INTENSITY²
Start here => Free For ALL => Topic started by: bodie on September 17, 2013, 04:23:33 AM
-
Big news in the UK at the moment. Muslim woman refuses to show her face in court and demands to make her 'plea' behind a burka!
This has sparked all sorts of discussions about whether a 'law' should be passed to determine exactly when and where the burka shouldn't be allowed.
My common sense view? I would allow this woman to wear her burka in open court but not while giving evidence, and not while addressing the court in person. It could be anyone under there! :zoinks:
I hate to see people having laws imposed on them about what to wear however it does pose a security risk in certain circumstances. Like passport checks at the airport for example.
I would also refuse to play poker against someone wearing one :zoinks:
-
Big news in the UK at the moment. Muslim woman refuses to show her face in court and demands to make her 'plea' behind a burka!
This has sparked all sorts of discussions about whether a 'law' should be passed to determine exactly when and where the burka shouldn't be allowed.
My common sense view? I would allow this woman to wear her burka in open court but not while giving evidence, and not while addressing the court in person. It could be anyone under there! :zoinks:
I hate to see people having laws imposed on them about what to wear however it does pose a security risk in certain circumstances. Like passport checks at the airport for example.
I would also refuse to play poker against someone wearing one :zoinks:
How about a balaclava?
-
Big news in the UK at the moment. Muslim woman refuses to show her face in court and demands to make her 'plea' behind a burka!
This has sparked all sorts of discussions about whether a 'law' should be passed to determine exactly when and where the burka shouldn't be allowed.
My common sense view? I would allow this woman to wear her burka in open court but not while giving evidence, and not while addressing the court in person. It could be anyone under there! :zoinks:
I hate to see people having laws imposed on them about what to wear however it does pose a security risk in certain circumstances. Like passport checks at the airport for example.
I would also refuse to play poker against someone wearing one :zoinks:
During sex. :zoinks:
-
There are signs outside most banks, post offices, petrol stations, courts etc saying you must take off your crash helmet before entering, not seen anything about balaclava's.
-
There are signs outside most banks, post offices, petrol stations, courts etc saying you must take off your crash helmet before entering, not seen anything about balaclava's.
It makes sense that there are places where you just have to show your face.
-
Big news in the UK at the moment. Muslim woman refuses to show her face in court and demands to make her 'plea' behind a burka!
This has sparked all sorts of discussions about whether a 'law' should be passed to determine exactly when and where the burka shouldn't be allowed.
My common sense view? I would allow this woman to wear her burka in open court but not while giving evidence, and not while addressing the court in person. It could be anyone under there! :zoinks:
I hate to see people having laws imposed on them about what to wear however it does pose a security risk in certain circumstances. Like passport checks at the airport for example.
I would also refuse to play poker against someone wearing one :zoinks:
Despite my own non-belief, I have to respect the religious beliefs of this woman. I can tell her shes being stupid, but I cannot force her not to wear the burka.
-
:agreed:
-
:agreed:
And many people would call me a horrible person for telling the woman what I really think, even though the people who would feel this way, would be the ones trying to "BAN BURKAS".
Its mystifying to me. What -is- that?
-
Big news in the UK at the moment. Muslim woman refuses to show her face in court and demands to make her 'plea' behind a burka!
This has sparked all sorts of discussions about whether a 'law' should be passed to determine exactly when and where the burka shouldn't be allowed.
My common sense view? I would allow this woman to wear her burka in open court but not while giving evidence, and not while addressing the court in person. It could be anyone under there! :zoinks:
I hate to see people having laws imposed on them about what to wear however it does pose a security risk in certain circumstances. Like passport checks at the airport for example.
I would also refuse to play poker against someone wearing one :zoinks:
"When is the wearing of a 'burka' innopropriate ?"
"When you are in line to see your favourite Atheist speaker and you suspect the person in line behind, in a burka, you is actually a man and that they are strapped up with explosives and a small hand held transmitter"
"When you are nearing a checkpoint and you suspect the person in a burka, standing to the side of the checkpoint is actually a man and that they are strapped up with explosives and a small hand held transmitter"
"When after a big night out you are naked and trying to coerce the person you bought back to your hotel room, to get undressed and have sex with you, BUT in a moment of semi-lucidity you suspect the person in a burka, lying on the bed fully clothed, and giving you "come hither looks", is actually a man and that they are strapped up with explosives and a small hand held transmitter"
-
Big news in the UK at the moment. Muslim woman refuses to show her face in court and demands to make her 'plea' behind a burka!
This has sparked all sorts of discussions about whether a 'law' should be passed to determine exactly when and where the burka shouldn't be allowed.
My common sense view? I would allow this woman to wear her burka in open court but not while giving evidence, and not while addressing the court in person. It could be anyone under there! :zoinks:
I hate to see people having laws imposed on them about what to wear however it does pose a security risk in certain circumstances. Like passport checks at the airport for example.
I would also refuse to play poker against someone wearing one :zoinks:
"When is the wearing of a 'burka' innopropriate ?"
"When you are in line to see your favourite Atheist speaker and you suspect the person in line behind, in a burka, you is actually a man and that they are strapped up with explosives and a small hand held transmitter"
"When you are nearing a checkpoint and you suspect the person in a burka, standing to the side of the checkpoint is actually a man and that they are strapped up with explosives and a small hand held transmitter"
"When after a big night out you are naked and trying to coerce the person you bought back to your hotel room, to get undressed and have sex with you, BUT in a moment of semi-lucidity you suspect the person in a burka, lying on the bed fully clothed, and giving you "come hither looks", is actually a man and that they are strapped up with explosives and a small hand held transmitter"
Its always a possibility, but freedom is never 100% "safe". In a free society, there is always an element of risk and there always will be. From where i'm standing, the choice seems to be a completely secure society which is also completely micromanaged, or a free society with the possibility of danger.
-
Well yes. Consider the Pariot Act and the increased powers of police, government and pseudo law-enforcement (TSA etc), now weigh up the times and the amount of encroachment of what was (ought to be) civil liberties and rights of decent Americans VS the deference, and amount of actual criminals and terrorists caught , by virtue of these law abiding American rights suppression.
The terrorists are not suffering Mom and Pop are getting anal cavity searched and having their liberties stripped away. Are they being protected or persecuted and if so........why?
-
Well yes. Consider the Pariot Act and the increased powers of police, government and pseudo law-enforcement (TSA etc), now weigh up the times and the amount of encroachment of what was (ought to be) civil liberties and rights of decent Americans VS the deference, and amount of actual criminals and terrorists caught , by virtue of these law abiding American rights suppression.
The terrorists are not suffering Mom and Pop are getting anal cavity searched and having their liberties stripped away. Are they being protected or persecuted and if so........why?
And what exactly is all this protecting us from in the first place? I have to ask that question, because it just seems obvious that the war on terror is a BIG FAT LIE. What exactly is all this overreaching security stopping? It seems to me that the only "terrorist attacks" in America were carried out successfully (9-11, and the boston bombing) and after careful examination, those may have arguably been staged. You would think that if the U.S. government was zapping terror left and right, they would be insufferable braggarts about it, but I've not hears a single word on the matter. None.
-
The war on terror has always been a big, fat, honking great faggot fuck of a lie, just like the USA's equally spurious 'war on drugs'
One cannot wage a war against a concept, emotion or ideology; They do not pick up a weapon and start firing, PEOPLE are needed to do that
-
There are signs outside most banks, post offices, petrol stations, courts etc saying you must take off your crash helmet before entering, not seen anything about balaclava's.
Outside the bank, there was a sign saying customers must lower the hoods of their sweatshirts in the bank. :ninja:
-
It would be counterproductive to wear a burka at the dentists's or dermatologist's office. :tard:
-
also, no good if entering a beauty contest :zoinks:
-
:agreed:
And many people would call me a horrible person for telling the woman what I really think, even though the people who would feel this way, would be the ones trying to "BAN BURKAS".
Its mystifying to me. What -is- that?
I'm not releasing my bite till I get an answer, guys.
-
Seriously. I will never stop asking. I will never legislate against people observing their beliefs or behaving how they feel is right. If I think they're being stupid I will LOUDLY tell them so, but I will not bar their path. They are responsible for their own actions, I reckon.
So tell me. Why are people trying so damn hard to have control over one another while at the same time telling people who see things the way that I do, that we are hateful and disrespectful?
Answer me. Extra interest points for an answer from someone like Adam or Genesis.
-
I don't see any real effort to prevent people from displaying beliefs or dressing as they want. There is a very small minority seeking to ban the burka from all public places. They are extremists and not supported by the majority of UK citizens.
There are instances where covering your face, which provides a level of anonymity, is just not practical.
Just to be clear - the UK government have no specific legislation on the burka. They have stated they do not intend to impose any.
The law and the burka clashed when a court couldn't clarify who the person was wearing the burka. The law does state that it must identify the correct person to whom it is seeking to deliver justice.
The government here has made it clear that it intends to not meddle with dress codes. If a bank states customers will not be allowed entry unless the face is seen well then they see it as upto them.
There is another angle, though, and that is the media feeds we get suggesting that a lot of young women are forced to wear these garments and that their use is to oppress them?
-
I don't see any real effort to prevent people from displaying beliefs or dressing as they want. There is a very small minority seeking to ban the burka from all public places. They are extremists and not supported by the majority of UK citizens
I didn't expect you to know, Bodie. You seem to have too much common sense. I do see that you took a long time to comment though, which probably means you really gave it some thought. I appreciate that you tried.
I will continue to look for the answer to this question though. What exactly IS that? Where does it come from?
-
What exactly IS that? Where does it come from?
What do you mean?
I took a long time to reply because I was listening to events unfold further on the news. Some debate about hospitals, then another from a muslim woman saying the Burka is not really anything to do with Islam! I wanted to get my head around all these issues before I commented further.
BTW a man was arrested somewhere in the north of England because he has a tattoo of a mosque on his chest with a clear image of an explosion and the words 'boom' written underneath!
:-\ wondering what he could be charged with?
-
What exactly IS that? Where does it come from?
What do you mean?
I took a long time to reply because I was listening to events unfold further on the news. Some debate about hospitals, then another from a muslim woman saying the Burka is not really anything to do with Islam! I wanted to get my head around all these issues before I commented further.
BTW a man was arrested somewhere in the north of England because he has a tattoo of a mosque on his chest with a clear image of an explosion and the words 'boom' written underneath!
:-\ wondering what he could be charged with?
:-\ wondering what he could be charged with?
For crimes he -might- commit, of course.
What do you mean?
That is what I mean, actually. That kind of behavior. I don't even know what to call it, like a "holier than thou" attitude or something, but pockets of people have somehow garnered success in manipulating legislations and social engineering in order to make disassembling the human mind acceptable. Trends are surfacing that shame everything related to being a human being. Yes, many aspects of many societies now attempt to shame people's humanity.
Again. Dafuq is that?
-
The UK is really sick :thumbdn:
-
Big news in the UK at the moment. Muslim woman refuses to show her face in court and demands to make her 'plea' behind a burka!
This has sparked all sorts of discussions about whether a 'law' should be passed to determine exactly when and where the burka shouldn't be allowed.
My common sense view? I would allow this woman to wear her burka in open court but not while giving evidence, and not while addressing the court in person. It could be anyone under there! :zoinks:
I hate to see people having laws imposed on them about what to wear however it does pose a security risk in certain circumstances. Like passport checks at the airport for example.
I would also refuse to play poker against someone wearing one :zoinks:
"When is the wearing of a 'burka' innopropriate ?"
"When you are in line to see your favourite Atheist speaker and you suspect the person in line behind, in a burka, you is actually a man and that they are strapped up with explosives and a small hand held transmitter"
"When you are nearing a checkpoint and you suspect the person in a burka, standing to the side of the checkpoint is actually a man and that they are strapped up with explosives and a small hand held transmitter"
"When after a big night out you are naked and trying to coerce the person you bought back to your hotel room, to get undressed and have sex with you, BUT in a moment of semi-lucidity you suspect the person in a burka, lying on the bed fully clothed, and giving you "come hither looks", is actually a man and that they are strapped up with explosives and a small hand held transmitter"
Quit being so sexist, Al. Women want to bomb you to smithereens too. :hahaha:
-
The BBC reported on this. Saw it on GMT, I think. I don't see any compelling public need to strip people of their burkas in court.
