems to imply that in the UK, the manifestation of religious belief is NOT equal in status to the right to a fair trial.
Manifestation of religious belief is a qualified right under the ECHR. It can be limited.
The ECHR has a number of absolute rights - to belief, to not be tortured - and then qualified rights - to privacy and family life, to manifestations of belief.
Given the importance of European law in human rights the principle of proportionality is pretty key. However even prior to the Human Rights Act the courts tended to place a lot of weight on access to justice and right to a fair trial as part of the rule of law.
QuoteThis judge says that, despite the very recency of the conversion, he declined to make any inquiry as to the authenticity of her belief. Which I think went to the ruling he ultimately wanted to make.
I think he was right though. As he says it would be unseemly and very subjective for a secular court to be establishing the sincerity of someone's belief and could easily as he put it 'smack of religious inquisition' or turn into a 'no true Scotsman' conversation.
I think the directions the judge gives are pretty reasonable:
Quote(1) The defendant must comply with all directions given by the Court to enable her to be properly identified at any stage of the proceedings.
(2) The defendant is free to wear the niqaab during trial, except while giving evidence.
(3) The defendant may not give evidence wearing the niqaab.
(4) The defendant may give evidence from behind a screen shielding her from public view, but not from the view of the judge, the jury, and counsel; or by mean of a live TV link.
(5) Photographs and filming are never permitted in court. But in this case, I also order that no drawing, sketch or other image of any kind of the defendant while her face is uncovered be made in court, or disseminated, or published outside court
All of the,admittedly few niqab wearing women I've spoken about this subject have said adopting/wearing it was a conscious political statement.
My guess as to their background would be an even 50-50% between British Asian muslims and British afro-Caribbean young women who've converted to Islam.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2013, 05:36:22 PM
Which is?
Arguable, open to debate, doubtful - a point that hasn't been settled (or perhaps can't be). My understanding of the American meaning is that it's hypothetical, academic, almost theoretical - it may be arguable but it's practically irrelevant.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 16, 2013, 05:08:32 PM
Monkeybutt's sex party: Dorothy, the Tin Man, the Cowardly Lion, and the Bat.
Violates the prime directive. Too much cock.
I wanted to make a Venture Bros. reference.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 16, 2013, 06:35:34 PM
I wanted to make a Venture Bros. reference.
Sorry. The mere thought of another penis in the area makes me ill. Barf.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 16, 2013, 06:42:42 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 16, 2013, 06:35:34 PM
I wanted to make a Venture Bros. reference.
Sorry. The mere thought of another penis in the area makes me ill. Barf.
Just picture tinman and cowardly lion as really hot chicks on some of those "sexy halloween" costumes :)
Don't see how you sex up tinman. He's a metal tube.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2013, 06:46:44 PM
Don't see how you sex up tinman. He's a metal tube.
A woman or gay man might find that appealing, though he' probably a bit too large for most.
Quote from: Jacob on September 16, 2013, 06:45:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 16, 2013, 06:42:42 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 16, 2013, 06:35:34 PM
I wanted to make a Venture Bros. reference.
Sorry. The mere thought of another penis in the area makes me ill. Barf.
Just picture tinman and cowardly lion as really hot chicks on some of those "sexy halloween" costumes :)
That sounds dangerously homosexual.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2013, 06:46:44 PM
Don't see how you sex up tinman. He's a metal tube.
In other words, perfection?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2013, 06:46:44 PM
Don't see how you sex up tinman. He's a metal tube.
Same way as you sex up any other costume for halloween. Lots of bare flesh and a few items from the following list: knee high stockings, body hugging clothes, short skirt, short shorts, extra support for the boobs etc...
Like this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.halloweencostumes.com%2Fproducts%2F9771%2F1-1%2Fsexy-tin-woman-costume.jpg&hash=cc17ed07a9d068f70bdec8c41e2f8334cb8b1a10)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa248.e.akamai.net%2Forigin-cdn.volusion.com%2Fh35fd.rs5p2%2Fv%2Fvspfiles%2Fphotos%2FSH7589-2.jpg%3F1332441817&hash=7d1ecb498774be2537686371dfb941ec345532a0)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.3wishes.com%2Fimages%2Fhaveaheart-dh.jpg&hash=97ab71dd75cb867bd46c464db08b296339789410)
Doesn't strike me as overly homosexual...
YOU SAID NOTHING OF FEMALES.
Neat.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 16, 2013, 07:08:34 PM
YOU SAID NOTHING OF FEMALES.
Quote from: Jacob on September 16, 2013, 06:45:25 PM
Just picture tinman and cowardly lion as really hot chicks on some of those "sexy halloween" costumes :)
I meant to say "in" not "on", but on can still work. The key part now underlined and bolded for your convenience.
I do not accept your xiacobisms.
Or is that clothes minded? :hmm:
I don't agree with them but the National Secular Society's response is pleasantly sensible and liberal and shows why Anglo-American style secularism is better than the French style :P
http://www.secularism.org.uk/the-burka.html