Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ordered Liberty

British Court Enforces Sharia Over Equal Protection of Law

September 16th, 2013 - 10:44 am

Has sharia accommodation in England reduced the Magna Carta to a dead letter? The question presses thanks to the ruling of a Crown Court in London that permits a Muslim woman under indictment for witness intimidation to wear a niqab – a veil which makes only her eyes visible to observers – during her trial.

The ruling is a compromise. The defendant will be shielded from public and media view; her face will be observable, however, to the trial jury, as well as the judge and lawyers in the case.

As Robin Shepherd of thecommentator.com contends, this resolution disserves the bedrock principle of equal protection under the law. All other citizens will be forced to endure the public examination attendant to being accused of crime – only Muslim women are given this safe-harbor. Shepherd roots his argument in Western tradition. On that account, he might have added that the niqab itself is a powerful statement of the anti-equality principles that undergird sharia, providing another reason why Western legal systems should resist its principles.

Moreover, the argument here is not just about tradition but about the practical administration of justice. The courts in a free society belong to the public and dispense justice in the public’s name. Trial proceedings are presumptively public for that reason and, just as important, because openness to the public and the press acts as a check encouraging faithful and effective performance by the trial participants, including the jury. The administration of justice – which in this instance promotes accurate judgments about a witness’s credibility – obviously outweighs any individual’s interest in concealing his or her face.

The requirement that a witness’s face be observed, like the requirement that a person’s face be visible in a photograph for a lawfully required identification document (e.g., a passport or driver’s license), is generally applicable to all persons and neutral on the matter of religion – its terms do not single out believers for hostile treatment and it was patently not enacted out of hostility toward any sect. Civil society and equal protection require that such basic laws be applied to everyone, equally.

That is not something to compromise about. The compromising is done in the legislative process; if they are lawfully enacted, that should be the end of the matter. And even if, for argument’s sake, it were worth compromising for some reasons, it should never be worth compromising with sharia, an anti-liberty system, particularly in connection with one of its anti-equality provisions, such as dress codes for women.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Why does no one investigate the "religious" requirement for this nonsense? I can tell you why - because it defeats the entire notion of "equality" unless you consider islam a gender-neutral slanderfest, equally insulting both sexes: In the Qur'an's Sura 33:59, women are admonished to cover up, lest they incite the men's uncontrollable animal instincts to rape them, "like we have to rape all those infidel women." So women are portrayed as guilty sluts, and men as uncontrollable horn-dogs (like Muhammad himself actually was). And this idiocy and idolatrous alibi excuse for remaining self-indulgently, irresponsibly wrong, we're enshrining in LAW?!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Like Mexifornia, Englandistan is happening.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Minors are given more lenient sentences. So drug gangs use them are mules to carry drugs and weapons. They also use them to carry out other crimes.

If Muslims women are allowed to be veiled they will use this to sidle up to people, deliver a threat and melt into a crowd. How can a person positively Id them.They can't and a lawyer/barrister will challenge this in court and win.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (32)
All Comments   (32)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Ban the veil, it's an insult to free women and it's an insult to a free society.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Why does no one investigate the "religious" requirement for this nonsense? I can tell you why - because it defeats the entire notion of "equality" unless you consider islam a gender-neutral slanderfest, equally insulting both sexes: In the Qur'an's Sura 33:59, women are admonished to cover up, lest they incite the men's uncontrollable animal instincts to rape them, "like we have to rape all those infidel women." So women are portrayed as guilty sluts, and men as uncontrollable horn-dogs (like Muhammad himself actually was). And this idiocy and idolatrous alibi excuse for remaining self-indulgently, irresponsibly wrong, we're enshrining in LAW?!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Brits. do you jackwaters not understand that you are losing your culture or are you are a) assuming guilt for your ancestors sins and cannot expect your immigrants to respect English Law or b) just so disengaged that you could give a fig less as long as you get your government check?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It's the government check thing, fox. Dependence breeds dependency. Mental processes are changed when we are dependent.

See the evacuation problems with Katrina. In general, people on welfare sat and waited to be moved. People not on welfare moved themselves.

Dependency breeds dependency. Always will.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Like Mexifornia, Englandistan is happening.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
That happy realm soon to become a caliphate. When I read C. S. Lewis' That Hideous Strength I find it hard to believe that it was written nearly seventy years ago! He draws a lot from H.G. Wells The Shape of Things to Come and its systematic persecution of Christianity (and all other religions) by a future world government. Wells saw that as positive but Lewis saw the real horror. I think we are about to see the fulfillment of those visions of the future!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I almost like this, in the perverse sense because I ID a woman with face covering, and set up for appeals and appeals and shows the absurdity of lawyers who think that they are so smart, when in reality it seems that they are pretty stupid and have no common sense or inherent sense of fair play.

Time to get rid of all the lawyers that accept this nonsense

Reminds me of the joke about well hung lawyers. You know that they are well hung when there is no room between the noose and their necks
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What joke?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I wonder if next we'll see witnesses in Britain entering courtrooms with paper bags over their head (revealing himself/herself only to the jury, judge or lawyers, but not to the public). Maybe next Britain can re-introduce Star Chambers. Thus "progressive" justice marches forward!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Minors are given more lenient sentences. So drug gangs use them are mules to carry drugs and weapons. They also use them to carry out other crimes.

If Muslims women are allowed to be veiled they will use this to sidle up to people, deliver a threat and melt into a crowd. How can a person positively Id them.They can't and a lawyer/barrister will challenge this in court and win.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well with this accommodation we have more evidence of the grand decline of the once great nation of the Magna Carta. The plug has been pulled...the island is sinking..somebody turn out the lights.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What's with this Muslim covering thing ? One line in the Koran about a woman covering her hair when marauders came around, to be less conspicuous, and, voilà, 14 centuries later women in 100+ degree weather in Saudi Arabia swelter under layers of ugly black cloth.

Facial hair on men is also a kind of covering/concealment.

Nidal Hasan fought to be able to wear a beard during his trial (against army regulations) and, after much wrangling, was allowed to do that. After his conviction and sentencing to death, he was forcibly shaved in prison.

The more western courts bend over and spread 'em to accommodate Muslim "sensibilities", the more courts compromise their own authority.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
They're ashamed of themselves.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
No, it's not nearly that simplistic. If you are interested in helping any of these women, you'll have to put in a lot more effort to understand the issues.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
We shouldn't *be* interested in helping these women. Unless and until they deconvert, they remain part of the enemy force. Anyone who follows Ayaan Ali's path deserves our help. Those who remain are foe until proven otherwise.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Ban the veil and all public mask wearing.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If we're even entertaining the notion of letting them disguise themselves,in court or elsewhere,means we've already lost,no,given up.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Who taught me how to right?Ugh!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All