The woman was able to be seen without the burka by a female officer of the court, and have her identity verified in that manner.
I don't think it came up in this thread, but someone mentioned somewhere the jury ought to be able to observe non-verbal behavior of the person testifying. I disagree with this assertion as well. I am certain that non-verbal behavior can be used every bit as deceptively as spoken words, and in the case of persons who have unusual NVB it would naturally be impossible for anyone unfamiliar with that individual to know when they were lying.
-
Would have to agree with Sir Les, in that encountering a fully cloaked person is creepy. Though in a court situation, like a jurist, it wouldn't matter. It could be assumed the courts have properly identified the identity of the witness; don't really need to know what they look like. Some people might not like the idea of the inability to read the facial expression of a witness. That makes sense too.
-
Changing your body language is extremely difficult as much of it is subconscious so it could be a diffident advantage for the person wearing one.
-
Yes, that's why I said it makes sense that people want to be able to see that. It would just be more creepy for me than anything.
-
The whole burka concept is creepy to me
-
Changing your body language is extremely difficult as much of it is subconscious so it could be a diffident advantage for the person wearing one.
It's not easy, but it can still be done. I would say that if the jury has to rely on its own perception of body language to determine if someone is lying, then opposing council is not doing its job. The point of a cross-examination is to demonstrate a person's honesty, or at the very least the correctness of their previous testimony. It's not the job of the jury, but of the lawyers arguing the case.
Even when people have completely normal perception, their experience of another person's body language is still subjective, and I would want the adversarial system to rely on more objective phenomena.
-
Changing your body language is extremely difficult as much of it is subconscious so it could be a diffident advantage for the person wearing one.
It's not easy, but it can still be done. I would say that if the jury has to rely on its own perception of body language to determine if someone is lying, then opposing council is not doing its job. The point of a cross-examination is to demonstrate a person's honesty, or at the very least the correctness of their previous testimony. It's not the job of the jury, but of the lawyers arguing the case.
Even when people have completely normal perception, their experience of another person's body language is still subjective, and I would want the adversarial system to rely on more objective phenomena.
The point of cross-examination is to discredit the opponent's witnesses.
-
What about someone in a burka wearing dark sunglasses? 8)
:zoinks:
-
So let me get this straight. Burkas won't be allowed in some places because "they're creepy". Is that really whats being said in here? :o
-
Changing your body language is extremely difficult as much of it is subconscious so it could be a diffident advantage for the person wearing one.
It's not easy, but it can still be done. I would say that if the jury has to rely on its own perception of body language to determine if someone is lying, then opposing council is not doing its job. The point of a cross-examination is to demonstrate a person's honesty, or at the very least the correctness of their previous testimony. It's not the job of the jury, but of the lawyers arguing the case.
Even when people have completely normal perception, their experience of another person's body language is still subjective, and I would want the adversarial system to rely on more objective phenomena.
The point of cross-examination is to discredit the opponent's witnesses.
Same difference. They succeed or they fail. The point is different members of the judicial system have different jobs. Considering that members of the jury will not always even have good perception of body language, evaluating it would be the job of an expert witness called by legal council, with the permission of the judge.
-
So let me get this straight. Burkas won't be allowed in some places because "they're creepy". Is that really whats being said in here? :o
Is this directed at me? If so, then no, just said I think they're creepy. Can't really think of any grounds to disallow them.
-
Changing your body language is extremely difficult as much of it is subconscious so it could be a diffident advantage for the person wearing one.
It's not easy, but it can still be done. I would say that if the jury has to rely on its own perception of body language to determine if someone is lying, then opposing council is not doing its job. The point of a cross-examination is to demonstrate a person's honesty, or at the very least the correctness of their previous testimony. It's not the job of the jury, but of the lawyers arguing the case.
Even when people have completely normal perception, their experience of another person's body language is still subjective, and I would want the adversarial system to rely on more objective phenomena.
The point of cross-examination is to discredit the opponent's witnesses.
Same difference. They succeed or they fail. The point is different members of the judicial system have different jobs. Considering that members of the jury will not always even have good perception of body language, evaluating it would be the job of an expert witness called by legal council, with the permission of the judge.
I think you're universally applying aspie standards to a mixed aspie/NT world. I would think that a case that's easy to decide would be settled out of court, to avoid the expense of litigation. The job of the jury is to evaluate the evidence to find the truth of a case. Any expert witness you call in to interpret body language would be doing the jury's job.
-
Changing your body language is extremely difficult as much of it is subconscious so it could be a diffident advantage for the person wearing one.
It's not easy, but it can still be done. I would say that if the jury has to rely on its own perception of body language to determine if someone is lying, then opposing council is not doing its job. The point of a cross-examination is to demonstrate a person's honesty, or at the very least the correctness of their previous testimony. It's not the job of the jury, but of the lawyers arguing the case.
Even when people have completely normal perception, their experience of another person's body language is still subjective, and I would want the adversarial system to rely on more objective phenomena.
The point of cross-examination is to discredit the opponent's witnesses.
Same difference. They succeed or they fail. The point is different members of the judicial system have different jobs. Considering that members of the jury will not always even have good perception of body language, evaluating it would be the job of an expert witness called by legal council, with the permission of the judge.
I think you're universally applying aspie standards to a mixed aspie/NT world. I would think that a case that's easy to decide would be settled out of court, to avoid the expense of litigation. The job of the jury is to evaluate the evidence to find the truth of a case. Any expert witness you call in to interpret body language would be doing the jury's job.
