David Davies MP is an idiot Part II

From today's Daily Express (ht):

"A High Court judge sparked outrage last night after he gave lawyers the green light to wear veils in court. The ruling was made after a Muslim solicitor twice refused an immigration judge's request to reveal her face – despite him explaining that he could not hear her speak. Mr Justice Hodge, who was asked to issue guidance over the case, yesterday defended the right of lawyers to wear the niqab and said it was 'important to be sensitive'. His decision was widely condemned by critics, who claimed he had caved in to Islamic hardliners....

"David Davies, Conservative MP for Monmouth, said the decision caved in to Islamic pressure. He added: 'British courts are there to determine whether the truth is being told. How can they do that if they cannot hear? Allowing people to hide their faces in a court where all should be laid bare in the search for truth and justice is not good enough. If we were in a Muslim court we would be expected to abide by their rules on dress. So why is it that this lady can work in a British court and wear whatever she likes?'"

Ermm because the judge in said British court decreed she could in, ummm, the very case you're commenting on Mr Davies.

This is the same MP that called for a Zakir Naik event to be cancelled.

Comments

[Martin]

Sorry, Osama, I'm with Davies on this one.

If this garment is worn on 'religious' grounds, then from what one gathers its wearing does not appear to be doctrinally mandated. That makes it a preference rather than a requirement.

It would appear to be in the same character of actions as a female Catholic lawyer insisting upon wearing a mantilla in court, or a Jewish male a phylactery. Both would be kicked ino touch without a moment's thought.

Rules on court dress are stuffy, conservative, etc, but they're there for a reason - to help show that all come before the law as equals. Allowing once class of advocates to dress differently from another on what would seem to be preferential grounds - nah.

[Yakoub/Julaybib]

What is more pertinent here, I think, is the Davies assumption that 'Muslim' and 'British' are mutually exclusive nationalist categories, rather than 'Muslim' simply being an integral facet of someone's British identity, in a nation where we have a right, as British citizens, to express our faith in accordance with the HRA. Or is being British not about living uder British law?

[Martin]

Yakoub,

My apologies - I didn't make my point clear. The point of court dress is to show that all advocates appear before the court as equals, and to act as markers of professional status - thus wigs are demanded of advocates/barristers while solicitors have restricted rights of audience and wear gowns only.

Being 'Muslim' and being 'British' are not mutually exclusive - such an idea is ahistoric nonsense, and anyone who moots it, be they Nick Griffin or Anjem Chowdhry, is uncivic. Those lads are two different sides of the same coin.

By the same token, it might be worthwhile for all religious and ethnic minorities to note that those who come from migrant communities which have been established on the mainland for 150 years still sometimes have to struggle with 'Britishness' -

http://martinkelly.blogspot.com/2006/08/what-being-british-means-to-me-if.html

I don't think that Davies is denying Miss Mughal the right to practice her beliefs. What he is objecting to, and which to my mind he is correct to object to, is HER interpretation of what those beliefs demand of her when she is appearing in a professional capacity before a civic, secular tribunal, when the wearing of that garment does not appear to be an absolute article of her faith.

That's the rub of the case. Of course, Mr. Justice Hodge (Margaret Hodge's husband, by the way) has ruled differently.

[Osama]

Martin, I don't think there is a suggestion that there is a problem with wigs etc here.

The hijab or niqab is not the same as the lady at BA with the Cross incident. She wanted it to be overt, but the niqab et al can be easily worn underneath some other part of uniform.