Lawyers Win One for the Veil in Courtroom

November 12, 2006 § 28 Comments

This is apparently the latest dish in U.K. veil developments,

“Muslim female lawyers can wear the full-face veil, or Niqab, in the courtroom as long as it doesn’t prevent them from being heard, the head of a network of British immigration courts ruled on Thursday, according to the Jerusalem Post.” (IslamOnline Network)

Advertisements

§ 28 Responses to Lawyers Win One for the Veil in Courtroom

  • Dirty Butter says:

    This seems like a fair legal decision, but I’m wondering what the conviction rate would be for such a lawyer.

    I can’t imagine the jury identifying with a lawyer they cannot see. I’ve been a juror on a trial where the defendant had a lousy lawyer. It was extremely difficult to ignore the attitude of the lawyer and deal only with the facts.

    I’m just considering human nature, not even the possibility of prejudice on the part of a juror.

    All facts taken into account, I would think such a lady lawyer would have to be exceptionally good to get very many clients.

  • Abu Sahajj says:

    “This seems like a fair legal decision, but I’m wondering what the conviction rate would be for such a lawyer.”

    There is a lot of courtroom work for lawyers outside of the criminal environment trial environment. My guess is that these lawyers work mostly civil cases, where the story speaks for them selves.

    “I can’t imagine the jury identifying with a lawyer they cannot see.”

    Its not really the lawyer that they are supposed to identify with, which is one of the typical courtroom manipulations of today, it is the plaintiff or defendant and their story which is supposed to be assessed. The lawyer is only the representative. I am not an veil activist but from a philosophical standpoint based on the nature of the judicial system it seems more noble to where a veil while representing a case.

    “All facts taken into account, I would think such a lady lawyer would have to be exceptionally good to get very many clients.”

    Obviously, a veiled Muslima is more interested in representing Muslims than non-Muslims.

  • Dirty Butter says:

    If I were Muslim in a serious court situation, I would want the lawyer I thought could win my case. I don’t think I would pick the veiled Muslima, as a statement of my faith, when my very life for me and my family, as I now know it, was in jeopardy. Whether criminal or civil, judicial decisions change lives dramatically.

    Should the court system be blind to what she wears? Of course! Would the jury be? I very much doubt it.

  • Abu Sahajj says:

    “I don’t think I would pick the veiled Muslima, as a statement of my faith, when my very life for me and my family, as I now know it, was in jeopardy.”

    I understand your point completely, however your point is exactly the reason a Muslim would select a Muslim veiled, head-covered or otherwise… because it is a serious matter of life with great consequences in the end… who’s hands would you put your life in under the circumstances?

    Ugly perhaps, truthful indeed, reasonable arguable; where do I stand on the issue… if I were in a courtroom situation pending a death-sentence in the U.K. or the U.S. I would not hire a veiled Muslima if I had my choice however, I would prefer a Muslim (male or female). If I were in a situation where my daughter was raped and my family needed to make proceedings against the alleged… I would not mind a veiled Muslima as long as the person felt passionately about the case.

    You see the two cases need two entirely different angles… one needs to present that I am not a complete danger to society and so the overall image needs to be understood. Yet the second case demands a passion for injustice and the ability to exploit victimization… only a person who feels passionately about a thing can do this with conviction, veiled or not… so concerning a veil in the courtroom here, under the circumstances I don’t think it matters much.

    wasalaam

  • OmarG says:

    Or, like some of the 1993 WTC guys who went on trial and some good number of other prominent Muslim defendents in both criminal and civil court, one can conveniently tone down the anti-semitic rhetoric and choose Jewish lawyers. That was one clue that such guys are not serious about thier own ideology and use it as a power trip: getting off was the only thing important to them so they could continue the power-trip.

    In any case, if the head-scarved lawyer is smart and very skilled, there’s no reason she shouldn’t be hired. If she’s a hack job hoping that a scarf can help her dupe Muslims into hiring her in some misguided sense of clan unity, then the clients will get what they pay for.

  • Abu Sahajj says:

    “If she’s a hack job hoping that a scarf can help her dupe Muslims into hiring her in some misguided sense of clan unity, then the clients will get what they pay for.”

    I knew someone would pull that out of their a**, do you think that badly of Muslims Omar? I’ve known Muslims who did but they were tantamount to brother Suleiman Schwartz, are you of the same stamp?

  • DrM says:

    Well said, Abu Sahajj. Gomer Pyle(aka Omarg) is an anti-Muslim neocon fascist who is very much in line with the Stephen “Comrade Sandalio” Schwartzs of the world. The fact that this criminal tries to tie what happened at the WTC to the “ideology” of the Niqabi sisters says volumes doesn’t it?

    Expect nothing less from those who support the illegal war in Iraq including the rape of 14 year old girls by US troops.

  • OmarG says:

    Not at all. I’ve seen some Muslims use thier religious “credentials” or what country they are form when doing business. Usually, I’ve found that they were using these “credentials” to cover up thier relative lack of skills. did you miss the part just above that where I said if she has the skills, the scarf should not matter? Our money needs to go to the most skillful people who can get the job done, not the ones who pump themselves up because of what they are.

  • Abu Sahajj says:

    “Our money needs to go to the most skillful people who can get the job done, not the ones who pump themselves up because of what they are.”

    Not necessarily… that strategy is irresponsible… should we invest money in a person, place or thing if it will knowingly be involved in riba’ or the killing of or subjugating of Muslims. Of course not, now those examples are extremes, but only to prove the point that the “most skilled” may not always be in the best interest of a Muslim.

    wasalaam

  • DrM says:

    “I’ve seen some Muslims use thier religious “credentials” or what country they are form when doing business. Usually, I’ve found that they were using these “credentials” to cover up thier relative lack of skills.”

    Hence it MUST apply in this case as well, right? Not exactly MENSA material are you…..

    “I said if she has the skills, the scarf should not matter?”

    Thats a definite “if” isn’t it? If it doesn’t matter, then why’ are you getting your panties in a twist? Why the reference to the WTC, baiter? Revisionist trolling indeed.

    “Our money needs to go to the most skillful people who can get the job done, not the ones who pump themselves up because of what they are.”

    Like the military perhaps? Talk about wasteful spending.

  • OmarG says:

    Abu Sahajj, do you really think this kind of talking is productive as comes from DrM?

    If you want to throw good money at bad skills, would you expect the best outcome? would you be getting value from your spending? If there were two muhajjiba lawyers, surely you would choose the more succesful and clever of the two?

    If you did not, you are not rewarding the hard work of the one who put more effort into serving her clients’ interests; i.e. you are rewarding poor performance which will encourage Muslims to deliver sub-par performance, which equals irrelevance to society and poverty.

    Now, let’s extend the example: two female Muslim lawyers, one muhajjibah who wants to represent you because “we’re both Muslims and I am a good Muslimah, so hire me” even if she goot so-so grades in law school and only wins some of her cases. The other female Muslim lawyer does not wear hijab, doesn’t feel she should tell you she prays five times a day, she doesn’t make a point that her aunty knows yours. But, she has a stellar record and has a good chance of winnning. *Who would you choose??*

  • DrM says:

    So what does the WTC have to do with muhajjibas, gumby? Hoist by your own petard……

  • Dirty Butter says:

    I realize I’m making an analogy that perhaps muddies the issue, but perhaps it speaks straight to the issue as well. When I needed to see the very best specialist, as I recently had to find the best possible Neurologist my insurance would cover, I asked for referrals from doctors I trusted, but I never asked anyone to limit their referrals to Christians only. I was far more interested in the medical expertise of the doctor.

    I see your point, Abu Sahajj, that if cultural or religious aspects are involved in a legal issue, seeking a lawyer of like religion or ethnicity makes sense.

    I’ve also seen many TV trials where lawyers were picked intentionally from other ethnicities or religions in order to counteract any bias toward religion or ethnic background. A very complex issue you have opened for discussion, for sure.

  • Abu Sahajj says:

    “Abu Sahajj, do you really think this kind of talking is productive as comes from DrM?”

    That depends on his objectives… obviously his objectives are not Abu Sahajj’s objectives even though some may coincide.

    “If you did not, you are not rewarding the hard work of the one who put more effort into serving her clients’ interests; i.e. you are rewarding poor performance which will encourage Muslims to deliver sub-par performance, which equals irrelevance to society and poverty.”

    OmarG, either you missed my point or dismissed my point… because this is irrelevant when compared to a Muslim financially supporting something that is makruh or haram. As DrM and I have implied here.

    However, I will entertain you examples,

    “*Who would you choose??*”

    I would choose the Muslimah more qualified, unless there were stronger political connotations related to hiring the muhajabah, for example if she was my sister-in-law.

  • Abu Sahajj says:

    “I was far more interested in the medical expertise of the doctor.”

    Under the circumstances you try to find a good doctor that is affordable no question, insha’allahyou find a qualified, doctor, who is affordable and a Muslim. But if one of the three must go, I suggest it be the latter of the three then, tawakkaltulallah (trust God).