I'm bringing up universal human weaknesses. Even non-autistics misjudge each other and get lied to and get fooled. It's possible that you might get lucky and end up with a jury made up of body language savants, from whom no deception can be disguised, and to whom the truth will always shine, but more likely you will not. Hell, part of preparing a witness to testify is coaching on performance. "Don't touch your hair at the end of that particular sentence, it makes you look like a liar." That is why you have cross examinations and expert witnesses in the first place.
-
They should just make everyone in the courtroom be naked. :2thumbsup:
What about someone in a burka wearing dark sunglasses? 8)
:zoinks:
Naked and wearing sunglasses. :zoinks:
-
So let me get this straight. Burkas won't be allowed in some places because "they're creepy". Is that really whats being said in here? :o
Is this directed at me? If so, then no, just said I think they're creepy. Can't really think of any grounds to disallow them.
I was speaking generally, but yes. There is no factual reason to abuse these people.
-
(http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/uploads/cmimg_53608.jpg)
Doesn't matter to me.
Just thinking how hot and uncomfortable that has to be.
I would be dying. :zombiefuck:
-
I'd be ok-ish with them staying legal, if only they could be made mandatory for a few select individuals, under pain of death by slow torture.
Namely cherie blair, angela merkel, one of my next door neighbors to name a couple :P
Ban the burka generally IMO, it is not contributing to the good of anything, or anyone despite how they might think so due to religious psychological conditioning/brainwashing and make it mandatory for any ugly people going out in public.
-
What about someone in a burka wearing dark sunglasses? 8)
:zoinks:
Didn't Trigger post a few years ago about not being allowed to wear sunglasses in court? Or at least having a very hard time getting that allowed.
-
I guess if you're a teacher or a doctor (unless you are only dealing with other muslim patients who actually want that (?)
I dunno.
Teachers shouldn't be allowed to though
As for court, dunno. The thing that does bother me is the double standards though. You can't cover your face in here UNLESS IT'S FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS
You can't kill animals in inhumane ways UNLESS IT'S FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS
You can't fuck about with your kids' genitals UNLESS IT'S FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS
Ffs, Either something is wrong or it's not.
-
You can't fuck about with your kids' genitals UNLESS IT'S FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS
That one always brings my blood to a boil. I don't like torturing animals either, but cutting off pieces of your own children when they are babies? That is purely widespread mental illness.
-
:agreed:
-
So let me get this straight. Burkas won't be allowed in some places because "they're creepy". Is that really whats being said in here? :o
Here you go as straight as it gets I don't give a rat's ass if someone wants to wear one or not but do not expect me to treat someone wearing one the same as someone who is not. I would place them on par with someone I was talking to on the telephone or through a door, one I can't really tell who I am dealing with/talking to, two I have hearing issues and many times I have to watch peoples mouths when they speak to help understand what they are saying.
As to body language in court if it didn't matter they could just give the jurors transcripts of the testimony after the fact but somehow I just don't see that happening.
-
Its that filthy spectre of political correctness. It is not, and never has been a good thing for anybody but the professionally hurt feelings brigade, by that I mean those who are ''professionals'' in the kind of odious non-job that is dedicated to showing to others their apparent piety to the unholy cause of PC nazism, beating at their breast and tearing their shirts hollowly and falsely in the name who's wallet they have been worshipping latest.
ANYBODY who supports political correctness is really doing themselves no favor, and quite honest? IMO is a bit of an obsequious, thoughtless, pandering toady. PC is not a valid cause or an honourable one, it is a pestilent disease
look where it got us with the middle east, pandering, guzzling ay-rab jizz in exchange for oil and other goods.
The last labor govt and the one before even admitted conspiring to deliberately leave britain's borders wide open to 'rub their noses in diversity.
And more recently we have tolerance for sharia courts as a parallel legal 'system', and in general, these PC filth we have are infesting our countries with jihadists, government figures that need to be arrested and tried for what they have done and a disgusting nest of race traitors.
Something needs doing about the lot of them.
-
I could care less if someone is wearing a burka.
-
The only good thing I can come up with, is that all these distinctive raghead dress getups mean they are obvious. Whilst wearing the burka, niqab etc, then they are highly distinctive as mud-slims, that way its easier to pick the opposite end of the tram to town, etc. makes it much easier to spot the pakis from a distance when one wishes to avoid the dirty things.
-
The only good thing I can come up with, is that all these distinctive raghead dress getups mean they are obvious. Whilst wearing the burka, niqab etc, then they are highly distinctive as mud-slims, that way its easier to pick the opposite end of the tram to town, etc. makes it much easier to spot the pakis from a distance when one wishes to avoid the dirty things.
You know, the muslims you guys encounter in Britain are mostly the ones their own people wouldn't put up with. Kind of the muslim rednecks.
-
As to body language in court if it didn't matter they could just give the jurors transcripts of the testimony after the fact but somehow I just don't see that happening.
It does happen when the witness is unavailable.
-
It does happen when the witness is unavailable.
Are you going to pick a username, simba?
-
It does happen when the witness is unavailable.
Are you going to pick a username, simba?
Feh. Maybe.
-
As to body language in court if it didn't matter they could just give the jurors transcripts of the testimony after the fact but somehow I just don't see that happening.
It does happen when the witness is unavailable.
Yes but it is not common practice and objections are usually involved
-
As to body language in court if it didn't matter they could just give the jurors transcripts of the testimony after the fact but somehow I just don't see that happening.
It does happen when the witness is unavailable.
Yes but it is not common practice and objections are usually involved
Point being? We do not live in an ideal world full of ideal people. Ideally, of course we could tell if a person were lying just by looking at them. Ideally, perhaps people wouldn't lie at all. But it's no use wandering off into fantasy land. People may personally feel more comfortable with a witness they can see and hear. They may congratulate themselves on their great judgement of when someone is lying. But the sad reality is that truth-sense only exists in Frank Herbert novels. Verbal testimony offers an illusion of being harder to fool, nothing more.
-
As to body language in court if it didn't matter they could just give the jurors transcripts of the testimony after the fact but somehow I just don't see that happening.
It does happen when the witness is unavailable.
