Saturday - August 24, 2013

lawyers confer to decide if muslim will be offended.

Is there anyone here who can’t recall a time when first of all, anyone trying on this crap in court would end up behind bars and none of this rights crap?  And second, do you recall as I do, that nobody appearing in a courtroom would even think of this nonsense?  But these days, rights trumps all.  True, the slag didn’t get away with it entirely. But come on.

The judge must allow lawyers to argue whether the defendant has to remove her veil?  Where’s the argument?  It should be an automatic NO for the reason given by the judge, and as common sense would dictate.
So once again everyone must go the extra mile for a member of the rop.
It’s all in the interests of rights though. ( gags) Never mind that it isn’t a natural part of a western country, and the host country at that.
She may have been born here, I have no idea. But even if she was, I consider her and her kind as a wedge being driven under the culture of a host country.  OK, maybe I can’t tell anyone what being English means.  But I know what it ain’t when I see it and hear it.  It’s kinda like the duck thing. Innit?  They don’t bark or go meow but if they quack, well then.

Take a look.  Typical of the times.

Judge orders Muslim woman to remove burkha during court appearance then bans her from entering plea after she refuses

· Judge Peter Murphy said open justice overrides religious belief in court

· Woman, 21, said she cannot remove her veil in front of men at all

· Judge said there is a risk someone could pretend to be her in the dock

· Case adjourned so lawyers can argue whether the defendant must remove her veil

· Defendant, who cannot be named, is charged with intimidating a witness

By ROB COOPER

A judge told a Muslim woman she must remove her burkha in court before she can enter a plea after she refused to reveal her face.
Judge Peter Murphy said the principle of open justice overrode the 21-year-old woman’s religious beliefs, and warned there was a risk a different person could go into the dock pretending to be her.
The woman, from Hackney, east London, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, appeared before Blackfriars Crown Court today charged with intimidating a witness.
She said she cannot remove the veil in front of men because of her religious beliefs.

Judge Murphy told her: ‘It is necessary for this court to be satisfied that they can recognize the defendant.  ‘While I obviously respect the right to dress in any way she wishes, certainly while outside the court, the interests of justice are paramount.

‘I can’t, as a circuit judge, accept a plea from a person whose identity I am unable to ascertain.’ He added: ‘It would be easy for someone on a later occasion to appear and claim to be the defendant.
‘The court would have no way to check on that.’ Her barrister, Claire Burtwistle, told the court the woman was not prepared to lower her veil at all while men were in the room.

‘In front of women, it is not an issue’, she said. ‘It is simply men that she will not allow to see her face.’
Ms Burtwistle suggested herself, a female police officer or a female prison guard could identify the defendant and confirm to the court that it is the same person as in the police arrest photos.

Prosecutor Sarah Counsell added that the police officer in charge of the case was content that he recognised the defendant while she was in the burkha.

But Judge Murphy rejected the suggestions, saying: ‘It seems to me to be quite fundamental that the court is sure who it is the court is dealing with.
‘Furthermore, this court, as long as I am sitting, has the highest respect for any religious tradition a person has.
‘In my courtroom also, this sometimes conflicts with the interests of a paramount need for the administration of justice. In my courtroom, that’s going to come first.’
The judge added: ‘There is the principle of open justice and it can’t be subject to the religion of the defendant whether the principle is observed or not.
‘I am not saying this because of the particular form of dress by this defendant, I apply that to any form of dress that had the same issues.’

Judge Murphy adjourned the case for legal argument over whether the defendant should have to remove her veil.

It will be heard again on September 12, when the defendant is expected to enter a not guilty plea and go to trial.
The defendant is alleged to have intimidated a witness, in Finsbury Park, north London, in June.

source

Posted by peiper     on 08/24/2013 at 05:19 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • muslims •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner