Veils in public
Im not english shaid as ive told you before but like it or not the uk is a christian country.
You have your extremist views.
i dont have any religion to speak of.
now back on topic.make her remove it like they would if a christian insisted on covering there face in court.
You have your extremist views.
i dont have any religion to speak of.
now back on topic.make her remove it like they would if a christian insisted on covering there face in court.
Last edited by tubbytommy; Sep 16, 2013 at 04:31 PM.
Im not english shaid as ive told you before but like it or not the uk is a christian country.
You have your extremist views.
i dont have any religion to speak of.
now back on topic.make her remove it like they would if a christian insisted on covering there face in court.
You have your extremist views.
i dont have any religion to speak of.
now back on topic.make her remove it like they would if a christian insisted on covering there face in court.
I think you'll find Britain is more of an atheist (and thank God for it) country than a christian country.
So the fact is you don't actually know what you're on about as she hasn't actually broken any laws in this country has she? Granted she has made a stance/challenge but then again if many people/organisations do at some point. There was a time when someone made a point/challenge for all new applianced to be fitted with a 3 pin plug as standard and not to expect the householder with his new kettle to wire up a plug himself.
What I object to is this ridiculous defence that we are somehow inpinging on her right to religious expression. I'm afraid that laws take precedence over that, and if the judge has requested it, she should comply or be in contempt of court. What if my religion said I should be able to stand in open court and urinate everywhere?
I frimly believe that is how all people should be treated, whatever their religion, beliefs, reasons for doing so etc.
Perhaps you would like to explain why you think she should be allowed to refuse on the basis that I advocate the same treatment for everyone?
Geezer
Last edited by Geezer; Sep 16, 2013 at 05:09 PM.
Absolutely. The point of my OP is that this is not a question of the UK discriminating against Muslims, it's about people conforming to the law (although this clearly isn't law yet, I admit) or complying with the request of the judge in court (which this is).
What I object to is this ridiculous defence that we are somehow inpinging on her right to religious expression. I'm afraid that laws take precedence over that, and if the judge has requested it, she should comply or be in contempt of court. What if my religion said I should be able to stand in open court and urinate everywhere?
I frimly believe that is how all people should be treated, whatever their religion, beliefs, reasons for doing so etc.
Perhaps you would like to explain why you think she should be allowed to refuse on the basis that I advocate the same treatment for everyone?
Geezer
What I object to is this ridiculous defence that we are somehow inpinging on her right to religious expression. I'm afraid that laws take precedence over that, and if the judge has requested it, she should comply or be in contempt of court. What if my religion said I should be able to stand in open court and urinate everywhere?
I frimly believe that is how all people should be treated, whatever their religion, beliefs, reasons for doing so etc.
Perhaps you would like to explain why you think she should be allowed to refuse on the basis that I advocate the same treatment for everyone?
Geezer
European Convention on Rights: Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
18 June 1815 - Waterloo
iTrader: (31)
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 19,156
Likes: 15
From: To the valley men!
But her faith does not say she as to wear it. Get the Jeremy Vine Podcast from today. A very informed non-radical muslim cleric explained it was all bollocks.
I dunno....for some reason I think it looks quite shexy.
Let the old imagination run wild.... she could be wearing a lacy peephole bra and crotchless knickers under all that cloth, and cherry red lips under her veil....
And what beautiful 'come and **** me, bigboy' eyes.
Let the old imagination run wild.... she could be wearing a lacy peephole bra and crotchless knickers under all that cloth, and cherry red lips under her veil....
And what beautiful 'come and **** me, bigboy' eyes.
Evening James. As far as I know there is no religious compulsion to wear the veil. It is purely a discretionary matter. Therefore this lady's motivation is possibly an assertion of her feministic prerogative. My comment merely conveys the dismissive nature in which I view her actions.

Perfectly serious question - I saw some women (were probably teenage girls actually) dressed in this type of veil at Manchester airport, it got me thinking if they remain covered like this if they are driving?
Along with eradicating this sort of nonsense, I live for the day when genital mutilation of infants in the name of religion is seen by the criminal justice system for the disgraceful physical abuse which it is.
This isn't the Middle Ages, let alone the pre-Roman era, which these types of absurd customs all have their roots in.
This isn't the Middle Ages, let alone the pre-Roman era, which these types of absurd customs all have their roots in.
back on topic the whole point here is this, the judge imho just wanted to make sure the person giving evidence is actually who she says she is, with that on how can he possible do that, so therefor her evidence should be unadmissable in court, if she was giving evidence against me in court i would want proof of who she is otherwise she could be a police plant for starters, thats how a good criminal lawyer would discredit her evidence, and would probably get the case thrown out






