Court grapples with lawyer's veil

[Oday_Shirwac]

ku dhac

[Dhagax-Tuur]

Okay, if this is a simple case of the judge not being able to hear the lawyer, then why publicise it? There is surely a way that this muslim lady can wear her niqab and be able to be heard. I think there is truth in the muslim bashing by the media and establishment. Is that jumping the gun? I don't think so. It was Mayor Livingstone who likened muslim of today to the Jews before the mass killing of the jews by the Hitler's regime. Therefore, we are being targeted for whatever it is that we do because we are muslims. If you don't realise it now, you will realise it sooner or later.

[NGONGE]

Lawyers 'can wear veils in court'

 

Legal advisers and solicitors may wear the Islamic veil in court unless it interferes with the "interests of justice", judges have been told.

The judiciary were told to use their discretion to interpret the temporary guidance, which covers all courts.

 

The advice was issued by immigration tribunals chief Mr Justice Hodge after a case had to be halted when a legal adviser refused to remove her veil.

 

The Lord Chief Justice said full rules on the veils issue were being drawn up.

 

Case adjourned

 

Earlier this week it emerged legal adviser Shabnam Mughal had refused to remove her headwear during an immigration tribunal in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire.

 

She had been asked to do so by Judge George Glossop, who said he could not hear her properly.

 

Eventually Judge Glossop adjourned the hearing to seek advice from president of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) Mr Justice Hodge.

 

It is understood the hearing will now go ahead next week with a different judge presiding.

 

The case followed weeks of controversy over the wearing of Muslim veils.

 

Last month teaching assistant Aishah Azmi, 23, lost an employment tribunal case after being suspended from her position at a school in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, for refusing to remove her veil in class.

 

Issuing the interim guidance on Thursday, Mr Justice Hodge said: "Immigration judges must exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis where a representative wishes to wear a veil.

 

"The presumption is that if a representative before an AIT tribunal wishes to wear a veil, has the agreement of his or her client and can be heard reasonably clearly by all parties to the proceedings, then the representative should be allowed to do so.

 

'Arrangements will vary'

 

"If a judge or other party to the proceedings is unable to hear the representative clearly then the interests of justice are not served and other arrangements will need to be made.

 

"Such arrangements will vary from case to case, subject to judicial discretion and the interests of all parties."

 

The guidance applies to all courts.

 

Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers said he had asked the equal treatment advisory committee of the Judicial Studies Board to develop detailed guidance on the use of veils by all people involved in court cases - including the parties, legal representatives, witnesses, jurors and magistrates.

 

 

Source

[Sophist]

Socodbadane “The poignant question that should be asked is ths: what religious precepts, tradition, and cultural requirements are muslim women willing to give up to be part of harmonious British society? If none, then why should the British acquiesce to muslim women's demands for accommodation”

 

 

Religous: NONE.

Wearing the veil is part and parcel of British culture-- in Britain the individual's liberty and the exercise of one's personal desire (so long as it is not deleterious to the wellbeing of others) is principle we hold dear; thusly the outbursts of some chaps who want to win political points won't change that fact.

 

Caano Geel; you are free to choose whom you want to be represented at her majesty's court if you are ever in trouble with Regina's laws. In regards to the Bar; she is allowed to wear the veil (of course she will have to show her face to a female member whence entering the hall) when taking the exam.

 

 

Walahi anigu, I admire anyone who stands up for their religious believes with conviction. Clearly this lady has done so. Well done to sister.

[Ms DD]

I find bit hypocritical when the very people who champion the freedom of expression and the right to choose suddenly are up in arms because a lady chose to wear a niqab. Very so authoritarian. The fact they hide behind the lack of integration claptrap is quite laughable. This 'cant hear ya' excuse doesnt wash with me. I know many niqabi sisters and i have no trouble hearing them.

 

What people wear is no no real importance. We are in a supposedly free society. People can wear what they like as long as they don't infringe on safety requirements (ie going through passport control) and people can either like or dislike what people wear.

 

Why has this been blown out of all proportion by the media. Yet another anti Muslim headline in as many weeks. In reality the number of women who completely cover up are tiny.

 

 

If a Muslim GP in the Midlands tells his local female patients to cover up their goodies when visiting him there will be an uproar.

 

Many people tell us that they respect liberty and thye don't want to challenge freedom of expression. So why are we having this conversation? Critise or disagree all you like but defend the rights for the muslim women to wear what she likes (Voltaire style)..Isnt this the oft-repeated statement we hear in this society?

 

Look deep into diversity and different cultures in the UK, how many styles and dresses will you find not in conformity with your "rationale."

 

Should we then introduce a unique style for all? The fact is the West which takes such pride in "freedom of expression" for all, now seems to be repenting and losing its "tolerance." Some people in the West think they have the right to do everything but are not prepared to see others enjoying the same free will.

[Caano Geel]

sophist ----- Walahi anigu, I admire anyone who stands up for their religious believes with conviction. Clearly this lady has done

so. Well done to sister. -----

 

Saxiib at what point in her quest was she fulfilling a religious tenant? Yes she has conviction, but this isn't about religion.

 

If she was protesting about the inadequate housing, chronic poverty, social marginalisation, and basically any of the other countless

issues that affect the Islamic community today, then ... well we know then she wouldn't get the public attention.

 

You know as well as i that the lady is arguing for her right to marginalise herself based on her cultural value (we know the niqaab is no more). In that case the judge has his rights to not oblige her values, and she has right to not accept .. ad-infinitum.

 

Therefore, my point is not about what this lady has the right to argue for or against, but (1) what she is arguing for: If this case ia about

dress, then its already been covered interestingly from the opposite perspective) and the consensus is wear what ever the hell you like, so long as it doesn't affect function. (2) If this is about raising a point, then where is the meeting point: Two options, 1. Total domination of side over the other or 2. a compromise where every one

looses something.

 

 

Cambarro Again, the point is not we are against her doing it, but:

 

1. She cant say this is for religion, it is more than requested by faith, therefore an option. And other people also have options.

 

2.We'll support her right to wear what ever she likes and it seems that the secular court thinks so too.

 

3. On the liberal front, now from your posts, i wouldn't disgrace you by putting you in that camp. But you seem to arguing for that front. So if your willing to support Ms Mughal's rights to wear what she pleases, would be so willing to graciously extend you blessing to all other women's rights to do the same.

 

4. Anti Muslim barrage -- its getting stronger and stronger, but the temporary suspension in function of the "common sense" gland in many loud Muslims seems to be feeding it. So please be as willing to lay

criticism.

 

 

- Anyhow it all just seems ineffectual, its more like what i would expect from a 16 yr-old rebelling and sending two fingers up at the establishment, not an attempt to further the interests of Muslims.

[NGONGE]

^^^^ You’re blowing a burst balloon there, saaxib. Common sense went out the window the minute we perceived an attack on Islam and Islamic values. Still, in the case of this lawyer I really fail to see how her thinking process goes when she knows that she’ll come up against many judges (who are not Muslim) that will be prejudiced against her clients purely because the advocate is wearing the ‘wrong’ attire. Wrong or right the lawyer’s responsibility should be to her client here. Surely if you’re going to do a job you need to attempt to do it perfectly and avoid the obvious pitfalls in your way instead of attempting to bulldoze them with your political stances! Bravado and emotional principles will eventually create a domino effect that will harm more veil-wearing sisters than this petulant lawyer. But, whom am I kidding here. The clash of civilisations has well and truly begun and every little corner from school to courts of law is a battlefield.

[Sophist]

Caano Geel: How is marganilisation? Anyone who is wearing the Niqab has the duty to normalise this type of attire man. As lawyer, she feels she has the right to wear what she likes so long as it does not interfere with her duties as a Barrister.

 

Ngone, if what she wears has detrimental effect on the client; his lordship's ratio decidendi would be utterly questionable and as such it won't be won't be stare decisis et non quieta movere. By the by, it won't hurt the client's case if any it would indeed help as this will create a reverse affect. And the question that Qui bono; answer will be clear.

 

Oho by the way sheekadu ma aha; Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Sophist:

Religous: NONE.

Wearing the veil is part and parcel of British culture-- in Britain the individual's liberty and the exercise of one's personal desire (so long as it is not deleterious to the wellbeing of others) is principle we hold dear;

But it is inimical to social comity. Otherwise, it wouldn't be an issue. No one is making fuss about Niqab wearing women ambling the streets of London. I see them in my relatively small city all the time, no problemo. Women wearing Niqab is not the issue per se. It's strictly a problem of Niqabed women asking the LAW to change to accomodate them. Like boarding a bus with bus pass showing her picture but refusing to show her face to the bus driver on religious grounds (this really happened!). Or checking into into security check-line at airports and refusing to show face to confirm identity. Criminals wear face masks to rob banks and these Niqabed women seriously think it's ok to walk into a bank wearing what amounts to a face mask and get serviced?

 

Why can't these women be tolerant, respectful, accomodating to British social mores and laws on the very few occassions where the two collide?

[Sophist]

Socod "Like boarding a bus with bus pass showing her picture but refusing to show her face to the bus driver on religious grounds (this really happened!). Or checking into into security check-line at airports and refusing to show face to confirm identity. Criminals wear face masks to rob banks and these Niqabed women seriously think it's ok to walk into a bank wearing what amounts to a face mask and get serviced?"

 

Old chap, you might have missed the issue. What you are talking about isn't culture; it is a security issue and as such this has been dealt with. If a lady wants to wear this because she is convinced that it is her religious duty then dear boy the airport the she can reveal her face to a female officer!. Culture is dynamic and fluid matey; religious laws are eternaly immutable.

