JUDGE BANS BURQA

This is promising:

A VICTORIAN Supreme Court judge has sensationally banned burqas in his court.

Justice Christopher Beale stopped the niqab-wearing wife of an accused terrorist from entering his courtroom this week, saying all in his court must show their faces…

The woman refused to remove her traditional garb, and sat outside…

Islamic leaders slammed the decision as “unreasonable” and a violation of the woman’s human rights.

This “human rights” argument is bogus. It just boils down to a “right” to do as one pleases without caring a damn about the rights of others.

Against her “right” to wear a sack and to show disrepect to our values is our “right” to courtesy and community. I also rather like seeing an assertion of our own values against what seems the arrogant flaunting of less congenial ones.

UPDATE

And in Denmark:

The Danish government is poised to become the next European country to introduce a ban on Islamic full-face coverings in public places.

The government said it planned to fine people who wore items including the burqa and the niqab which are worn by some Muslim women…

“It is incompatible with the values of the Danish society or the respect for the community to keep the face hidden when meeting each other in the public space,” Justice Minister Justice Soren Pape Poulsen said.

“With a ban, we draw a line in the sand and establish that here in Denmark we show each other trust and respect by meeting each other face to face,” he said.

3 thoughts on “JUDGE BANS BURQA”

  1. Under the adversarial system, with the judge as umpire, it is essential that any witness’s face be visible. The judge must be able to see how the witness reacts under cross examination, so that he or she can make a judgment as to the credibility of that witness. In this case, the wife of the accused could easily be called upon to give evidence, so her face must be visible. Predictably ‘Islamic leaders’ are calling the judge’s decision ‘a violation of the woman’s human rights.’ But under Sharia, the rights of all women are severely curtailed. Women’s rights are much better protected under the Westminster system of administration of Justice than they ever would be under Sharia Courts.

  2. Women have no ‘human rights ‘ under sharia law as they are not considered human ,Islamic religious law is not recognized by others, all citizens of Australia obey the laws of the land no exceptions,good on the judge ,unfortunately not all the judiciary have the same intestinal fortitude.

Comments are closed.