A sensible ruling

September 18th, 2013 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Britain’s leading Muslim organisation warned yesterday that a judge’s landmark ruling that women should not give evidence in court while wearing the veil threatened to undermine the nation’s long-standing tradition of religious tolerance.

Amid warnings by the Muslim Council of Britain of an increasingly “hysterical” debate on the niqab, Judge Peter Murphy concluded that a female defendant would be allowed to attend court while wearing the Islamic face covering but would not be permitted to take the witness stand unless she removed it.

No other ruling is possible. Of course you must be able to see the face of a witness. Observing body language is crucial for lawyers and a jury.

People can believe whatever they want. But their beliefs do not trump the law.

Talat Ahmed, chair of the council’s social and family affairs committee, said: “Every time we discuss the niqab, it usually comes with a diet of bigoted commentary about our faith and the place of in Britain. There are few people who wear the niqab, and they should be allowed to wear this veil if they freely decide to do so.”

She said banning the garment was “un-British” and would mean “embarking on a slippery slope where the freedom to wear religious attire of all faiths would be at risk”.

Who is talking of banning them? The court has merely said you can’t testify in court wearing one.

The woman denies attempting to intimidate a witness. When she stands trial in November the court will be adjourned and cleared to allow her to identify herself to a female court officer. When she gives evidence with her face uncovered she will be able to do so from behind a screen or via video-link so she will not be on view.

Sounds like the court has bent over backwards.

Tags:

71 Responses to “A sensible ruling”

  1. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    The entire west is facing the same problem.

    Islamic immigration on the scale it has reached is unprecedented, dangerous and destabalising.

    Added to that are the ridiculous attacks on host culture by multiculturalists and progressives.

    Western electorates were never asked about their own destruction at the hands of the treacherous elites ,it has led to bloodshed like Powell predicted.

    I fear a Balkanisation of the west and a bloody ,dangerous future.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Bovver (173 comments) says:

    Everyone knows that Islam has a long-standing tradition of religious tolerance, take Apostasy for instance.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. gump (1,649 comments) says:

    @kowtow

    “Western electorates were never asked about their own destruction at the hands of the treacherous elites ,it has led to bloodshed like Powell predicted.”

    ———————-

    Bloodshed? In Britain?

    Stop making shit up. It makes you look stupid.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 26 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    Yep I made up 7 July 2005 and Drummer Lee Rigby isn’t forgotten either.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Redbaiter (8,923 comments) says:

    Don’t worry too much folks, another couple of generations and it will be Sharia law that is paramount anyway. Then they’ll be doing what they want.

    That’s what all you multiculti progs want isn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Camryn (543 comments) says:

    As DPF says, the court has no other option. It has done all it can to tolerate a religious belief without impeding the effectiveness of the trial process.

    As an analogy, if I were on trial and I established that my religion required me to remain outdoors at all times, provided with a jetpack, and not be constrained by any form of handcuffs or restraint they could hardly do that. This religious requirement is not as extreme but still must come secondary to the administration of justice.

    On a tangent – I’ll bet some beliefs are routinely trumped by court requirements simply because they’re not classed as “religious” ones. So, religions certainly are being accorded a favourable status already. For example, I’ll bet a nudist would not be allowed to testify nude even though that’d pose no impediment to jurors interpreting his/her oral testimony and the associated body language. You could say that jurors’ potential uncomfortable reaction to nudity would hinder their evaluation of the testimony, but jurors are expected to set that reaction aside for things like tattoos, beards, religious clothing or whatever else they might find it uncomfortable to be in the presence of. In fact, hearing details of crimes can be quite uncomfortable but that’s what jurors are there for!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Everyone knows that Islam has a long-standing tradition of religious tolerance, take Apostasy for instance.

    The Catholic Church published an entire manual on how to torture non believers to death. And they did so, to many thousands of people.

    Kill Nonbelievers

    They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB

    Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God

    Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

    Kill Followers of Other Religions.