Yes but it is not common practice and objections are usually involved
Point being? We do not live in an ideal world full of ideal people. Ideally, of course we could tell if a person were lying just by looking at them. Ideally, perhaps people wouldn't lie at all. But it's no use wandering off into fantasy land. People may personally feel more comfortable with a witness they can see and hear. They may congratulate themselves on their great judgement of when someone is lying. But the sad reality is that truth-sense only exists in Frank Herbert novels. Verbal testimony offers an illusion of being harder to fool, nothing more.
So let's just enter all the facts into a computer and let it make the decisions.
Like it or not scientific or not a lot of people make decisions based on how they feel about the way people say things and act while doing so. I am a contractor and if someone makes me uneasy I will not work for them it might not be 'truth-sense' but it has served me well over the years so far in the 11 years I have been in business I have only been stiffed for $500. I feel in court it will only hurt your case wearing a burka if you don't care about that go right ahead and do it.
-
race traitors.
???
-
There are also nearly one million people in the UK who are deaf and rely on sign language and lip reading in order to communicate. :zoinks:
-
race traitors.
???
Girls having sex with "enrichers".
-
As to body language in court if it didn't matter they could just give the jurors transcripts of the testimony after the fact but somehow I just don't see that happening.
It does happen when the witness is unavailable.
Yes but it is not common practice and objections are usually involved
I should point out that the case I was referring to was not about the woman being a witness. She was on trial charged with 'intimidation of a witness' . She was allowed to wear her burka throughout except for when she was in the dock.
-
As to body language in court if it didn't matter they could just give the jurors transcripts of the testimony after the fact but somehow I just don't see that happening.
It does happen when the witness is unavailable.
Yes but it is not common practice and objections are usually involved
Point being? We do not live in an ideal world full of ideal people. Ideally, of course we could tell if a person were lying just by looking at them. Ideally, perhaps people wouldn't lie at all. But it's no use wandering off into fantasy land. People may personally feel more comfortable with a witness they can see and hear. They may congratulate themselves on their great judgement of when someone is lying. But the sad reality is that truth-sense only exists in Frank Herbert novels. Verbal testimony offers an illusion of being harder to fool, nothing more.
So let's just enter all the facts into a computer and let it make the decisions.
Like it or not scientific or not a lot of people make decisions based on how they feel about the way people say things and act while doing so. I am a contractor and if someone makes me uneasy I will not work for them it might not be 'truth-sense' but it has served me well over the years so far in the 11 years I have been in business I have only been stiffed for $500. I feel in court it will only hurt your case wearing a burka if you don't care about that go right ahead and do it.
Believe it or not, I've never actually worn a burka.
You're forgetting the two other components of the court system: the judge and the attorneys. The judge admits evidence according to the law, and decides how the conclusion of the jury fits in with the law. The attorneys submit evidence, including testimony, and cross examine witnesses. The jury typically does none of those things. Their job is to examine the evidence presented and the case that each attorney presents, and decide who has the better case. Juries are not lawyers and have not been trained to cross-examine witnesses and poke holes in stories. Some of them may certainly have those abilities, but court system is not designed to rely on them having them. I see no reason why a piece of cloth could impair a savvy lawyer who has more than likely seen a Muslim woman at least once before.
-
There are also nearly one million people in the UK who are deaf and rely on sign language and lip reading in order to communicate. :zoinks:
If a person relies on sign language rather than lip reading, then at least some of the time it's because they have to. Very little information about what you are saying actually ends up on the lips, and those who lip read must supplement that information with what little hearing they have. In either case, interpreters and written transcripts make the situation much more accessible than merely stripping some poor woman of her religious garb.
-
As to body language in court if it didn't matter they could just give the jurors transcripts of the testimony after the fact but somehow I just don't see that happening.
It does happen when the witness is unavailable.
Yes but it is not common practice and objections are usually involved
Point being? We do not live in an ideal world full of ideal people. Ideally, of course we could tell if a person were lying just by looking at them. Ideally, perhaps people wouldn't lie at all. But it's no use wandering off into fantasy land. People may personally feel more comfortable with a witness they can see and hear. They may congratulate themselves on their great judgement of when someone is lying. But the sad reality is that truth-sense only exists in Frank Herbert novels. Verbal testimony offers an illusion of being harder to fool, nothing more.
So let's just enter all the facts into a computer and let it make the decisions.
Like it or not scientific or not a lot of people make decisions based on how they feel about the way people say things and act while doing so. I am a contractor and if someone makes me uneasy I will not work for them it might not be 'truth-sense' but it has served me well over the years so far in the 11 years I have been in business I have only been stiffed for $500. I feel in court it will only hurt your case wearing a burka if you don't care about that go right ahead and do it.
Believe it or not, I've never actually worn a burka.
You're forgetting the two other components of the court system: the judge and the attorneys. The judge admits evidence according to the law, and decides how the conclusion of the jury fits in with the law. The attorneys submit evidence, including testimony, and cross examine witnesses. The jury typically does none of those things. Their job is to examine the evidence presented and the case that each attorney presents, and decide who has the better case. Juries are not lawyers and have not been trained to cross-examine witnesses and poke holes in stories. Some of them may certainly have those abilities, but court system is not designed to rely on them having them. I see no reason why a piece of cloth could impair a savvy lawyer who has more than likely seen a Muslim woman at least once before.
I never thought that you had worn one the 'you' was used more in a general sense.
I think you are deluding yourself if you think how witnesses appear and act has no influence on the jury. Judges can give instructions and lawyers can do their best but jurors will still consider what they saw. My view it only hurts the persons case and I am fairly sure I am not alone in my feelings.
-
I never thought that you had worn one the 'you' was used more in a general sense.
I think you are deluding yourself if you think how witnesses appear and act has no influence on the jury. Judges can give instructions and lawyers can do their best but jurors will still consider what they saw. My view it only hurts the persons case and I am fairly sure I am not alone in my feelings.
When did I say appearance did not affect juries' perception? My point has been that the jury should not be attempting this anyway. Of course I'm aware that not everyone does what they are supposed to.
-
As to body language in court if it didn't matter they could just give the jurors transcripts of the testimony after the fact but somehow I just don't see that happening.
It does happen when the witness is unavailable.
