aw, for goodness sake - there's bombers/terrorists about!

[Charlie]

Maybe I am a bit racist, but I just think people who move to the UK, should live by our rules. This story takes the biscuit. The law IS an ass - this is another example (especially if the magistrate get's disciplined)

Magistrate walks out in veil row

Mr Murray is working as normal: picture courtesy of MEN
A Manchester magistrate who refused to deal with a defendant because she was wearing a full Muslim face veil could face disciplinary action. Ian Murray, a Cheadle Hulme taxi driver who has served on the bench for 12 years, walked out of Manchester Magistrates' Court on Thursday.

Zoobia Hussain, 32, of Crumpsall, who is charged with criminal damage, plans to write and complain, her lawyer said. Mr Murray said he had been concerned about the defendant's identity. 'Deeply embarrassed' If a complaint is received, Mr Murray will automatically face an internal investigation, a spokesman for the Judiciary of England and Wales said. Hussain's lawyer, Judith Hawkins, said: "She [Mrs Hussain] remains shocked and distressed.

Mrs Hussain remains shocked and distressed. Mrs Hussain's lawyer, Judith Hawkins. "She suffered hurt feelings and felt intimidated and deeply embarrassed by the treatment she received at court. "She is also concerned for the feelings of others who were present in court." Mrs Hussain covered her entire face apart from her eyes when she faced the three magistrates. A statement from the Judiciary of England and Wales said: "Mr Murray is concerned about questions of identity when the full veil is worn in court.

"However, he agrees that he acted unwisely in disqualifying himself without giving reasons, and acknowledges that he should have sought the advice of his legal advisor in court, and discussed the provisions of the national guidelines with his colleagues on the bench, before taking action. "Mr Murray is supportive of those of different faiths and cultural traditions and acknowledges and regrets his action could be misinterpreted."

Mr Murray is "continuing to work as normal" while no complaint exists, a judiciary spokesman said. Mrs Hussain's case was dealt with immediately after Mr Murray withdrew and was adjourned until 18 July.

[Annie]

I think they are taking this veil thing way too far!!!!

[general jack o'niell]

mmmmm, my birthday, should i be suspicious? is there a big surprise party being organised with a free holiday to gitmo for me? (no thats not a shortened opinion of myself, even if i do post in the third person occasionally, does that make me a moderator?)

[Wee Toon Ajax]

Charlie, fair points but also remember that there are now over 2 million from our island who are now living abroad, a figure which far exceeds those who have migrated into our country.

Do we all who have move abroad follow the protocol and standards in the countries we now adopt as home - no we dont, you are welcome to come over to amsterdam some time and find out how many of the expats here speak dutch or go to spain to the "brit"communities there and see how expats there live a spanish lifestyle.

I read the british papers and news websites on a regular basis and have to laugh at the right wing papers such as the daily mail, daily express which are full of stories about the people who move to Britain and are now spoiling the "british"way of life and are not living a life which confirms to our protocol. At the same time these newspapers contain about 12 pages of adverts for buying properties abroad in such countries as spain, france, and especially now Bulgaria. Do Brits who move or have 2nd home in Bulgaria speak Bulgarian and live like the locals - do they like heck, instead they will drink in expat pubs, watch satellite tv, read british newspapers and eat british style food. At least the majority of those who are moving to the UK will "do so for economic reasons - they will find jobs in the uk, they will pay British tax etc. This is certainly not true of a large number of the British people who move overseas - they will retire to their new country where they are not working but instead are living off the profits from selling their homes in the UK. Therefore they are not paying local income tax or doing some form of work which generates an income. A large number of those moving to the UK are doing so out of an economic necessity, to attain a better way of life for themselves and family, unlike a vast number of Brits moving overseas who are doing so to basically retire in the sun. I mean who in their right mind from abroad would want to retire to the uk.