    1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

    2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

    Death for Blasphemy

    One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD’s name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother’s name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD’s will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, “Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD’s name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD’s name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

    Kill False Prophets

    1) Suppose there are prophets among you, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles, and the predicted signs or miracles take place. If the prophets then say, ‘Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,’ do not listen to them. The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul. Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt. Since they try to keep you from following the LORD your God, you must execute them to remove the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT)

    2) But any prophet who claims to give a message from another god or who falsely claims to speak for me must die.’ You may wonder, ‘How will we know whether the prophecy is from the LORD or not?’ If the prophet predicts something in the LORD’s name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message. That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NLT)

    Infidels and Gays Should Die

    So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God’s death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    Oh shit ,the troll’s arrived.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    I actually support this ruling. It has always struck me as absurd that Britain is killing radical Muslims in their own lands, while allowing radicals to flourish back home in Britain. It is even more absurd when we consider that the radicals in London are more mobile, better resourced and more dangerous than the peasants being killed in African and Afghanistan. The UK even has Sharia courts sanctioned by the government !

    Get out of Muslim lands and preserve our own culture, is my approach. Sure they can come and live in the West, but they must comply with our rules and norms if any cultural or religious conflict exists. When in Rome…

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Odakyu-sen (655 comments) says:

    I wonder if veils are allowed in courts in Islamic states such as Malaysia, Indonesia and Pakistan?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    kowtow, given all my cut and pasting of the bible you should be calling me a Priest not a Troll. :)

    Is there any correction you would like to make to my bible quotes ? If so, please contact the publisher/author.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Odakyu-sen (655 comments) says:

    Aha! Found it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab_by_country

    It’s only Wikipedia, but it’s a start.

    Different Islamic nations treat this issue in different ways. If some Islamic nations can choose to ban clothing from their courts that hides the identity of a defendant, plaintiff, witness or lawyer, then why should the UK not also do the same?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Australis (101 comments) says:

    Two years ago, I took a late-night flight from Kuwait to Iran. Most of my fellow passengers were middle-aged and elderly women clad in black niqabs, who preceded me into the Passport Control section of Tehran airport. Every one of them were required to lift off their headgear while the Iranian immigration official inspected their passports.

    I have also seen this happen in Egypt, so it is not merely a shia approach to the veil.

    Any muslims objecting to legal requirements to remove a concealing veil should be referred to the practice in countries which have Islam as their official state religion.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    Muslims should get out of Christian lands…….

    Asia Minor (Turkey)
    Egypt
    Palestine
    Ethiopia
    The Balkans
    Syria
    The Levant

    Little known fact.Arabia had numerous Jews and Christians in it before Mohammed led his wars of conquest and genocide against them.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Try looking in the mirror, sheikh Mohammed.

    It’s a bit rich when immigrants from the kind of inhuman, barbarian nations where women complaining of being raped get jailed for adultery for their troubles, or where adultery is a capital offense and stoning is considered an acceptable means of execution, complain about a perceived “unfairness” in the British judicial system.

    England is not a muslim theocracy. If muslim theocracies are your thing, living in England is not compulsory.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Little known fact.Arabia had numerous Jews and Christians in it before Mohammed led his Little known fact.Arabia had numerous Jews and Christians in it before Mohammed led his wars of conquest and genocide against them.

    kowtow, a fact I have referred you to numerous times. The Middle East is where your religion came from. They invented it. It is not “your” religion, it is theirs. It was imposed on the West by their Roman masters.

    “wars of conquest and genocide ” Not much a history reader are you kowtow :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Ian McK (237 comments) says:

    As has been said many times, and no-one appears to listen: If Muslims want to get out of their countries of origin, the new chosen land must be a better option for them, so best they assimilate, drop oppressive customs and beliefs or stay where they are. We don’t want, nor need them, they are troublemaking freeloaders, demanding two-toilet State houses, ripping taxpayers blind, and damn eyesores. The lefties of Western countries have a lot to answer for . . . Cunliffe and his mentor Clark tried to fill NZ with them; thank God they were tossed out of power.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    A better solution would have been to adapt from tradition islamic jurisprudence and rule that if the woman choses to remain veiled while giving evidence, her testimony will have have the weight of an unveiled witness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. cha (4,019 comments) says:

    Little known fact.Arabia had numerous Jews and Christians in it before Mohammed led his wars of conquest and genocide against them.