Yes but it is not common practice and objections are usually involved
Point being? We do not live in an ideal world full of ideal people. Ideally, of course we could tell if a person were lying just by looking at them. Ideally, perhaps people wouldn't lie at all. But it's no use wandering off into fantasy land. People may personally feel more comfortable with a witness they can see and hear. They may congratulate themselves on their great judgement of when someone is lying. But the sad reality is that truth-sense only exists in Frank Herbert novels. Verbal testimony offers an illusion of being harder to fool, nothing more.
So let's just enter all the facts into a computer and let it make the decisions.
Like it or not scientific or not a lot of people make decisions based on how they feel about the way people say things and act while doing so. I am a contractor and if someone makes me uneasy I will not work for them it might not be 'truth-sense' but it has served me well over the years so far in the 11 years I have been in business I have only been stiffed for $500. I feel in court it will only hurt your case wearing a burka if you don't care about that go right ahead and do it.
Believe it or not, I've never actually worn a burka.
You're forgetting the two other components of the court system: the judge and the attorneys. The judge admits evidence according to the law, and decides how the conclusion of the jury fits in with the law. The attorneys submit evidence, including testimony, and cross examine witnesses. The jury typically does none of those things. Their job is to examine the evidence presented and the case that each attorney presents, and decide who has the better case. Juries are not lawyers and have not been trained to cross-examine witnesses and poke holes in stories. Some of them may certainly have those abilities, but court system is not designed to rely on them having them. I see no reason why a piece of cloth could impair a savvy lawyer who has more than likely seen a Muslim woman at least once before.
I don't know anything about the British system, but in the US the defendant is never required to take the stand to testify, or even to show up in the court room. So what is the difference between not showing up at all, and showing up in a burkha? That being said, if the defendant does testify the prosecution gets to cross-examine for the purpose of disproving the testimony, in which case I would think the ability to look at the accused is important.
-
race traitors.
???
Girls having sex with "enrichers".
:facepalm:
-
I don't know anything about the British system, but in the US the defendant is never required to take the stand to testify, or even to show up in the court room. So what is the difference between not showing up at all, and showing up in a burkha? That being said, if the defendant does testify the prosecution gets to cross-examine for the purpose of disproving the testimony, in which case I would think the ability to look at the accused is important.
I've been assuming all along that the British system takes the basic form of the adversarial system we can usually expect here in the states.
I'll allow that personal presence allows a cross examination, or at least makes it easier, and that that might yield information useful to justice. But I'm not convinced body language or facial expression is useful. I find it extremely unlikely that someone who would be willing to risk charges of perjury would have no experience with lying effectively.
-
'Enrichers', lit?
What is an enricher? the other guilty party in cases of miscegenation where mudslims are guilty of the practice? **as of course one cannot have miscegenation without two parties bearing the guilt of their wrongdoing.**
**(minimum...unless michael jackson counts if he ever tossed his own salad haha)**
I am to be quite frank, sick and tired of it, the way that the UK govt seems hellbent on getting our (NOT *theirs*, OUR!)
citizens killed in atrocities, and bending over backwards to slobber and fawn at the feet of allah, muhammid and their disgusting pack of cultists. This needs to stop. And it the government will not do so, then the private citizenry need to band together to kick them out of the country. Every last single one of them. Or failing kicking them out, WIPING them out.
-
I never thought that you had worn one the 'you' was used more in a general sense.
I think you are deluding yourself if you think how witnesses appear and act has no influence on the jury. Judges can give instructions and lawyers can do their best but jurors will still consider what they saw. My view it only hurts the persons case and I am fairly sure I am not alone in my feelings.
When did I say appearance did not affect juries' perception? My point has been that the jury should not be attempting this anyway. Of course I'm aware that not everyone does what they are supposed to.
Here you go straight from New Jersey Courts information for jurors page. Link (http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/juror.htm)
Each juror should pay close attention to the witness who is testifying, both to hear what the witness says and to watch the witness's manner and actions. In evaluating a witness's testimony a juror may consider the witness's credibility and ultimately decide how much weight the testimony deserves.
And another form the US Embassy's site, of all places on the role of the witness
Link (http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/publication/2009/07/20090706174632ebyessedo0.9546885.html)
Witnesses are instructed to sit erect in the witness box and to swivel their bodies toward the jurors so that the jury may see their face and body language during their response. This is important no matter whether the case is being heard by a judge or a jury, but it is exponentially important when jurors — men and women from all walks of everyday life — are going to be reaching a verdict.
-
'Enrichers', lit?
What is an enricher? the other guilty party in cases of miscegenation where mudslims are guilty of the practice? **as of course one cannot have miscegenation without two parties bearing the guilt of their wrongdoing.**
**(minimum...unless michael jackson counts if he ever tossed his own salad haha)**
I am to be quite frank, sick and tired of it, the way that the UK govt seems hellbent on getting our (NOT *theirs*, OUR!)
citizens killed in atrocities, and bending over backwards to slobber and fawn at the feet of allah, muhammid and their disgusting pack of cultists. This needs to stop. And it the government will not do so, then the private citizenry need to band together to kick them out of the country. Every last single one of them. Or failing kicking them out, WIPING them out.
Well mass murder is not really a good solution for anything dude, but you guys should have the right to do something at least.
-
'Enrichers', lit?
What is an enricher? the other guilty party in cases of miscegenation where mudslims are guilty of the practice? **as of course one cannot have miscegenation without two parties bearing the guilt of their wrongdoing.**
**(minimum...unless michael jackson counts if he ever tossed his own salad haha)**
I am to be quite frank, sick and tired of it, the way that the UK govt seems hellbent on getting our (NOT *theirs*, OUR!)
citizens killed in atrocities, and bending over backwards to slobber and fawn at the feet of allah, muhammid and their disgusting pack of cultists. This needs to stop. And it the government will not do so, then the private citizenry need to band together to kick them out of the country. Every last single one of them. Or failing kicking them out, WIPING them out.
Well mass murder is not really a good solution for anything dude, but you guys should have the right to do something at least.
