Ban the burkha ?

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I put it to you that that is an assumption on your part, and suggest that unless you have evidence to support that assumption, that statement is not admissable nor verifiable, and should be struck from the record.*

But he is right though. isn't he

Originally Posted by Gary L

But he is right though. isn't he

He would be right if the facts support his assumption - those facts have not been made available, therefore that assumption hasn't been proven.....

(but he probably is....).

[nomadking]

As I reported in the quoted section, both the defence and prosecution were under the impression that she would keep her face covered in court, hence the discussion in court. The prosecution would have spoken to her beforehand and as she worked for the defendant, they would have known what she was likely to do. They were no indications that she had actually already given evidence with her face covered up. If she had already given evidence without her face being covered up, there wouldn't have been the discussion in court, as it wasn't about the the court forcing her to keep her face covered. If she had already given evidence, then at the time she would have been politely asked to uncover her face, and if, as it is claimed she would have been ok with that, then again there wouldn't have been the discussion in court.

Agreed - but the point I was making (and my apologies if I wasn't clear about it) was that the story in reality was - Woman in Australia who wears burqa is asked to remove veil when she is giving evidence, and she says "Yes". Which really, when you think about it, isn't much of a story (except showing a Muslim woman in a positive light by highlighting the fact she was willing to remove her veil in court when requested).

The Mail "forgot" to report the bit about "she says "Yes"", hoping (imho) to arouse resentment about those different from us who refuse to follow "our rules", even though she was folowing "our rules" om this case; they (the Daily Mail) just didn't think telling all of the story (or as we call it, the truth) was important.

[nomadking]

Before the trial she hadn't said that she would uncover her face. It was only after the trial had started and the issue was raised that she said that she would abide by the judge's decision. Did the Mail pick up the story before the witness spoke about it?

Originally Posted by nomadking

Before the trial she hadn't said that she would uncover her face. It was only after the trial had started and the issue was raised that she said that she would abide by the judge's decision. Did the Mail pick up the story before the witness spoke about it?

It was reported on the 19th in both newspapers (as the ruling happened that day), and the Adelaide Now paper stated that the lady was not in court to hear the decision but has said previously she would comply with the court decision; aligned with the fact that the Daily Mail reports uses most of the same wording as the Oz reports, remembering that Adelaide is about 12 hours ahead of UK time, I believe your premise (imho) is unlikely.

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

"Tasneem only removes the niqab when she visits the doctor, dentist, airport Customs and when she has her driver's licence photo taken."

and now when in court

Seeing as the above are the "only" time she removes her face veil, I'd have thought that romantic evenings with her husband must be a little anonymous to say the least, especially when its bedtime.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by frogstamper

Seeing as the above are the "only" time she removes her face veil, I'd have thought that romantic evenings with her husband must be a little anonymous to say the least, especially when its bedtime.

it seems she takes it off when she's told to ,and is probably wearing it because she was told to by her owner [er husband]

From the Adelaide Now link

Tasneem only removes the niqab when she visits the doctor, dentist, airport Customs and when she has her driver's licence photo taken.

Otherwise, only her husband, children and blood male relatives have seen her without the niqab.

[papa smurf]

France's Senate backs National Assembly and bans women from wearing the burka in public

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...#ixzz0zZsGiLWf

So? that's France and the last time I looked we aren't France..

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

So? that's France and the last time I looked we aren't France..

its only 20 miles away - and its only information about the march of the ban which seems to be gaining momentum .

Originally Posted by papa smurf

its only 20 miles away - and its only information about the march of the ban which seems to be gaining momentum .

I still don't see it's relevance.It's not a case of us doing what France does..It's more a case of us doing what the US does..

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I still don't see it's relevance....

With all due respect, the law in question is clearly targeting an ethnic minority (even though it avoids words such as "muslim", "woman" and "burkha"). This is from the same country that wants to treat another ethnic minority (Roma, aka gypsies) with equal disdain.

It wasn't long ago that "ethnic cleansing" occured in a region of Europe formerly known as Yugoslavia, and before that in Germany.

Surely part of being in Europe means that we have some say in matters such as this. Or are you suggesting these events only become relevant when they happen on British soil?

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I still don't see it's relevance.