Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The veil banned by Judge

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   
A quick update on the veil saga.

George Glossop, a part-time immigration Judge asked Miss Shabnam Mughal a muslim lawyer to remove her veil so he could hear her properly, during the morning session.
But she refused and and the case was adjourned till afternoon.
After the court reconvened the judge had to ask Miss Mughal to repeat herself after failing to hear hows she spelled her name.
He asked her to remove her veil kindly to assist in communications, as it has happens in other cases.
Miss Mughal replied to the judge she is taking her leave.
She later insisted she would carry on wearing the veil as she believes she has a right to, due to her religious beliefs.



Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley, said it was “outrageous” that Miss Mughal had defied the judge’s order.



A tribunal ruled she was not discriminated against, but she plans to take her fight to Europe, funded by taxpayers’ money.


Soft touch britain again at it's best, what a waste of taxpayers money, and i have a feeling those European cronnies will come down in her favour.
How can people expect to bring their customs from othere country's and impose them within british society, it just beggers belief.

I dont know if you guys in america are having these problems, if you are let me know and let me know what you think about the subject.

Anyway that's my moan for now, for full storey visit

www.express.co.uk...




posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
If this had been any other person disobeying a Judge, it would be contempt of court.

Has this woman been brought up on such charges?



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   
No i don't believe any charges have been brought against her. but she will attempt to bring charges against the Judge if possible.
And your right, the veil is a sensitive topic at the moment and if it was a none muslim they would have been in deep horse sh*t.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Also, what drives me crazy and I have mentioned it on many occasions, is that the veil is NOT a religious symbol. It is cultural, like the coourful dresses you see Africans wear or a kilt you see scotsmen wear.

It isn't required in Islam to dress like a two-sleeper tent. Anyone who says different is dillusional.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
This whole veil thing is getting out of hand, and I suspect the cause might be a couple of extremists who desire to create problems and stir up crap.

The veil is not a requirement of Islam, and the hijab is perfectly acceptable by both Islamic and western standards. They speak of tolerance respect for culture, yet its a two way street. In western society, covering your face is viewed with suspicon and is considered rude. Covering your head and hair are not. And if you look at most muslim countries, the women vary in their coverings.

If a fellow Pagan showed up to court wearing long robes, antler headress, and wanted to burn incense during a trial, I would support any judge who kicked them out, as such behavior is disruptive.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I think we are missing the point, which is the importance of the veil to Muslim women. The veil is of great importance to these women, and asking them to remove it is insulting. If the judge had asked us to remove our underwear so he could hear us better, would we agree? Or would be decline his order?

However, some form of acculturation should be expected. Especially with her profession.

Would others be held in contempt? Possibly. But if it were our own religion, and the court asked us to defy the religion in order to please it, would we support them?

Reading the article, gives a strong indication that the Judge was very polite and sensitive on the subject. Miss Mughal was very quick to react to the judges request, which has me second guessing my sympathy, but an alternate course could of been possible.

I am sure the court could of concocted something to please the Judge and Miss Mughan without having to waste tax dollars. I'm undecided on this one. I can see where the woman has been disruptive, but I feel the court itself could of made some efforts to resolve this quickly.

[edit on 8-11-2006 by chissler]



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
The veil is only "important" to a minority (and especially, recent converts). It has no bearing on Islam. There is no requirement in Islam to wear a veil. End of.

it is no different to being asked to wear shoes in certain establishments, rather than trainers, or perhaps wear a tux to a black tie do. You certainly wouldn't turn up to a dinner party wearing a swimming costume, would you? it's entirely innapropriate.

Now, if she actually went back and read her holy book again, she would see that the demands requested in the Koran are to "dress modestly" and it applies to both Men and Women. Whats the betting that if she feels she needs to wear a veil, that her husband does not? Hmmmm? I would put money on him wearing levi's, to be honest.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by reaper2
I dont know if you guys in america are having these problems, if you are let me know and let me know what you think about the subject.


There was a case here in the U.S. recently where a Muslim woman was involved in a civil case and the judge ordered that she could not wear her veil in the courtroom because the judge and jury needed to see her face to help determine whether she was telling the truth or not. The woman refused so the judge ruled summarily against her.

I agree with that btw.

[edit on 11/8/2006 by djohnsto77]



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

There was a case here in the U.S. recently where a Muslim woman was involved in a civil case and the judge ordered that she could not wear her veil in the courtroom because the judge and jury needed to see her face to help determine whether she was telling the truth or not. The woman refused so the judge ruled summarily against her.
I agree with that btw.
[edit on 11/8/2006 by djohnsto77]


Great so were not alone, but i wonder, what next what can and or should we do to resolve this tedious issue in the most appropriate way.
A flat out ban would cause riots and asking them to integrate and not always were the veil would cause uproar.
I feel this issue will not go away just yet, i feel some action will be taken against the veil in some form or another, just what our MP's will decide on i don't know. Pehaps banning them in classrooms, courts and other public offices may be a starting point.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   
It seems a simple matter of being able to understand a person, and to be able to see ones facial features in order to facilitate better communications. Common courtisy would seem to hold here, not to mention the lawyer being able to communicate her client's needs properly. She would seem to be, on the face of it, not doing that to the best of her ability, and should be sanctioned for that if nothing else.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   
The majority of you have no contact with these people and for some its nothing more then just wanting them to be offended. Its their religion so get over it. Wether its required or not it is the way they choose to live their religious life. Its not against their religion, like some Christians, they interpret their Koran in different ways. Jews don't have to wear Yamulkes, some don'yt have to have Peyot, or wear all black and a Hat, but yet they do.


There are only 3 or 4 instances I disagree with wearing a full face veil

1. Drivers license pictures. There should be absolutely no leeway given here.
2. Passport Pictures (same as above)
3. Student ID pictures
4. Absolutely no full face veil while driving. If not then dont drive. There should be no visual impairments.

If asked to be identified they should comply with a brief viewing of their face long enough to be identified.

The majority of these people generally stick within their own groups and very rarely interact with "others" anyway so they are in no way inconveniencing people so much that you should feel so insulted. If they are extremely religous they usually just take care of their kids and stay home.


The idea that the judge could not hear the lawyer through a thin piece of material is retarded. He was just trying to intimidate her. She didn't have a gag in her mouth.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   
ThePieMan, I wasn't saying they shouldn't wear it, what I am saying is that the defence of "but it's my religion" doesn't stand, as it has nothing to do with their religion.

If asked to remove it, remove it. It can be put back on again.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
ThePieMan, I wasn't saying they shouldn't wear it, what I am saying is that the defence of "but it's my religion" doesn't stand, as it has nothing to do with their religion.

If asked to remove it, remove it. It can be put back on again.
Well not you but there are many people who say that they shouldn't be practising their traditions in another country, those are the people who believe they shouldn't.
The judge saying he couldn't hear through her veil is just ridiculous. She was a layer not a defendant or a witness , there was no need for her to reveal her face. I think the judge wanted to make a point . If the lawyer is smart she will hook up a small PA system.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
When there is an important reason to see someone's face or the veil would be a danger to public safety, it should be illegal. But in all other cases, it should be allowed IMHO.

Therefore, in my view, people driving, people testifying in court or a party to a court case, people piloting aircraft, and so on shouldn't be allowed to wear the veil while engaging in those activites, but someone just attending a school class, someone just in the audience of a court and not involved directly in the case at the time, etc. should be allowed to wear their veils if they want to.





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join