    Well known fact. Europe had numerous millions of Jews before an Austrian Catholic led his wars of conquest and genocide against them.

    FIFY

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    Hitlers wars were not in the name of God, Christianity or religion .

    Mohameds’ were.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    kowtow (5,217) Says:

    September 18th, 2013 at 2:39 pm
    Hitlers wars were not in the name of God, Christianity or religion .

    “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

    “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth!

    The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc, because it recognized the Jews for what they were”…. I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.

    -Adolf Hitler, 26 April 1933,

    I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought.

    At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna’s destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party.

    -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

    How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement!

    My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all.

    -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

    Just as the Jew could once incite the mob of Jerusalem against Christ, so today he must succeed in inciting folk who have been duped into madness to attack those who, God’s truth! seek to deal with this people in utter honesty and sincerity.
    -Adolf Hitler, in Munich, 28 July 1922

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Redbaiter (8,923 comments) says:

    That slimy prog coward Cha wouldn’t have a clue how to fix a leaking tap, let alone appreciate the fact that the second world war was not fought in the name of any religion. Fuck off cha, you’re just an illiterate ignorant of history half educated coward. (Like your troll buddy Kea)

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. cha (4,019 comments) says:

    Oh look, the irrelevant old fool capitalised my handle.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    (Like your troll buddy Kea)

    Red, I expressed no view on the matter. I simply provided some information relevant to the discussion. I am deeply hurt by your name calling LOL :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. cha (4,019 comments) says:

    Anyhoo, back to Mein Kampf:

    In bringing forward the ultramontane question and in the mutual quarrels that it gave rise to between Catholicism and Protestantism lay the sole possibility, as conditions then were, of occupying public attention with other problems and thus ward off the attack which had been concentrated against Jewry.

    The men who dragged our people into this controversy can never make amends for the crime they then committed against the nation. Anyhow, the Jew has attained the ends he desired. Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one another to their hearts’ content, while the enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve.

    http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch10.html

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    DPF,

    Of course you must be able to see the face of a witness. Observing body language is crucial for lawyers and a jury.

    I agree with the ruling, but putting aside the culture war hyperbole, perhaps another important issue should be considered.

    Eyewitness accounts are among the most unreliable forms of evidence. Human memory is not only prone to errors of interpretation but the brain can fabricate entirely false memories that never occurred. Human memory is not like a computer hard drive. We do not store and then recall memories as “files”. Rather memories are woven into the very structure of our brain and every time we recall a memory it is susceptible to alterations and reinterpretation.

    Combine these deficiencies with jurors believing that their observations of an eyewitness testimony are able to discern the truth or falsity of one’s account and we are potentially setting ourselves up for a miscarriage of justice. Although I agree that body language is crucial for exposing reasonable doubt, if all other evidence indicated guilt, I would hope a jury would not be willing to convict on the basis of the guesswork that is involved in interpreting someone’s body langauge. If there is no conclusive evidence otherwise, a reasonable person should not allow their interpretation of body langauge to tip the balance towards a guilty verdict. We don’t want to send people to jail because their eyes twitched.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Look at all those dam hell bound atheists voting down my 1:44pm ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    Its laughable that cha and kea are calling Adolf Hitler a reliable witness in defence of their own arguments.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    Talking of courts bending over…….

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2423840/Judge-takes-unprecedented-decision-hold-moments-silence-Mark-Duggan-start-inquest-shooting-police.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    kowtow, I did not rely on Hitlers word. I simply quoted what was said in speeches and books. I expressed no view on the matter. Same with my bible quotes that upset you so much.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. cha (4,019 comments) says:

    The ironing – asserting Hitlers wars were not in the name of God, Christianity or religion – citing the Rothermere controlled Mail.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    Quotes from the Holy Bible,the revealed and revered Word of God do not upset me.I know much of the context of the Old Testament,so there’s nothing there to be upset about.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    cha

    I’m not citing anyone but myself.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Redbaiter (8,923 comments) says:

    “Its laughable that cha and kea are calling Adolf Hitler a reliable witness in defence of their own arguments.”