Can you imagine the outcry from the aforementioned newspapers if the spanish, dutch, french or bulgarian media were to launch attacks on the British expat populations there, which they probably have a lot of right to do. It is very easy for these newspapers and people in general to launch attacks on the like of the Poles, Bulgarians, Romaninans and especially the Muslim population but never to see the other side of the coin in the effects that Brits moving overseas have on their economy. In Europe the main one has been to increase house prices - this is where Brits are outbidding locals on houses and therefore inflating house prices to a level which are beyond local means. In fact, a similar situation is occurring in Campbeltown where house prices are now beyond the means of a number of locals, especially the young.

People have to realise that the world is changing and that mass migration is going to be very common from now on. Yes, when people do move to another country they should adopt local protocol etc but this is not always the case and before people moan about incomers to the UK they should maybe stop and think about the effects that our own population have on the economies and way of life of other countries when we move abroad.

[Sheik Yir Erse]

Well said WTA.

Charlie re your point about "Maybe I am a bit racist" well there's not too much 'maybe' about it. Is there a law the woman broke by wearing her veil?

She was bieng charged for criminal damage, so not sure where your thread title of bombers and terrorists come into play? Maybe you're guilty, along with the rest of the Daily Mail and Daily Express readers, of grossly stereotyping a culture. If she wears a veil she could be trying to hide the fact she's a terrorist! Wake up, or join the BNP.

At WTA said, imagine the headlines if a Brit was up in court in Indonesia and the judge refused to put them on trial becuase they had a cross around their neck!

I fully understand the point if the woman was in a line-up and required to be identified. I believe this not to have been the case tho' in this instance.

The judge's subsequent statements point out he realised he was wrong.

[Beachcomber]

Charlie re your point about "Maybe I am a bit racist" well there's not too much 'maybe' about it. Is there a law the woman broke by wearing her veil?

Perhaps. By refusing to remove it and allow herself to be identified she might well be considered to be in contempt of court.

Assuming I were up before the Judge, would it be allowed for me to wear my full-face motorcycle helmet? I think not.

The issue here is visual identification of the defendant.

[Bobbie En Tejas]

I agree with beachcomber.

I don't think anyone should be in a situation like that where they can't be fully identified. Does a person's religion give them the right to different standards in a court of law? What if someone else's religion called for them to shun clothing. Would the court agonize over whether they would be allowed to stand it front of the court stark naked (but fully identifiable ) if that were part of their religious beliefs. Does the age of the religion matter. Does the woman always wear the full veil with only the eyes showing 100% of the time, or just to court.

Alex, I doubt the veil is illegal, but could another person walk in with a mask on? Is it legal for you to stand before the judge with a hat on your head? I don't think this has anything to do with racism (religion isn't a race anyway), but common sense.

[Sheik Yir Erse]

Bobbie / Beachcomber - Lets be logical about this, do you think this is the first time anyone has ever worn a niqab in courtroom? No, definitely not, therefore you'll find that the judiciary has guidelines to deal with the wearing of the niqab in these situations. Each case should be judged on it's merits, according to agreed guidelines.

The magistrate was one of three sitting on the case. Neither of the other two felt there was a concern over the lady's identity.

Perhaps. By refusing to remove it and allow herself to be identified she might well be considered to be in contempt of court.

She was NOT asked to remove it. The magistrate refused to hear the case, and gave no reason for this. He later apologised and said his actions were "unwise". The issue here it therefore NOT one of visual identification of the defendant.

Both your arguements about motorcylce helmets and people who shun clothing are spurious and irrelevant. There are laws against indecency and you would expect people to live by our laws. Equally someone who believed their religious right was to murder people, does not make them immune from our laws. There is no law against wearing a niqab in the UK. If there was, then rightly she should be prosecuted.

Does the woman always wear the full veil with only the eyes showing 100% of the time, or just to court.

There are many interpretations of when a Muslim woman should wear a niqab. I understand that they are an addition to the hijab which should be worn infront of any man they could theoretically marry. Hence they don't have to wear it in front of their fathers, brothers, children and other muslim women. This might help with your understanding, but I might be slightly wrong.

So in essence she did nothing wrong - this is another aspect of us persecuting those who are of 'different' beliefs to us.