Genocide due to religious affiliation? :thumbdn:
-
'Enrichers', lit?
What is an enricher? the other guilty party in cases of miscegenation where mudslims are guilty of the practice? **as of course one cannot have miscegenation without two parties bearing the guilt of their wrongdoing.**
**(minimum...unless michael jackson counts if he ever tossed his own salad haha)**
I am to be quite frank, sick and tired of it, the way that the UK govt seems hellbent on getting our (NOT *theirs*, OUR!)
citizens killed in atrocities, and bending over backwards to slobber and fawn at the feet of allah, muhammid and their disgusting pack of cultists. This needs to stop. And it the government will not do so, then the private citizenry need to band together to kick them out of the country. Every last single one of them. Or failing kicking them out, WIPING them out.
Well mass murder is not really a good solution for anything dude, but you guys should have the right to do something at least.
Genocide due to religious affiliation? :thumbdn:
Yeah, I know. You don't have to KILL someone to make your point. I myself am a pretty fiery guy, but that's going a bit too far.
-
'Enrichers', lit?
What is an enricher? the other guilty party in cases of miscegenation where mudslims are guilty of the practice? **as of course one cannot have miscegenation without two parties bearing the guilt of their wrongdoing.**
**(minimum...unless michael jackson counts if he ever tossed his own salad haha)**
I am to be quite frank, sick and tired of it, the way that the UK govt seems hellbent on getting our (NOT *theirs*, OUR!)
citizens killed in atrocities, and bending over backwards to slobber and fawn at the feet of allah, muhammid and their disgusting pack of cultists. This needs to stop. And it the government will not do so, then the private citizenry need to band together to kick them out of the country. Every last single one of them. Or failing kicking them out, WIPING them out.
Well mass murder is not really a good solution for anything dude, but you guys should have the right to do something at least.
Genocide due to religious affiliation? :thumbdn:
Yeah, I know. You don't have to KILL someone to make your point. I myself am a pretty fiery guy, but that's going a bit too far.
What if your point was that pushing someone off a 1000 foot cliff would kill them :P
-
'Enrichers', lit?
What is an enricher? the other guilty party in cases of miscegenation where mudslims are guilty of the practice? **as of course one cannot have miscegenation without two parties bearing the guilt of their wrongdoing.**
**(minimum...unless michael jackson counts if he ever tossed his own salad haha)**
I am to be quite frank, sick and tired of it, the way that the UK govt seems hellbent on getting our (NOT *theirs*, OUR!)
citizens killed in atrocities, and bending over backwards to slobber and fawn at the feet of allah, muhammid and their disgusting pack of cultists. This needs to stop. And it the government will not do so, then the private citizenry need to band together to kick them out of the country. Every last single one of them. Or failing kicking them out, WIPING them out.
Well mass murder is not really a good solution for anything dude, but you guys should have the right to do something at least.
Genocide due to religious affiliation? :thumbdn:
And race, it seems
-
'Enrichers', lit?
What is an enricher? the other guilty party in cases of miscegenation where mudslims are guilty of the practice? **as of course one cannot have miscegenation without two parties bearing the guilt of their wrongdoing.**
**(minimum...unless michael jackson counts if he ever tossed his own salad haha)**
I am to be quite frank, sick and tired of it, the way that the UK govt seems hellbent on getting our (NOT *theirs*, OUR!)
citizens killed in atrocities, and bending over backwards to slobber and fawn at the feet of allah, muhammid and their disgusting pack of cultists. This needs to stop. And it the government will not do so, then the private citizenry need to band together to kick them out of the country. Every last single one of them. Or failing kicking them out, WIPING them out.
It's kind of a pun. Swedish politicians are seriously saying that immigrants are "enriching" the Swedish society. It seems like they love Islam, criminals and illiterates. They don't have to live among them themselves, of course.
-
'Enrichers', lit?
What is an enricher? the other guilty party in cases of miscegenation where mudslims are guilty of the practice? **as of course one cannot have miscegenation without two parties bearing the guilt of their wrongdoing.**
**(minimum...unless michael jackson counts if he ever tossed his own salad haha)**
I am to be quite frank, sick and tired of it, the way that the UK govt seems hellbent on getting our (NOT *theirs*, OUR!)
citizens killed in atrocities, and bending over backwards to slobber and fawn at the feet of allah, muhammid and their disgusting pack of cultists. This needs to stop. And it the government will not do so, then the private citizenry need to band together to kick them out of the country. Every last single one of them. Or failing kicking them out, WIPING them out.
Well mass murder is not really a good solution for anything dude, but you guys should have the right to do something at least.
Genocide due to religious affiliation? :thumbdn:
Yeah, I know. You don't have to KILL someone to make your point. I myself am a pretty fiery guy, but that's going a bit too far.
What if your point was that pushing someone off a 1000 foot cliff would kill them :P
Link (http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/21/horrifying-moment-base-jumper-plummets-1000ft-after-parachute-fails-and-survives-3803519/) :zoinks:
-
'Enrichers', lit?
What is an enricher? the other guilty party in cases of miscegenation where mudslims are guilty of the practice? **as of course one cannot have miscegenation without two parties bearing the guilt of their wrongdoing.**
**(minimum...unless michael jackson counts if he ever tossed his own salad haha)**
I am to be quite frank, sick and tired of it, the way that the UK govt seems hellbent on getting our (NOT *theirs*, OUR!)
citizens killed in atrocities, and bending over backwards to slobber and fawn at the feet of allah, muhammid and their disgusting pack of cultists. This needs to stop. And it the government will not do so, then the private citizenry need to band together to kick them out of the country. Every last single one of them. Or failing kicking them out, WIPING them out.
Well mass murder is not really a good solution for anything dude, but you guys should have the right to do something at least.
Genocide due to religious affiliation? :thumbdn:
Yeah, I know. You don't have to KILL someone to make your point. I myself am a pretty fiery guy, but that's going a bit too far.