    Even more remarkable in their apparent ignorance of the fact that those opposing Hitlers totalitarian forces were Christian too. A typically smug progressive, logic has never been Cha’s strong point. Its why he seldom writes any text that is his own work.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. cha (4,019 comments) says:

    BBL kt, the other half of my split awaits me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. cha (4,019 comments) says:

    You, write text – too funny.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Redbaiter (8,923 comments) says:

    Yeah sure, can see how amused you are when on the infrequent occasions you do write text, it betrays deep hurt and anger. Pissant.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. gump (1,649 comments) says:

    @kowtow

    “Yep I made up 7 July 2005 and Drummer Lee Rigby isn’t forgotten either.”

    ————————

    But you seem to have forgotten the 656 British Armed Forces members, the 272 Royal Ulster Constabulary members, and the 621 civilians who were murdered by IRA terrorists on British soil. And you also seem to have forgotten the 1.8 billion pounds of collective damage caused by the Baltic Exchange Bombing and the Bishopgate bombing.

    How quickly people forget…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Bob R (1,375 comments) says:

    ***She said banning the garment was “un-British” and would mean “embarking on a slippery slope where the freedom to wear religious attire of all faiths would be at risk”.***

    Actually, what is “un-British” is allowing millions of people from Islamic countries to move to Britain and displace English laws and customs.

    Winston Churchill would never have allowed this to happen. UKIP seem to be the only hope the UK has of not continuing down the path towards a majority Islamic population.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. GPT1 (2,122 comments) says:

    Yeah this is an easy one. I recall it coming up in NZ a few years back and wondered why it took the Court a few days to issue a decision. The entire basis of the adversarial system is that the accused faces his/her accuser and the trier of fact (be it Judge or Jury) makes a decision based on the evidence that they have seen and heard . You cannot make credibility findings without seeing the witness. Fullstop.

    There have been changes to protect witnesses and complainants- young witnesses for example are entitled to be screened or appear by CCTV. Sexual complainants are screened and/or CCTV from the Defendant (undermining, slightly, the accused’s right to confront their accuser but this is largely offset by counsel).

    Personally I don’t have a great problem if the privilege of screening and/or CCTV is extended to protect religious sensibilities but under no circumstances should evidence by given by a person with their face covered.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Bob R (1,375 comments) says:

    ***Yeah this is an easy one.***

    @ GPT1,

    It is to non-Muslims. However, if the UK becomes majority Islamic then expect laws like this one to change back. These laws are an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. The UK needs to halt the demographic colonisation that is going on.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Lucia Maria (2,428 comments) says:

    Mein Kampf was published in 1925 and 1926 (Vols 1 & 2). Hitler lived for almost 20 years after the publication of the second volume of his books, and his views changed. What a surprise. Hitler’s Table Talk gives an idea of how much his ideas changed, especially his views about religion:

    From wikipedia:

    Between 1941 and 1944, the period in which the Table Talk was being transcribed, a number of Hitler’s intimates cite him expressing negative views of Christianity, including Joseph Goebbels,[19] Albert Speer,[20] and Martin Bormann.[21] However Nazi General Gerhard Engel reports that in 1941 Hitler asserted, “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”[22] Similarly Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber reported that Hitler “undoubtedly lives in belief in God….He recognizes Christianity as the builder of western culture.” Ian Kershaw concluded that Hitler had deceived Faulhaber, noting his “evident ability to simulate, even to potentially critical church leaders, an image of a leader keen to uphold and protect Christianity”.[23] The Table Talk indicates Hitler continued to wish for a united Christian Church of Germany for some time after 1937, in line with his earlier policy of uniting all the churches to bring them more firmly under Nazi control, so they would support Nazi policy and act as a unifying rather than divisive force in Germany, that had largely proven unsuccessful.[24][25] By 1940, however, it was public knowledge that Hitler had abandoned even the syncretist idea of a positive Christianity[26] Instead, after 1938 Hitler began to publicly support a Nazified version of science, particularly social Darwinism, at the core of Nazi ideology in place of a religious one[27] – a development that is reflected in private in his increasingly hostile remarks towards religion in Table Talk.[28]

    CoNZervative has helpfully pulled out some of the anti-Christian quotes from Table Talk in this post of his: Uncle Adolf, a fireside conservative?