  • OmarG says:

    >>So what does the WTC have to do with muhajjibas,

    Trying to warp words again to discredit people you don’t agree with? Its well known that Omar Abdul Rahman and other defendents in the 1993 WTC case hired Jewish lawyers. That was the point. Even the most conservative jihadi types seem to care less for hiring Muslim lawyers than they care about getting top-notch defense lawyers and getting off scott free. Not seeing that this is what I wrote is willful negligence. Be civil and make coherent and honest points; anything less is a betrayal of our deen.

  • OmarG says:

    >>this is irrelevant when compared to a Muslim financially supporting something that is makruh or haram.

    Do you have something specific in mind, because I’m interpreting this as meaning you would consider how a non-Muslim would spend the money you pay them. Would you automatically assume they will buy haram or makruh things with it? How would you know for sure? If I’m reading you right, even paying taxes must become haram for you because a percentage is used to fund the Pentagon.

    Surely, I’m not understanding your intentions completely?

  • OmarG says:

    >>insha’allahyou find a qualified, doctor, who is affordable and a Muslim.

    Agreed. All other things being equal, I’d choose the Muslim doctor. Happily, several of the Muslim doctors I see in my city have a much better bedside manner than others. Naturally, at least one Muslim medical professional we know of seems to have a horrible bedside manner…

  • Abu Sahajj says:

    “Naturally, at least one Muslim medical professional we know of seems to have a horrible bedside manner…”

    HAHAHAHAH!!! That was hilarious… good one.

  • DrM says:

    That still doesn’t answer the false linkage you’ve made between the WTC and muhajjibas. It seems your fingers not only did your typing, but did your thinking too.

    “Naturally, at least one Muslim medical professional we know of seems to have a horrible bedside manner…”

    I’m not a vet, but I do understand you. I have a way with dumb animals. Sure, I’ve seen people like you before but I had to pay an admission…

  • OmarG says:

    That still doesn’t answer the false linkage you’ve made between the WTC and muhajjibas.

    I’ve made no such linkage. Such a “linkage” cannot be construed simply because the two topics occur in a single comment, and as an example of my point, no less. A linkage occurs when one says, “because of; due to; as a result of” and many others. An example of a false linkage occurs when you tried to tie me into Abeer’s murder, as you ahve many other places on the ‘net. Such linkages are logical absurdities and try to cause people to draw false conclusions. That sounds like a definition of a minor dajjal to me. Perhaps the 30th liar is DrM.

  • DrM says:

    Methinks the neocon troll doth protest a bit too much. Just when I think I’ve read the stupidest post ever, you go and post another. The questions remains what does the WTC have to do with muhajjibas? Minor Dajjals are those who claim to be Prophets, cretin. Speaking of liars, being a munafiq certainly qualifies you as one. Oh well, at least you only charge what your free advice is worth.

  • OmarG says:

    So what part of my writing were you not able to address and instead have to launch into personal diatribes?? Perhaps all of it, eh.

    The questions remains what does the WTC have to do with muhajjibas?

    No, the question remains what do you and red herrings have to do with each other? A: Everything!

  • DrM says:

    Verbal gymnastics abound. Red herrings? Thats your middle name, munafiq. Just like the “islamist” you refuse to define for fear of being exposed for a bigger fraud then you already are. So what does the WTC have to do with muhajjibas, gumby, or ar you going to keep the confabulatory dance which masquerades as thought in your tiny world going?
    It’s just as well you can type, for if you had to speak your mind, you’d be speechless.

  • OmarG says:

    People tell me that you indeed comprehend Standard Written English. Therefore, this clouding and distorting of my words must be an intentional attempt to confuse the issues. You have few good points of your own to offer, are not equipped to engage in civil debate, and must therefore resort to distorting people’s words to try to silence those you disagree with. Yup, its a very dajjal-ish characteristic, all right.

    By all means, get the last word in, since this is all about your ego and trying to dominate others.

  • DrM says:

    Ego? As in deliberately misleading and inserting nonsense in debate which has nothing to do with the subject. Tell us what an “Islamist” chum. Civil debate? With a racist neocon provocateur? I don’t think so, assuming debate was ever your intent.
    In reality, reading your posts is less interesting than watching paint dry.

  • OmarG says:

    >>In reality, reading your posts is less interesting than watching paint dry.

    And, yet you continue to read them and comment on them and stalk me on the internet; I’m not gay, dude, so you’re wasteing your time.

  • DrM says:

    You are obviously suffering from Clue Deficit Disorder. Stalk? No my neocon stripling it is YOU who trolls Muslim websites with your recycled anti-Muslim balderdash. I was at this blog long before you slithered in Mr.Not-so-great white hope, and keep your closeted shenanigans to yourself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Lawyers Win One for the Veil in Courtroom at SEYFETTİN.

meta

%d bloggers like this: