Judge bans woman from entering plea in court after she refused to remove burka

[Omicron]

Relevant language from the article:

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. ​

Which leads to the question: why is it that we can trust officers to identify evidence, but not trust them to identify persons?

That is kind of curious.

There are plenty of ways this woman could be identified.

At the rate things are going, definative identification is going to be based on DNA.

If the judge simply said "This is Britain, and by our legal traditions, people may not cover their faces in court." That's not discrimination, it applies to all.

But coming up with a stupid identification excuse to justify his decision puts the entire evidentiary process at risk. If I were a British barrister defending, say, a drug dealer, I would use this to argue that the police could not validly say that the drugs in evidence were the same as the package they found on my client.

Interesting.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Just another xenophobe trying to push his personal bias.

And coming up with a BS excuse to justify it. That's the part that irks me.

 

[petros]

Xenophobia pisses me off.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Xenophobia pisses me off.

Nobody cares what pisses you off, verdammte Auslander!

 

[Omicron]

As is having a woman officer take her into a side room, verify that she is the person charged, and come back into the courtroom and so testify.

The fact he didn't allow for that definitly suggest a bias, doesn't it.

Or, as I said, the judge could flat-out say "This is Britain, and you must follow our rules."

It's his waffling that does the harm.

Hmm, yeah... so... it's valid enough for a judge to say, "You should have known what you were signing up for when you moved here"?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

The fact he didn't allow for that definitly suggest a bias, doesn't it.



Hmm, yeah... so... it's valid enough for a judge to say, "You should have known what you were signing up for when you moved here"?

I don't know. But here's a crazy idea. Let's get the notion out, run it through the legal system, and get it decided one way or the other. Beats hell outta this kind of dodging and dancing and making up lame excuses.

 

[petros]

Nobody cares what pisses you off, verdammte Auslander!

Liben is gut in der Auslands

 

[Omicron]

I don't know. But here's a crazy idea. Let's get the notion out, run it through the legal system, and get it decided one way or the other. Beats hell outta this kind of dodging and dancing and making up lame excuses.

Well, if it hasn't already, then it should be, because I can already hear arguments from the pro-Sharia side along the lines of, "You should have known what you were signing up for before you let us in".

 

[petros]

Does $15 solve the xenophobe problem? Yes? No?

 

[Goober]

And coming up with a BS excuse to justify it. That's the part that irks me.

The Judge made a ruling and it can be appealed. All the way up.

 

[Blackleaf]

And coming up with a BS excuse to justify it. That's the part that irks me.

So a defendant should be allowed to hide their face in a court of law? Okay, then.

The last time I checked it is illegal for a defendant to hide their faces in an English court, so the judge was very much within his means to demand that she remove her burka. He's right when he says that anybody could be behind that burka. You would be allowed to sit in court wearing a balaclava over your face, and the burka should be treated no differently.

Not only that but the matter of respect comes into it. Somebody sitting there in court wearing a mask whilst facing representatives of the laws of the land is very disrespectful.

But respect for authority is often something which the Left looks down upon.

 

[Cliffy]

Question Authority. People or agencies only have authority over you if you give it to them. Most do not hesitate to abuse their authority when the opportunity arises. Most laws are there to protect the rich and the corporations. I have no respect for authority or the law but I do not intentionally provoke the lunatics who enforce them. What I do believe in is the sovereignty and authority of the individual human being. If a human takes absolute responsibility for their lives and actions, there is no need for laws and authority other than their own.

 

[Blackleaf]

Question Authority. People or agencies only have authority over you if you give it to them. Most do not hesitate to abuse their authority when the opportunity arises. Most laws are there to protect the rich and the corporations. I have no respect for authority or the law but I do not intentionally provoke the lunatics who enforce them. What I do believe in is the sovereignty and authority of the individual human being. If a human takes absolute responsibility for their lives and actions, there is no need for laws and authority other than their own.

This is a woman who has appeared in court for perpetrating a misdemeanour.

She is RIGHTFULLY there and therefore must show respect to the judge and the other members of the court.

She should not be sitting there disrespectfully hiding behind a mask and refusing to show her face to prove her identity.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

So a defendant should be allowed to hide their face in a court of law? Okay, then.

The last time I checked it is illegal for a defendant to hide their faces in an English court, so the judge was very much within his means to demand that she remove her burka. He's right when he says that anybody could be behind that burka. You would be allowed to sit in court wearing a balaclava over your face, and the burka should be treated no differently.

Not only that but the matter of respect comes into it. Somebody sitting there in court wearing a mask whilst facing representatives of the laws of the land is very disrespectful.

But respect for authority is often something which the Left looks down upon.

That's what I said. But you're too bloody stupid to understand it.

 

[Blackleaf]

That's what I said. But you're too bloody stupid to understand it.

Actually, you didn't.

This is what you said:

That's why I said earlier judges should not lie. Because this judge was clearly lying. There are plenty of ways this woman could be identified. If the judge simply said "This is Britain, and by our legal traditions, people may not cover their faces in court." That's not discrimination, it applies to all.

But coming up with a stupid identification excuse to justify his decision puts the entire evidentiary process at risk. If I were a British barrister defending, say, a drug dealer, I would use this to argue that the police could not validly say that the drugs in evidence were the same as the package they found on my client.

So, basically, you bizarrely called the judge a liar, said that there was no need for this woman to remove her mask in court and said that the judge's decision to force her to remove her mask was a "stupid identification excuse."

So if you were in charge, she'd be allowed to sit there in court disrepectfully hiding behind a mask - hiding from the law.

Shame on you.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Actually, you didn't.

This is what you said:

That's why I said earlier judges should not lie. Because this judge was clearly lying. There are plenty of ways this woman could be identified. If the judge simply said "This is Britain, and by our legal traditions, people may not cover their faces in court." That's not discrimination, it applies to all.

But coming up with a stupid identification excuse to justify his decision puts the entire evidentiary process at risk. If I were a British barrister defending, say, a drug dealer, I would use this to argue that the police could not validly say that the drugs in evidence were the same as the package they found on my client.

So, basically, you bizarrely called the judge a liar, said that there was no need for this woman to remove her mask in court and said that the judge's decision to force her to remove her mask was a "stupid identification excuse."

Precisely. I said the judge should have required it because it's British law. You said the same thing.

We agree, and you're fighting.

As I said, bloody stupid.

 

[Blackleaf]

Precisely. I said the judge should have required it because it's British law. You said the same thing.

We agree, and you're fighting.

As I said, bloody stupid.

What I find bloody stupid is that you thought the judge was discriminating against this woman by forcing her to remove her burka to prove her identification.

Shame on you.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

What I find bloody stupid is that you thought the judge was discriminating against this woman by forcing her to remove her burka to prove her identification.

Shame on you.

I didn't say he was discriminating. I specifically said that a requirement that applies to all is not discrimination.

Right. We're done.

Ignorant can be educated and crazy can be medicated, but you can't fix stupid.

 

[Blackleaf]

I didn't say he was discriminating. I specifically said that a requirement that applies to all is not discrimination.

Right. We're done.

Ignorant can be educated and crazy can be medicated, but you can't fix stupid.

You implied that this judge was discriminating because he rightfully told her to remove her burka.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

You implied that this judge was discriminating because he rightfully told her to remove her burka.

Now I know why you're UKIP. You failed the intelligence test for the BNP.