    This one in particular stood out to me:

    “Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers—already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity!—then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.”

    The link given at CoNZervative doesn’t work anymore, but Hitler’s Table Talk is easily Googled and perused for free.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Red, can you direct me to where I called Hitler a reliable witness ? I wish to correct that statement but are unable to find it.

    I commented a few days back that the Nazi collaborators in Croatia were most certainly Catholic and the senior clergy supported the aim of establishing a Roman Catholic state. Their behaviour was so brutal it appalled the SS and Hitler suggested they use more humane methods ! The last year the Catholic church held memorial services (in Catholic churches) for the leader of the Croatian holocaust, prompting outrage from holocaust survivors. They had another crack at it in the 90’s too.

    Direct your cries of Troll and Liar to:

    Simon Wiesenthal Center Library and Archives
    1399 South Roxbury Drive (third floor)
    Los Angeles, CA 90035-4709

    Tel: 310-772-7605
    Fax: 310-772-7628
    E- mail: library@wiesenthal.com

    Hours: Monday-Thursday 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
    Friday: closed
    Closed on Jewish and legal holidays

    The creation of the Independent State of Croatia was initially welcomed by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and by many Catholic priests.

    For the Ustaša, “relations with the Vatican were as important as relations with Germany” because Vatican recognition was the key to widespread Croat support.[1] Ante Pavelić was received in a private papal audience in Rome in May 1941, just after becoming dictator of Croatia.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_clergy_involvement_with_the_Usta%C5%A1e

    http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=7929811&ct=11577565

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    No other ruling is possible.

    Another possible ruling is that the credibility of a witness is weighted by the number of people who will testify to their honesty.

    Of course you must be able to see the face of a witness. Observing body language is crucial for lawyers and a jury.

    No, witness testimony can be in the form of an affadavit, body language does not play a part in this.

    People can believe whatever they want. But their beliefs do not trump the law.

    Why don’t you apply those standards to the numptys in Wellington who strive to redefine what the law is, DPF?
    The NZ civil system is build on hypocrisy, and cowards will neither acknowledge the corruption nor challenge it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    Not the common law again, Ugly?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Mobile Michael (452 comments) says:

    Earlier today we had a post condemning conservative Indian values that demanded a woman should not go out at night unchaperoned or engage in premarital sex. Now, we have the same issue – conservative values that demand that women are treated as second rate citizens.

    Surely its time we said the truth – no woman should ever be made to think she is anything more than a tradeable baby factory by being treated in a way that would be unacceptable if it was done to men.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Like garlic to a vampire, nickb.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    Surely it’s time we said the truth…..yip

    Indians and Muslims haven’t got a fucken clue.

    Gump (Rhetorical)

    What the fuck has the IRA got to do with Muslims?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Yoza (1,875 comments) says:

    It seems odd that these British courts that demand such openness from Muslim women so easily allow obfuscation and secrecy from other witnesses giving evidence.

    Closed Material Procedure:

    “The new provision is known as “closed material procedure” (CMP). According to its terms, if the government decides to seek CMP in the course of a trial, a judge will have the power to decide to present evidence to the court in secret, without the defendant being granted access to the information. Only a “special advocate”, who is appointed by the government and given security clearance, would be party to the evidence.

    The attack on the openness of the British justice system is not confined to the witness stand, there are sections of the public service within Britain that believe open justice is one of those ‘nice to haves’ that can no longer be tolerated:

    “The dilemma was etched on Lord Neuberger’s face as he announced the decision to enter a secret court. On the one hand, the Treasury insisted that the evidence must be kept secret for national security reasons, but on the other the supreme court risked undermining the whole system of open justice. Imagine being convicted of a crime by evidence you are not allowed to see and without the opportunity to defend yourself – that is the state in which the bank found itself. When the Treasury insisted that the supreme court view evidence obtained from the secret services, the judges obliged in good faith. Ultimately, the court attached little weight to this evidence and decided in Bank Mellat’s favour. …

    If the British people have suddenly decided that open justice is a luxury we cannot afford, then I for one was not invited to the debate. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that the threats facing the UK warrant such suspensions of justice, but it is both absurd and dangerous to allow this vital judgment call to be made solely by those politicians who hope to wield the new powers against us. Privileges which we can surely only give up voluntarily have been wrestled from us without our consent.”