What if your point was that pushing someone off a 1000 foot cliff would kill them :P
Link (http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/21/horrifying-moment-base-jumper-plummets-1000ft-after-parachute-fails-and-survives-3803519/) :zoinks:
Ouch :zombiefuck:
-
There are also nearly one million people in the UK who are deaf and rely on sign language and lip reading in order to communicate. :zoinks:
If a person relies on sign language rather than lip reading, then at least some of the time it's because they have to. Very little information about what you are saying actually ends up on the lips, and those who lip read must supplement that information with what little hearing they have. In either case, interpreters and written transcripts make the situation much more accessible than merely stripping some poor woman of her religious garb.
I was being facetious. A bit like saying "oh those lipstick manufacturer's are losing custom"
Incidentally, why is she a 'poor woman'?
-
There are also nearly one million people in the UK who are deaf and rely on sign language and lip reading in order to communicate. :zoinks:
If a person relies on sign language rather than lip reading, then at least some of the time it's because they have to. Very little information about what you are saying actually ends up on the lips, and those who lip read must supplement that information with what little hearing they have. In either case, interpreters and written transcripts make the situation much more accessible than merely stripping some poor woman of her religious garb.
I was being facetious. A bit like saying "oh those lipstick manufacturer's are losing custom"
Incidentally, why is she a 'poor woman'?
She lives in the UK. :zoinks: :P
-
I'm not convinced body language or facial expression is useful.
Aspergers
-
People keep saying the burka is a religious garment. I don't believe it is. It is not even mentioned in the Quran. The word hijab is mentioned (meaning veil) but not in any way as to describe a mulsim womans dress code.
The covering up of women is discussed and has been translated to mean a thousand different things.
As a practical item it is ancient. Saudi's used to wear them in sand storms.
In other words a burka is about as religious as a balaclava.
It is not always forced upon women. Some women make the choice. No doubt though it is often used as a form of oppression. It has no religious significance. It is a tool for men to prevent other men seeing how beautiful their woman is (someone get me a bucket)
Saying that, I don't think it is anyone else's right to prevent it's use. *Not unless absolutely necessary. I would like to hear the voices of the women who wear it. Sadly that voice is not very loud.
In the UK you do very much have to 'face the court'. Of course no one can 'make you' speak. You will however have to go to your trial and you will stand in the dock and face judgement. You may see this as unfair or unjust. It maybe so. However you are not persecuting anyone on religious grounds by asking them to remove their veil. You are not asking of her any more or less than anyone else in that situation. A person would not be permitted to sit through their trial in a Balaclava.
When in Rome don't you have to do as the Roman's?
Also, I reckon a burka could interfere with doctor/patient trust.
BTW Lestat I have not heard that kind of talk in years. It is like an Alf Garnett script. Why the hatred and why generalise people so much? It is like saying all scousers are thieves!
-
I'm not convinced body language or facial expression is useful.
Aspergers
Poker games
-
It wouldn't be murder. It would be comitting pesticide.
And bodie, who is alf garnett?
-
Sounds a bit like Hitler
-
We don't need Islam. If they don't like western civilisation, they can stay in their own shit countries.
-
What about the ones who are born here?
-
If they are in favour of Islam they can move too. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
-
How will you enforce that in your perfect little farming utopia then?
-
How will you enforce that in your perfect little farming utopia then?
We'll make them move. :eyelash:
-
i'm sure that will work out really well
-
i'm sure that will work out really well
Why wouldn't it? Islam is incompatible with anarchism, so they can't live in our society anyway.
-
i'm sure that will work out really well
Why wouldn't it? Islam is incompatible with anarchism, so they can't live in our society anyway.
But I thought you said modern Sweden also is incompatible with anarchism, at least at this time. :P
-
i'm sure that will work out really well
Why wouldn't it? Islam is incompatible with anarchism, so they can't live in our society anyway.
But I thought you said modern Sweden also is incompatible with anarchism, at least at this time. :P
Yes, it is. A state is of course incompatible with anarchism. A secular state oppresses people too, just not in the same way as religion does. In an anarchy you have freedom.
-
It wouldn't be murder. It would be comitting pesticide.
And bodie, who is alf garnett?
(http://www.virginmedia.com/images/grouchy-alf-garnett.jpg)
Alf Garnett is a fictional character from an old sit com 'till death us do part'
It was meant to be a piss take of racist people. However Alf became a kind of
cult figure to thousands of fans. Warren Mitchell who plays Alf was fed up of being
portrayed as a racist.
-
i'm sure that will work out really well
Why wouldn't it? Islam is incompatible with anarchism, so they can't live in our society anyway.
According to your earlier post, everything that isn't malum in se is a natural right. Are you saying that freedom of religion isn't a natural right?
-
It wouldn't be murder. It would be comitting pesticide.
And bodie, who is alf garnett?
(http://www.virginmedia.com/images/grouchy-alf-garnett.jpg)
Alf Garnett is a fictional character from an old sit com 'till death us do part'
It was meant to be a piss take of racist people. However Alf became a kind of
cult figure to thousands of fans. Warren Mitchell who plays Alf was fed up of being
portrayed as a racist.
And look what that show inspired here in the States! :tv:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_in_the_family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_in_the_family)
-
i'm sure that will work out really well
Why wouldn't it? Islam is incompatible with anarchism, so they can't live in our society anyway.
According to your earlier post, everything that isn't malum in se is a natural right. Are you saying that freedom of religion isn't a natural right?
Yes, freedom of religion is a natural right. But there is a paradox: you can't practice Islam without infringing upon the natural rights of others, since Islam doesn't recognize the rights of non-Muslims etc.
-
i'm sure that will work out really well
Why wouldn't it? Islam is incompatible with anarchism, so they can't live in our society anyway.
According to your earlier post, everything that isn't malum in se is a natural right. Are you saying that freedom of religion isn't a natural right?
Yes, freedom of religion is a natural right. But there is a paradox: you can't practice Islam without infringing upon the natural rights of others, since Islam doesn't recognize the rights of non-Muslims etc.
If you start eliminating religions because they're intolerant of other religions, there will be very few left.
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
-
I'd be very satisfied with getting rid of Islam and Judaism and Christianity :viking:
-
and what about those who worship the devil? eh Lit >:D