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

[Bobbie En Tejas]

Malky and Sheik, you aren't understanding the point here.

This has nothing to do with religion. I'm still interested in the criminal damage charge.

[the phone girl]

I'm curious, if someone is veilled and essentially cannot be visually identified, how do witnesses make a dock identification - necessary in any criminal trial, not just Sheriff and Jury or High Court trials?? There is new legislation which came in to assist Vulnerable witnesses such as children give evidence without having to see the accused and because of that the new law had to be brought in to take away the need for dock ID's, however, prior to the trial there needs to be an ID parade of sorts held where the accused is phographed and a photograph parade is made up for the vulnerable witness to view - so faces still require to be seen. I think I'll pop in to a court and ask the officials there how the courts here operate. Perhaps there are similar arrangements for different faiths. Will report back folks.

[Sheik Yir Erse]

I think everyone is NOT understanding the point - you have to look at it in relation to this particualr trial, and not in relation to your own prejudices as to what people should or should not wear in our country!

In this particular case, it is quite simple.
There was NO question over the person's identity. I've stated this thoughout. We are NOT talking about every case where identification is an issue, I am talking about this case. We are not talking about the now widely discredited Dock ID situation. I've stated before, in these cases the judiciary has guidelines laid down, and the defendant must adhere to these requeirements to remove the niqab. This was NOT the case here.

So we get to the bottom of everyone's prejudices in that it's quite simple - it doesn't actually matter about this particualr case - we generally don't like Muslim women wearing a niqab and it's just not right! That's essentially the undertone of everyone's arguement here . No-one has come with a counter arguement against me other than those of bike helmets, being naked, Glasgow Airport attacks and Ramadan. I think therefore I've proved quite conclusively that in this instance she did nothing wrong, all she has succeeded in doing is highlighting the prejudices which exist within the British population.

I didn't realise there were that many Daily Mail and Daily Express readers on the forum, I'm obviously wrong. The ability to have a grown up debate seems to have disappeared.

Bobbie the case was adjourned until the 18th July - you'll find out more about the charges at that point. Unlike the States we tend not to put people on trial by the media, before they've been fairly tried.

Havind said that if Charlie and Daft Dog have their way, she should probably already been deported to Guantanamo, then we wouldn't have to go through the formalities of a trial. Oops sorry I'm straying into Express reader arguements now.

[gizmo]

Ah! I understand now, it is everyone else who is wrong and indeed racists... You should all be ashamed... Just as a matter of interest Sheiky, what paper do you recommend we plebs should read...

[Sheik Yir Erse]

OK Gizmo - let me hear your arguement against this woman in this situation?

I've yet to hear one, and I've been listening for a while. I await enlightenment.......

[daftdog]

I didn't realise there were that many Daily Mail and Daily Express readers on the forum, I'm obviously wrong. The ability to have a grown up debate seems to have disappeared.

Havind said that if Charlie and Daft Dog have their way, she should probably already been deported to Guantanamo, then we wouldn't have to go through the formalities of a trial. Oops sorry I'm straying into Express reader arguements now.

Sorry to disappoint shake, but i read the Daily Record from Monday to Saturday and the Sunday Mail on Sundays.

Further more.. i haven't mentioned anything to do with her crimes in my posts.. my points were about the covering of her face in a court of law.

The Judge involved in the case refused to deal with the case because he had concerns about the defendants IDENTITY..

and not in relation to your own prejudices as to what people should or should not wear in our country!

As for calling everyone else who disagrees with your point PREJUDICED, get of that camel and read what i said..

I repeat for you - RELIGION HAS NO PLACE IN A COURT OF LAW -

[jester and the fool]

I agree with a lot of what "sheik" is saying with regards to this particular case,just this one,no others,!However,with regards to veil wearing,helmets etc.When people cover their faces it triggers a fear factor.I walk towards you wearing a shemagh over my face,how do you feel? Me personally,my survival instict would kick in and i would become wary.Perhaps a lot of it is to do with trust,and feeling safe rather than racism.I dont deny there is racism and stereotyping etc,and that should nt be the case,but it is,right across the board.
Why do special forces including police wear black and cover their faces when the situation calls for it.One reason is the fear factor,it gives them valuable time to react before you.
Despite our stiff upper lip attitude,people are scared,because a select few choose to terrorise others.If being wary means we are all racists,well most of us are then!
I dont agree with "sheik" using the racism card so freely,but i can see his point on this court biz.
A man comes running directly towards you wearing B.D.U and his face is covered with a shemagh,all you can see is his eyes,what is your reaction and first feelings sheik-predudice and racism? extreme i know but.....