    It is one thing to kick Muslim women about the place and make sanctimonious noises about the openness of the British justice system, it is another thing entirely to weigh the demands placed on those women against the liberties taken by secretive government institutions and compare which form of obfuscation would have the greatest impact on the basic rights and liberties of the average person.

    A Muslim women wearing a veil in the witness stand is of little significance next to the shroud covering the ‘evidence’ provided by public institutions persecuting their latest victim.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Mobile Michael, I think most of us would agree with that statement. What is not helpful is to consider this an issue of religion and waste time opposing the mistreatment of women on that basis.

    There are two reasons why that approach is flawed:

    1. You first have to convince deeply religious people to renounce their faith, in order to treat women properly.

    2. Often the reasons for their treatment of women are not due primarily to their religion and are more deeply ingrained in the culture.

    It is a lot easier to simply focus on the proper treatment of women and the benefits of that. As soon as you make it a religious issue you are creating a false dichotomy and it will be seen as deeply offensive. The fact is most Muslim women are not mistreated in this way and most Muslims would not approve of this. The reasons are primarily cultural not religious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Yoza (1,875 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (1,623) Says: 4:02 pm

    No other ruling is possible.

    Another possible ruling is that the credibility of a witness is weighted by the number of people who will testify to their honesty.

    That was the tack I was planning to take originally. I think these demands of Muslim women removing their head wear in circumstances where there is no need is more about Western voyeurism than natural justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I think these demands of Muslim women removing their head wear in circumstances where there is no need is more about Western voyeurism than natural justice.

    I see it as promotion of the attitude that English beliefs about head covering are superior to Muslim beliefs, just old fashioned parochial arrogance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    I see it as promotion of the attitude that English beliefs about head covering are superior to Muslim beliefs

    Maybe. What about Nuns and a variety of consevative christian sects that encourage women to cover up ? Clearly pious christians are not that far removed from pious muslims in this regard.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Clearly pious christians are not that far removed from pious muslims in this regard.

    Yeah, both Christianity and Islam seem to have a thing for women wearing excessively conservative clothing. It seems that any religion is vulnerable to some form of mindless extremism.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Bob R (1,375 comments) says:

    ***I see it as promotion of the attitude that English beliefs about head covering are superior to Muslim beliefs, just old fashioned parochial arrogance.***

    @ Ugly Truth,

    Next you’ll be saying that outlawing Female genital mutilation is just promotion of the attitude that English beliefs about female genitalia are superior to Muslim beliefs :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Female genital mutilation is cultural, not religious, Bob R. Circumcision only applies to males, both within Judaism and within Islam.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Bob R (1,375 comments) says:

    ***Female genital mutilation is cultural, not religious, Bob R.***

    @ Ugly Truth,

    There are a couple of points:

    1. It occurs also in other cultures, but Islamic theology legitimises it. For example, the Umdat al-Salik states:

    “Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris (this is called HufaaD).”

    Also, Islamic clerics recommend it:

    “The footage was obtained by an undercover reporter working for the Sunday Times newspaper, who posed as a Muslim seeking advice.

    During a meeting with Mohammed Abdul at the Masjid al-Huda mosque: ‘In this country, it is not possible, we cannot do that. (For) any other Muslim who likes to practise the way of Prophet Muhammad, the best way is to go to other countries. Some families, they go to Africa or Arab countries.

    ‘In this country you have to fight for your religion, your cultures, They (the British) don’t like your Muslim cultures.’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136907/Genital-mutilation-British-muslim-leader-caught-camera-advocating-female-circumcision.html#ixzz2fDdyr4uI

    2. Even if it were exclusively cultural, my point above stands. Stating that laws against misogynistic customs are simply “parochial arrogance” is cultural relativism at its most craven.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Bob R , and all that applies to Christianity. No other religion has done so much to oppress women in our society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Corinthians 14:34-36
    Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

    Titus 2:4-5
    Teach the young women to be … obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

    1 Peter 3:1
    Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    So what does the christian god say about head covering ?

    1 Corinthians 11:3-16
    English Standard Version (ESV)

    3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife[a] is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife[b] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.

