Well done Ashrah Choudary
October 29th, 2004 at 7:17 am by David FarrarOne of my criticisms of Islam, has been the near silence from moderate ledaers when extreme statements are made in the name of Islam.
Muslim MP Ashraf Choudary has added some sanity to the debate about the young woman who has claimed she would rather die than remove her veil.
Choudhary has said the Koran calls for Muslim men and women to dress modestly, but face-covering was more cultural than religious.
Mr Choudary has also said that it is desirable to integrate into local society, become part of local customs, and that New Zealand is not a country for extremists or extremist views.
Thank you Ashraf for the bout of sanity.
No tag for this post.
October 29th, 2004 at 8:26 am
This is not about cultural customs. This is about being able to observe a witness as they are giving evidence in court so as to test credibility i.e. body language. It would make a mockery of court processes if this issue became embroiled in some fanciful argument about religious customs etc. They can wear the garb all the time if they wish but it must be removed when giving evidence on oath.
Vote:October 29th, 2004 at 8:29 am
This is not about cultural customs. This is about being able to observe a witness as they are giving evidence in court so as to test credibility i.e. body language. It would make a mockery of court processes if this issue became embroiled in some fanciful argument about religious customs etc. They can wear the garb all the time if they wish but it must be removed when giving evidence on oath. A compromise might be to allow the ladies to be screaned from the defendant and the public but persons who need to see the ladies to assess credibility must be able to see their faces.
Vote:October 29th, 2004 at 10:54 am
I have been thinking about this for a while now and I am concerned that one side of the argument has not been properly explored.
It has been said that one cannot judge the quality of evidence giving by this person because we cannot see her face and thus judge her expressions, reactions and body language. Whilst I accept you cannot do these things I wonder what the implications for her evidence would be if we for her to remove the veil.
I’d argue that the quality of evidence that she could give would be terrible. At best she would look nervous, at worst she would be fidgety, blushing, looking around nervously and frightened. I believe that this situation is worse and that her evidence is compromised by making her take the veil off.
I have a few questions for the “If she don
Vote:October 29th, 2004 at 12:19 pm
- Yes, but arguably not as well as someone that can assess body language. I wouldn’t support a jury consisting of 12 blind people either.
Vote:- Imagine emigrating to a country of nudists, where they let you keep your clothes on. Then for some of the most important events they want you to comply with their cultural practices? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
- I want a country where people respect culture and that respect is reciprocated by an effort to understand and follow that country’s important cultural practices too.
October 29th, 2004 at 12:39 pm
I reiterate my comment. Body language is essential to assessing credibility. If she is nervous in front of the public or the accused then that can be dealt with but that would be stretching things as far as it should go.
Vote:October 29th, 2004 at 12:39 pm
Conor – if I decided to go live in a country of nudists, then I would never dream of objecting to having to sometimes appear nude.
Likewise if I was a girl and decided I wanted to live in Saudia Arabia, I would not walk around in a bikini.
Vote:October 29th, 2004 at 12:48 pm
DPF: That is not the point, I am trying to get at the quality and ability of this woman to present evidence by comparing it to a situation where the adopted *tolerant* society strips me of my clothing and dignity and then expects me to present balanced evidence.
Tim: Judging by her reported reaction in court and imagining what it must be like to be forced to do something totally abhorrent to ones culture I would say that she wont just be “nervious” and that her evidence will be severely compromised if society forces her to take off the veil. You say “If she is nervous in front of the public or the accused then that can be dealt with” Well I would ask you how?
Vote:October 29th, 2004 at 12:58 pm
She could be screaned from the public and the accused but not Judge/Counsel/Jury. I am not sure what role she is playing I am assuming she is to give evidence for either side. Everyone is nervous in giving evidence. But if she intends telling the truth I am sure she will overcome her problems without difficulty. Everyone else does.
Vote:October 29th, 2004 at 1:24 pm
OK, however that is not the only problem in that she is frightened from taking the Burkha in front of anybody.