[Sheik Yir Erse]

Once more, with gusto.....

Where exactly did I say that religion had a place in the court of law?

The Judge involved in the case refused to deal with the case because he had concerns about the defendants IDENTITY..

Do you not think he might have asked her to remove the niqab then?
Do you not think the other magistrates would have done the same?
Do you not think he should have refferred to the judiciaries guidelines?
Do you think he might have explained to anyone why he refused to try the case?

..... I'm sure the enlightenment will be along any day now.

Incidentally I haven't called anyone racist, I've merely said that people have prejudices, which does not equate to racism in my book. Maybe it does in someone else's, but not in mine.

[Sheik Yir Erse]

with regards to this particular case,just this one,no others,!

Thank you - my arguements have always been in relation to this case, and no others.

[daftdog]

Once more, with gusto.....

Where exactly did I say that religion had a place in the court of law?

I never said you said that..... I SAID THAT...

Incidentally I haven't called anyone racist, I've merely said that people have prejudices, which does not equate to racism in my book. Maybe it does in someone else's, but not in mine.

I take it that wasn't directed at me, as i havent even typed the word "racist" until now.


I will repeat... my personal opinion is that items of clothing that conceal the identity of a person accused of a crime should not be allowed in a court of law, whether they are religious or not. For that reason, i personally believe the judge had the right to excuse himself from the case if he had concerns about the identity of the accused. Yes he could have made it clear why he didn't want to try the case.

If he had requested the accused remove the niqab, would that have been ok with the woman and if she refused, would you say he had the right to excuse himself then??

[general jack o'niell]

you are not allowed to wear such clothing for a passport picture, therefor there are circumstances when it shouldn't be allowed to be worn, as in the court case or when passing thru airport security. likewise with the recent story of people paying others to sit driving tests whats to stop someone turning up wearing one of those things to sit their test?

[Sheik Yir Erse]

I repeat for you - RELIGION HAS NO PLACE IN A COURT OF LAW -

Apologies, I thought the reason you were repeating this for me, was because this was your counter to my arguement. I wasn't sure why you were repeating that for me, because as far as I was aware religion was never the basis for this discussion. But maybe we were just misunderstanding each other's arguements.

Furthermore the 'racist' bit wasn't meant for you, when you read further up you'll see who mentioned the term first. Equally when you read further up you'll notice who mentioned the Daily Mail and Daily Express first (you'll find that neither of them were me)

I hear what your personal opinion is regarding the wearing of the niqab in court, unfortunately you'll find that this is not the same as that laid down by the judiciary. Doesn't make it wrong - my point throughout this is that the woman has done nothing wrong.

If the magistrates (all three, or even a majority) had felt there was a need to re-confirm the identity of the individual, and she had refused, then you are precisely correct - they should not have tried the case. She should go back on remand until she is ready to abide by the laws of this land. Unfortunately, that's not what happened tho', and she was abiding by the laws of the land! I've maintained throughout, that if there is any debate over a person's identity then they must abide by the court's decision and identify themselves. Hopefully this clarifies my position on this case.

Anyway - think we've all probably had enough on this one now. Strange how Charlie never joined the debate he started Bobbie's suspicions have more founding as the days go on

[jester and the fool]

"Sheik",My apologies to you,for i erred.I seem to have accused you of racism,which was wrong of me.Upon further reading of other posts i see the word had been used,but not by you.
We are generally a very blinkered society,and it seems to be "our way" or "no way" a lot of the time.The unknown breeds fear and fear breeds......

Once again i publically apologise,whilst removing my cockscomb
and as i can only type using two fingers (and proud of it),i will apologise to eveyone prior to me making any more boo boos

[Bobbie En Tejas]

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?

Incidentally I haven't called anyone racist, I've merely said that people have prejudices, which does not equate to racism in my book. Maybe it does in someone else's, but not in mine.

I think the first quote is where we got the idea you said that, Sheik.

[Sheik Yir Erse]

Fair point Bobbie, I was agreeing with Charlie's assessment of him/herself.

Apologies for my transgression for agreeing with Charlie

Anyway, as you so rightly pointed out, this probably doesn't matter because Charlie doesn't exist!