    [Please direct cries of Troll !!! to god... the christian one]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    but Islamic theology legitimises it

    No, you are conflating the cultural beliefs of Muslims with their religious beliefs. Circumcision isn’t mentioned in the Quran, and the opinions of Muslims about it are conflicted, with some saying that it isn’t even necessary.

    The practice of circumcision was not introduced by Mohammed, he simply adopted a pre-existent custom. In this sense it is purely cultural and has nothing at all to do with Islam.

    Circumcision amongst semites originated within Judasim, but it was never applied to females. The adoption of the practice by non-Judiac semites could have had a religious basis, but only as an extension of the Judaic practice. Female circumcision did not have this origin.

    Even if it were exclusively cultural, my point above stands.

    It doesn’t stand because I am not arguing than custom either trumps, or is equal in value to reason, which is what you are implying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. gump (1,649 comments) says:

    @kowtow

    “What the fuck has the IRA got to do with Muslims?”

    ———————

    Are you serious?

    A group of extremist Catholic Republicans kills TWENTY times the number of Britons in a series of terrorist attacks spanning the last three decades of the twentieth century, and yet terrorism is somehow a Muslim problem?

    I hope your stupidity isn’t contagious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    Sorry I didn’t realise that this post was about Irish issues and further apologise that Enoch Powell didn’t forecast Irish terrorism as that particular terrorism was not related to foreign immigration into Britain.

    Last 3 decades ? Actually right through the century you dumb fucker.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. gump (1,649 comments) says:

    @kowtow

    “Last 3 decades ? Actually right through the century you dumb fucker.”

    ————–

    The casualty figures that I provided were specifically for the period 1969-1997.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_campaign_1969%E2%80%9397

    I’d politely suggest that the only “dumb fucker” in this discussion is you.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    Irish terror is an Irish issue and Muslim terror is a Muslim issue.

    This post is about Muslims in Britain not the Micks.

    And you don’t politely suggest anything, you make stupid comments such as “Stop making shit up. It makes you look stupid.”

    Wiki makes you a fucking expert on Irish terrorism? Well begorrah you learn sumting new everyday.

    I love some of the commenters here,wiki experts with nothing else to give?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Islam is not a religion and Kea is not a real God.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    kowtow, how about a few Thumb Ups for my bible quotes above ? :)

    It is hilarious the furious response from christians when I quote their bible. Nothing else gets them so worked up as a direct cut n paste from the good book itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    Over on Blaming the Victim Dr Who asked kea if she was Marni.

    No answer.

    Is she?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    I think she has multiple personalities..and certainly is no atheist..a muslim troll..There I called someone a troll..She gets very emotional about the whole religious thing..pretty weird really..If there is no god why get so stewed up about people who believe in some God or other..???
    The most illogical person writing on here.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Islam is not a religion

    Yet another of the NWO’s useful idiots demonstrates their ability to reject reality.

    religion: 1.
    a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
    b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Twinkletoes (53 comments) says:

    Ugly truth – I hate to correct you but female circumcision is mandated in Sharia law. It was a cultural thing in the time of the prophet and it was assimilated into Islam by the scholars who later wrote Islamic Law. Just because it is not in the Qur’an does not mean it is not part of Islam.

    Sharia Law is drawn from the Qur’an, ahadith, and Sira. The ahadith are remembrances of the prophet’s actions and sayings, the Sira is his autobiography. The “science of the ahadith” is a study of which ahadith are strong, true or weak, depending on the chain of people who reported these remembrances!

    Stoning and veiling are not mentioned in the Qur’an but appears in the ahadith (Bhukari is the most reliable collection) and are mandated in Sharia law as is apostasy which was the only way of ensuring that the Arabs would stick with islam.

    Noone knows less about Islam than its ordinary adherents, I would challenge you to find any that have actually read the Qur’an in full, perused a collection of ahadith or read the original Sira written by Ibn Ishaq in the century after Mohammed’s death

    One must also remember the massive amount of muslims in Islamic countries that are completely illiterate and the massive amount of literature produced by the muslims in the twentieth century which erases the true picture of the prophet in order to make his ideology more acceptable to western values.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote