Should Muslim women be allowed to wear a full-face veil in court?

[merehazle]

Lord Neuberger, the President of the Supreme Court,  said that judges should allow women to wear traditional dress as they should 'show, and be seen to show'  respect to different customs.

Wearing a veil is not a religious requirement and respecting the culture of the chosen country is more important than making a political point.  It is impossible to tell if someone is lying if you cant see their face. 

Will he be recommending that we ALL be allowed face hiding? Or is that just another one of the many special privileges, handed out to the special few?  This is the UK.  Mr Neuberger.  

Who's playing the victim card?  

[cee-dee]

I think that................ If people want to leave their country of origin and come here, they should adopt our way of life and our language.

If they want to leave behind their country, they should leave behind their outdated ways of life too.

If they don't want to do those things, don't come here!

[023mjc]

No. How can they prove who they are ? Could be anyone under there. Would they allow me to hide my face in court - I don't think so !!!   In which case it's racist.

My dentist is a muslim lady, but she just wears the head scarf. She's a lovelly lady and a brilliant dentist. Just pointing out that I have no problems with muslims before someone jumps on me. However, I was once treated in hospital by a woman doctor (at least I assume it was a woman) who was covered up from head to toe and only the eyes showed. I felt very uncomfortable.

[ravendays]

There is another way to look at it; would a male be allowed into a place of work wearing a mask and god forbid it be a bank?!?!? Of course not...

[******lynda******]

What Cee-Dee says

[Anonymous]

I feel that where identification is of importance they should show their whole face.

So definitely in court, where I feel it's very important to see peoples facial expressions and body language.  Also at air ports and on their passport photos. They can always cover their face back up once past customs.

We have to cover ourselves up when holidaying in their countries, so they should adhere to certain rules here as well.

I have to apply for a new Dutch passport on Tuesday.. I had to make sure my ears were visible, my whole forehead, meaning I had to put gel in my hair to get my fringe out of my face. All of your face has to be visible. They are very strict. 10 years ago I had to have new passport photos made because my forehead was a bit covered by my hair on the ones I had done, even though you could still see part of it.

The Muslims in Holland are still allowed to have their ears covered and only need to push their headscarf up half way up their forehead from what I have seen on the Dutch embassy website. I find that discrimination.

[jd.linklater]

I agree with what the majority have said but it's not only in court cases that they should be banned. Too many terrorist criminals are disguising themselves as women in burkas and niqabs to escape justice and flee the country. This has been a problem as long ago as 2005 when the Somali so called asylum seeker shot and killed WPC Sharon Beshenivsky, high time they were banned from the UK. 

[fallen-archie]

If it is vital for an individual to cover their face because of a medical condition OK. Much of it boils down to hardline Muslims wishing to see all females covered up to prevent temptation whatever that may mean. But as CD has said we have traditions too, if you come to these islands please observe them as we do when visiting countries that require is to cover up.

[jd.linklater]

No need to get all medieval embs, they are human beings after all  

[astrologica]

I agree with Cee Dee.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

I think that................ If people want to leave their country of origin and come here, they should adopt our way of life and our language.

If they want to leave behind their country, they should leave behind their outdated ways of life too.

If they don't want to do those things, don't come here!

---

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree.

The difficulty is banning full face covering may lead to those women not being allowed out of the home.  This creates a situation where they are vulnerable to abuse, with no one to turn to.  

I do think, as Harry points out ^^^^, you cannot allow certain leeway to one group and not another.  

[merehazle]

---

@jd.linklater wrote:

No need to get all medieval embs, they are human beings after all  

---

Hi. I agree with you're post 7.

But how does your comment above relate to me?  Unless it is explained further embs, just might be taken as me.

However I think others might think that I made a 'medieval' comment.

All I have made is my OP',  and this message.  And I have had no post removed.

Thank you.   

[jd.linklater]

My post wasn't to you merehazle, it was a jokey response to embs.

Looks like I clicked reply on the wrong post, it was unintentional no offence intended.

[bookhunter2007]

---

@merehazle wrote:

Will he be recommending that we ALL be allowed face hiding? Or is that just another one of the many special privileges, handed out to the special few? 

---

That's a bit misleading Mere:

"A speech given by the President of the Supreme Court on 10 April has led to claims that the judge supports allowing Muslim women to wear a face-covering veil in court.

Lord Neuberger denies that he said any such thing.

What did he actually say?

His speech was delivered on “Fairness in the Courts”. In it, Lord Neuberger suggests what judges might do to ensure that the court system has the confidence of the public. One of these things is to “show… respect to everybody equally”.

“That requires some understanding as to how people from different cultural, social, religious or other backgrounds think and behave and how they expect others to behave. Well known examples include… how some women find it inappropriate to appear in public with their face uncovered.”

That’s been interpreted as indicating support for Muslim women to keep their faces covered in the public setting of a courtroom.

But clearly the speech doesn’t actually say that, and it can’t change the law. Neither the speech nor the statement explains whether Lord Neuberger has a view either way."

https://fullfact.org/factcheck/law/lord-neuberger-unveiled-42830

[merehazle]

---

@fallen-archie wrote:
If it is vital for an individual to cover their face because of a medical condition OK. Much of it boils downtohardline Muslims wishing to see all females covered up to prevent temptation whatever that may mean. But as CD has said we have traditions too, if you come to these islands please observe them as we do when visiting countries that require is to cover up.

---

'If it is vital for an individual to cover their face because of a medical condition OK.'  If only it were that simple?

Well that medical condition may identify the killer.  And acid attacks are not that uncommon nowadays. (they may splash themselves at the attack)  No, we apply our laws OUR way IMO.   

We, in  the UK , and Europe, have a cultural leaning towards an open society where faces are part of our understanding of people and we read faces in our daily contact knowing where we stand with people. I doubt I would make conversation's with a stranger wearing a balaclava as I would not know, without reading the face, whether I could trust that person.

Where does such stupidity stop? If everyone in the dock (or any other capacity in court) chooses to cover their faces, how on earth do we truly know that justice is being served? Do we accept the assurances of appointed third parties on this score (assuming they're not also wearing burkas)? 

#14. On the BIT you quoted, i'm asking the question. Not answering it. That's not misleading. It's a fact.  

[bookhunter2007]

---

@merehazle wrote:

#14. On the BIT you quoted, i'm asking the question. Not answering it. That's not misleading. It's a fact.

---

Just as well I posted a link to a fact-check then isn't it?

[bankhaunter]

It just amazes me how many woman regard acquiescing to subjugation as a virtue, I suppose it's the result of being sold the idea for centuries.

[malacandran]

Modern Western women don't acquiesce to subjugation. 

Only the Eastern women do it, because of a barbarous desert superstition.

[bankhaunter]

Modern Western women don't acquiesce to subjugation. 

Actually some do, fundamentalist Christians often accept the woman's role as just being there to produce children and look after their husbands and family.

The Christian faith requires women to be sbmissive to their husbands and frowns on any woman having authority over a man.

[malacandran]

But hasn't the modern Christian faith,  allowed women to become Vicars and Bishops, and even Archbishops? This is good progress, in the West. 

Also, hasn't the Virgin Mary historically had great authority over men. To the extent, that men seek her mercy, in their prayers of penance.

She is indeed the "Queen of Heaven".  And men genuflect to her.