Daily Lessons from Life 16 September 2013 - Muslim woman allowed to wear veil in British trial

"Muslim woman allowed to wear veil in British trial - AFP Sep 16, 2013 LONDON - A Muslim woman will be allowed to go on trial in Britain wearing a full-face veil but must take it off while giving evidence, thought to be a legal first, a judge ruled Monday. Lawyers for the 22-year-old woman from London had argued that removing the niqab against her wishes would breach her human rights and be counter to Britain's tolerance of Islamic dress. But Judge Peter Murphy, sitting at London's Blackfriars Crown Court, said: "In general, the defendant is free to wear the niqab during trial. "If the defendant gives evidence she must remove the niqab throughout her evidence." In his ruling Judge Murphy said concealing the face would "drive a coach and horses through the way justice has been administered in England and Wales for centuries". In preliminary hearings the woman had taken the veil off in a back room to be formally identified by a woman police officer. The woman had argued it would be against her religious beliefs to show her face in public. She entered a not guilty plea to a charge of intimidation last week while wearing a niqab after the judge backed down from a previous decision that she would have to show her face to be properly identified. But making his final judgment today, the judge said: "The ability of the jury to see the defendant for the purposes of evaluating her evidence is crucial." There is no restriction in Britain to the wearing of the niqab in public." This is NICE. Nice gesture by the judge. Respectful of the religious practice even though the accused might be just taking advantage of this convenient excuse. Assisted by her lawyers? Lessons for me are: 1. it is reasonable to at least have the accused identified so that should there be a sentence if the accused is convicted of whatever crime she was in court for, the justice knows that it has been served to the 'right' person! It is NOT as ridiculous as the infamous one minute 'you-were-guilty-as-charged' and the next minute 'you-are-freed-due-to-whatever-reasons' in Malaysia for certain blowing up of a model by some special forces whose faces were concealed ALL THE TIME during the trial and after the sentencing! Who is to know who had been sent to jail?; 2. human rights are fine as long as they were not abused. I wonder what would the judiciary ruled if we ever have such a case? I believe the judge will say: we are a secular society. We respect everyone's right to practice lawful religions and practices but we will stick to the practice of 'there is nothing to hide accused' in court of laws!; 3. while some may say that the laws may be abusing the accused, I say: if there is no ground to bring the accused to the court, the accused probably would not have to face this choice of 'to take off or not to take off the veil'. The fact that the accused was charged in court, she (or any accused) must have violated the laws of the land. In which case, the law of the land take precedence over any religious practice. Afterall, all religions teach their disciples and believers to do good and stay out of troubles with the laws. Yes? :-) Interesting trivial case in UK. Fun to ponder about it. And that's that.