My main point here is that of tolerance where it's due, and not putting this under a heading about 'terrorists and bombers' The person in the wrong here is the magistrate! The lady will hopefully be tried fairly and sentenced accordingly if found guilty.

I just think people who move to the UK, should live by our rules.

..... now that's what takes the biscuit!

Will try and stop responding to Charlie's posts from now on.

[Beachcomber]

Both your arguements about motorcylce helmets and people who shun clothing are spurious and irrelevant.

Whatever...

[Bobbie En Tejas]

We have had this discussion before. I don't think it is irrelevant. The irrelevant thing would be how a person dresses outside of court or what their belief is. In court you should expect to be treated 100% equally, and to follow the standards of the court 100% equally.

Part of how judges and juries make decisions on guilt and innocence is body language, looks on the face, how the person says something, the person's demeanor.

Sorry, I don't think a person's religion should be take precedence over the law of the land and courts of land.

[Sheik Yir Erse]

Bobbie - you are 100% correct - you should expect to be treated 100% equally, and that applies to whether you wear a niqab or not!

Part of how judges and juries make decisions on guilt and innocence is body language, looks on the face, how the person says something, the person's demeanor.

Strange therefore that blind people are NOT barred from jury service, don't you think?

You all seem to be missing the point here, you are making this more a point about wearing the niqab, which you apparently you all seem to have an issue with. You need to try and look at this case on it's own merits and not through your own prejudices.

The facts are quite simple:

Were there any issues of dubiety over the woman's identity? No
Was she asked to remove her niqab? No
Did the magistrate tell her why he refused to try her? No
Did the other two magistrates feel the need to stop the trial? No
Did she break any laws? No
Are there guidelines in place for dealing with this issue? Yes
Did the magistrate realise he was wrong, in this instance, and apologise? Yes

The irrelevant thing would be how a person dresses outside of court

...... exactly, so why did you bring it up then?????

Whatever...

...... snappy arguement ..... or does that make me the bloody pig again?

[Bobbie En Tejas]

Actually, I am quite without prejudice in this. How a person dresses outside of court isn't the issue, that is why it is irrelevant. If you think that judges and jurors don't assess your demeanor by the senses they possess in court, I believe you are mistaken. If someone has the right to go into court and remain faceless with their demeanor hidden, everyone should have that same opportunity if they choose. Just out of curiosity, what were the circumstances behind the criminal damage charge?

As for you being a bloody pig, I don't have a clue about that and its not relevant to this conversation

[Sheik Yir Erse]

If someone has the right to go into court and remain faceless with their demeanor hidden, everyone should have that same opportunity if they choose.

That's the great thing about this country - you do have that opportunity. As long as your identity is not a cause for concern - you can wear a veil whatever religion you are.

Anyway, on your assertions wearing the niqab is likely to be counter-productive as potential jurors are likely to think (like you and many others) ........ "I don't like this veil thing, she's got something to hide, she's guilty!"

I'm not so sure I would choose to wear one in court in the UK as I'm sure, given the debate over niqab's recently, it is likely she will receive less favourable hearing.

It's about religious freedom, and freedom of expression. When we start to legislate against this then we'll be no better than the Taleban.

[Malky]

Anyway, on your assertions wearing the niqab is likely to be counter-productive as potential jurors are likely to think (like you and many others) ........ "I don't like this veil thing, she's got something to hide, she's guilty!"

That's a crucial point Sheik and I suspect not everyone who serves on jury duty will be able to see past that. Sometimes, even people with the best of intentions will still be ruled by their sub-conscious.

Malky

[daftdog]

I dont really care what anyone does in their own private life with regards to religion, but if you are in court for anything, then you should dress appropriately and be visually identifiable.

Wearing the niqab leaves open the door for someone other than the accused to actually stand in front of the judge and/or jury.

What if she was one of the people involved in the attack on the airport yesterday?? You cant pick and choose when its appropriate to cover your face in court.

What next!! Sorry ma lord, i cant attend court that day its the start of Ramadan... Religion has no place in a court of law