[Ms DD]

Originally posted by Caano Geel:

Cambarro Again, the point is not we are against her doing it, but:

 

1. She cant say this is for religion, it is more than requested by faith, therefore an option. And other people also have options.

Niqab has a place in Islam, since the Prophet's wives were required to wear them. In today's context, many women attempt to emulate the best of women to bring themselves closer to God. All the power to them.

 

Nevertheless why do you assume that a religion teaching would suddenly matter to these people (those who object the niqab)? It is matter of principle. Regardless of what is being said here, there is ongiong battle against Islam. This wont stop here. Next will be Hijab and who knows, perhaps there will be a law against prayers. Now it is time to make stand. We are citizen of the country and as such, we will voice our concerns and protest. Yes people do have options, but when Tony Blair and Jack Straw have their say, then it becomes a problem. Instead of harping on that the niqab will damage community relations, what do you think these comments would do? Do yo know how many women were attacked since this unhelpful debate? It is not like we suddenly have a flux of niqabis.

 

Niqab involves a lot of commitment and for them it’s a really meaningful expression of Islam and they have the courage to do that. It takes a lot guts and courage to be able to go out in that attire. I say good luck to them and I wish i had the courage.

 

 

Originally posted by Caano Geel:

2.We'll support her right to wear what ever she likes and it seems that the secular court thinks so too.

I see everything but support for the niqabi sisters. This country prides itself for its values. Now they are all trampling on it now that muslims decide to stand up for their rights.

 

Originally posted by Caano Geel:

3. On the liberal front, now from your posts, i wouldn't disgrace you by putting you in that camp. But you seem to arguing for that front. So if your willing to support Ms Mughal's rights to wear what she pleases, would be so willing to graciously extend you blessing to all other women's rights to do the same.

You know..I would. From religious point of view, It wouldnt be appropriate to to force someone.

 

 

Originally posted by Caano Geel:

4. Anti Muslim barrage -- its getting stronger and stronger, but the temporary suspension in function of the "common sense" gland in many loud Muslims seems to be feeding it. So please be as willing to lay

criticism.

This reminds me of Germany 1930s when Jews were vilified in the newspapers on a daily basis till the tide turned against them. We are on the same path. Shame you cant see it. There isnt a day that muslims are harangued. What is the debate really about? Is it about the veil or is this another opportunity to degrade Muslims again.

 

 

Originally posted by Caano Geel:

- Anyhow it all just seems ineffectual, its more like what i would expect from a 16 yr-old rebelling and sending two fingers up at the establishment, not an attempt to further the interests of Muslims.

It shows that you have never spoken to a niqabi women. Women find comfort and solace in it. It's an expression of their identity, I don't think they do it to appear unreadable or invite suspicion. Nor do i think that they rebelling against the establishement. Once again, it is the establishmnt showing their hypocrisy.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Sophist:

religious laws are eternaly immutable.

That's precisely the problem -- the inflexibility on the part of few in performing their religious duties. The lawyer could have shown her face as asked by the judge and went on with business without so much hullabaloo. But no can do because her attire is uncompromisable and more important than matters at hand. Forgetting in the process, societal harmony is engendered by reaching consus, making compromise among competing options... best end result being one that delivers greatest good to greatest number of people and least harm to fewest number of people. This means some people will not always get what they want and therefore have to make compromise. Religion is not excuse for intransigence from both legal and rational standpoint.

 

 

PS. Law is nothing but the enforcement of societal morals and ethics. You can't ignore social mores as they are the source of some of those morals.

[Caano Geel]

Sophist

 

1st she is marganilising herself by choosing to deliberatly step outside the boundries of convension. Should she do that, who cares. can she so that, we'll support her rights to.

 

As much as i respect the right of anyone wear what ever they like, by your rationing, she has as much right to "normalise this type of attire" to the judge as a nudist does to a mufti. But would you be willing to stand for that as easily?

 

Now the simple is case is that if the actual process of lawyering and defense were as you say' blind to anything other than evidence and reason, then there really would be no need for lawyers to be present in court. Each party could submit their evidence and argumnents in writing and the case with most evidence and reason as judged by the impartial judge wins.

 

I agree with NG. on this one.

[NGONGE]

Sophist,

 

 

I had to quickly google one of those Latin phrases. And yes, it’s possible that you are maybe right. But that’s if we’re talking straightforward judgments without any human feelings involved. With such feelings however, the whole case changes. The judge might not take in all she says because he’ll be curious, fascinated or distracted by her clothes. Surely every last little thing about the lawyer’s performance must help the client. Or else we would not need any lawyers to be present in court and we would only rely on dry, bland reports to be presented to judges for final decisions!

 

Ps

How effective would such a lawyer be in cases that involve juries?

 

PPS

 

Here she is. Recognise her now? I thought you would. Did the LBC together I bet

 

[Sophist]

What a beauty!