Vote:Not only is there the shame in disrobing in front of a select few people, people in that situation believe that taking the veil off in front of other people is an affront to God. Whilst one can argue that this is more cultural than religious, it is a real emotion none the less.
I would submit that she is not only going to be nervous when submitting the evidence, she is going to be terrified, embarrassed and totally ashamed and will not be able to give a shred of credible evidence in that situation.
That is the point.
Whatever is to be gained by forcing this woman to show her face is going to be offset by the dismal quality of responses she will give if put in that situation.
October 30th, 2004 at 8:37 am
1. Face covering is religious. It’s not in the Quran but it is in the Hadith. Depending on which version you follow it is either the head, face or eyes that are allowed to remain uncovered.
2. Why does it make any difference whether the reason is cultural or religious anyway?
3. Do we really want to be the sort of country where politicians make pronouncements on religious matters, especially when there are legal consequences?
Ashraf has yet to achieve sanity IMO.
Vote:October 30th, 2004 at 8:46 am
Conor:”I would submit that she is not only going to be nervous when submitting the evidence, she is going to be terrified, embarrassed and totally ashamed and will not be able to give a shred of credible evidence in that situation.
That is the point.”
Witnesses are frightened , ashamed, tearful, distraught ALL THE TIME in court. Have you never been there.
Vote:Some are pompous, smarmy, buffons too.
October 30th, 2004 at 9:49 am
conor are you a member of the taleban,
Vote:I am sick of liberal twats like you making
exceptions for demonic religous beliefs if I was
in power you would go missing get the point.
and by the way mr social libertarian do you believe in progressive taxation you hypercritical nazi
October 30th, 2004 at 9:54 am
The point I am making conor is that if I was a nudist and went to court and wanted to appear nude
Vote:but was refused you would not go into bat for me
and say it is my right,again it is anti economic liberals and left wing anarchists like you that would go into bat for anyone anti western capatilists
October 30th, 2004 at 4:07 pm
Golly, thats a lot of vitriol (plus a threat) for a couple of simple comments.
Please try and understand what I am saying.
I am saying that the quality of evidence that this woman would give if her Burkha were removed (or you were made to go nude) will be crap and less would be gained by having her take it off.
I understand “Witnesses are frightened, ashamed, tearful, distraught ALL THE TIME”
Vote:I’d bet that this woman feels that with the Burkha on. On top of that you wish to strip her of a piece of her cultural identity and then expect her to produce some kind of a semblance of credible evidence. So she has the burden of giving evidence in the first place and then is made to disregard a central piece of her cultural tradition. Her evidence will be not worthwhile because of the state she will be in and thus justice will not be served. That is the fundamental tenant of my argument (I am not talking about people
October 30th, 2004 at 5:52 pm
Tim, there really was no need for comments like that. This was a civilised discussion with some disagreement (incidentally, I am in agreeance with Conor’s point of view).
Please, Tim, keep the aggressiveness locked up.
Vote:October 30th, 2004 at 5:52 pm
Tim, there really was no need for comments like that. This was a civilised discussion with some disagreement (incidentally, I am in agreeance with Conor’s point of view).
Please, Tim, keep the aggressiveness locked up.
Vote:November 1st, 2004 at 10:38 am
This goes way beyond whether or not her testimony will be compromised by taking off her Burqa – I’d venture to say that any person who appears as a witness in any trial is nervous. The key here is that as a secular modernist society we cannot allow our laws to be hijacked by a minority in the name of religious freedom. The separation of state and church is what makes this such a great place to live.
Should Fouzya Salim object to the way that things are conducted in this country then she should, as Winston Peters has so rightly said, reconsider moving to a country where her ideals are more readily acceptable to the majority of the people that live there. The whole onus seems to be on our responsibility as a country to welcome these people here – well that cuts both ways and they have a responsibility to fit in with us and respect our culture and laws.
I know that New Zealand is a hell of a lot more accommodating to Islamic migrants than the Muslim countries are to
Vote: