The tilt of an Islamic terrorist tried to force the judge to grant consent to let her wear her hideous Islamic shrouds, which cover everything including her face. She claimed anything less would be “oppression”. Here we have a judge who didn’t budge. Ironic that “(the woman) is under no legal compulsion to attend court.”
The wife of an accused terrorist has been banned from wearing an Islamic veil, or niqab, in the public gallery of the Victorian Supreme Court, with a judge ruling spectators must have their faces uncovered.
The woman made an application to wear a niqab during the trial of her husband, who with two co-accused is charged with conspiring to plan a terrorist attack in Melbourne’s CBD last Christmas. He will stand trial next week.
Judge Christopher Beale previously prevented a woman in a burka from entering his court. “I require anybody who comes into the court, and all are welcome, but anybody who comes into the court, for their face to be uncovered,” he said in February.
Lawyers for the wife of the accused made an application to vary Justice Beale’s previous order, arguing it was oppressive.
In a judgment handed down on Monday, Justice Beale rejected her application and ruled that people in the public gallery should have their faces uncovered in order to deter them from possible misbehaviour.
“While it is rare for physical violence to erupt, it is not so rare that things are said by spectators in the public gallery which should not be said,” he said.
Justice Beale said comments to other spectators, to witnesses, lawyers, even to the judge and jurors, may sometimes cause a mistrial and the court needed to minimise the occurrence of such incidents.
“Spectators whose faces are uncovered are likely to appreciate that if they misbehave, it will not be too difficult to establish their identity, even if they manage to get away from the court,” he said.
“Deterrence, identification and proof are all served by a requirement that spectators in the public gallery have their faces uncovered.
“The efficacy of an order for witnesses out of court is also facilitated by such a requirement.
“Once there are multiple spectators in the public gallery wearing niqabs and traditional Islamic dress, working out who was who if something happened in court might not be a simple matter, especially as such dress tends to be very similar.”
Justice Beale said he had considered the woman’s right of religious freedom and her right to participate in public life and the fact that the niqab was a “fundamental way in which (the woman) observes her faith”. Continue reading Setback for Islamic Supremacists in Victoria’s Supreme Court: Freedom Sack Verboten