This is the result of 20 years of the Judicial Diversity Division of Ministry of Justice, Judicial Group (or whatever they call themselves these days) ensuring that only lawyers who conformed to Common Purpose uniformity of thought and political correctness were appointed as Judges. This is only a ‘suggestion’ but his opinion will hold sway.
Much is said about the ‘independence of the Judiciary’. But ‘independence’ isn’t a problem to the ruling elite if only PC-thinking women and men are appointed. They are now at the very most senior level and I fear will take some dislodging
From the Telegraph
Judges should allow Muslim women to appear in court wearing a full-face veil, Britain’s most senior judge has suggested.
Lord Neuberger, the President of the Supreme Court, said it was crucial that courts and judges “show, and be seen to show” respect towards different customs.
He said this included having an understanding of the “different cultural and social habits” of those appearing as witnesses, defendants or jurors in cases. His comments, in a lecture about the need for courts to be less intimidating, come at a time of uncertainty over the place of the Muslim niqab, or full face-veil, in the legal system.
In his address to the Criminal Justice Alliance, Lord Neuberger said judges and lawyers often failed to recognise how “artificial and intimidating” courts could be for ordinary people, adding: “I sometimes wonder whether our trial procedures really are the best way of getting at the truth. . .
“Judges have to show, and have to be seen to show, respect to everybody equally, and that requires an understanding of different cultural and social habits. It is necessary to have some understanding as to how people from different cultural, social, religious or other backgrounds think and behave and how they expect others to behave.
“Well known examples include how some religions consider it inappropriate to take the oath, how some people consider it rude to look other people in the eye, how some women find it inappropriate to appear in public with their face uncovered, and how some people deem it inappropriate to confront others or to be confronted – for instance with an outright denial. . .”
But Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society, said: “Lord Neuberger understandably recommends judges understand the expectations of how those ‘from different cultural, social, religious or other backgrounds think and behave and how they expect others to behave’ and that the judiciary should show ‘respect to everybody equally’.
“It was a missed opportunity, however, not to acknowledge that occasionally – for example on a defendant wearing a full face veil – doing so might conflict with justice being seen to be done, or even justice being done. My concern is not theoretical; it is now 18 months since a judge at Blackfriars Crown Court wasted a great deal of court time dealing with the question of full-face veils, and made a heartfelt plea for central guidance to avoid this inefficient use of expensive court’s resources being replicated elsewhere. The Lord Chief Justice’s office has been dealing with this for a long time but seems disappointingly reluctant to issue any direction.”
Suleman Nagdi, of the Leicester-based Federation of Muslim Organisations, described Lord Neuberger’s remarks as “heart-warming and really welcome. . . We must remember that there is an impact on legislation in other parts of the world whenever we show good practice in the United Kingdom. I am sure that this example will be followed in other parts of the world which are less tolerant in respecting minority communities.”
LIke Pakistan when a Christian is acused? Or in those countries where under Sharia law the evidence of a woman is worth half that of a man?