Though unstated, this seems applicable also to those on the other side of the bar. The problem in was the audibility of the lawyer — another critical issue in a court of law and one that ought to trump all expressions of religious faith. So that the rules don't need to be constantly consulted, and cases needlessly postponed, a clear and comprehensively applicable position ought to be established: the faces of those involved in the case must be clearly visible at all times.
The trial in question involves a simple charge of intimidation but the position would need to be all the more urgently upheld if the defendant were, for example, accused of murder — and would apply regardless of the motivations behind the wearing of the headgear.
It would seem like very bad practice indeed to argue that for some crimes the defendant's identity were less important than in others, or that devout believers are the only individuals who need not be visible in court. Passport photos of course do not permit the covering of the face for any reason, including religion; it seems illogical for this policy not to extend to matters of crucial legal significance, especially if the stakes are so high — as they clearly are if one has been summoned to court to stand trial.
That is by and large a cultural issue, one with more controversial sentiments and questionable rhetoric bubbling beneath its surface. The discussion over whether or not women are forced into wearing burqas, or whether the decision is an entirely free one, is also inapplicable here.
There is irony, of course, in the argument that women ought to be forced to remove their burqas on the grounds that they are being forced to put them on in the first place. In Pakistan, four days before Peter Murphy made his statements, Muhammad Sharif cut his wife into ten pieces for refusing to cover every inch of her body. The notion that women only wear burqas entirely of their own free will is of course ludicrous. The issue up for discussion here is simply that of legal accountability and the precedence it must be granted over considerations such as religious expression.
And if there is no evidence to support to prove wearing the veil does impact upon the trial process, then there is no basis to order its removal.
Many would argue that there is little harm in requiring a witness to remove her veil and that as the veil is a sign of male subjugation and should not be protected. But this is too broad an approach to a complex issue.
Many women choose to cover their face as a matter of choice to achieve a state of piety. The wearing of the niqab is a visible representation of this and being required to remove it represents an invasion with their deeply held beliefs. Unlike many other public spaces such as schools , courts often offer individuals no control over how people engage with them.
Someone who wishes to seek the protection of the law often has no choice but to proceed through the courts. If a victim of a criminal offence wants the protection of the police, they make their complaint knowing that ultimately they may be required to give evidence in court. In this context, the worrying rise in hate crime towards Muslims since is relevant. Many of the victims of these attacks have been singled out because of their clothing.
Women who wear the niqab have been particularly vulnerable to such attacks, with attackers often seeking to humiliate them by removing the niqab. Furthermore, women in the West who wear burqas are a minority within a minority — Muslims in the US constitute less than 1.
As such, no legislation is required to protect onlookers from a piece of cloth most Americans are unlikely to be confronted with in the first place. Bottom Lines: As the East and West draw ever closer, governments will continue to be challenged to rethink the delicate balance between secularism and religious freedom. It is a question of values and ultimately, we must choose which value gets priority over another.
If given the choice to create policy, what would you choose? They even the playing field between all students but may limit creative learning and evaluate teachers unfairly.
Does higher education still live up to its mission of imparting knowledge and molding the future? Generic filters. NEWS Curated opposing articles on the top stories. Search for:. Most popular. Living the education debate.
0コメント