Posted on 06/29/2007 7:01:54 PM PDT by blam
Magistrate walks out over Muslim woman's veil
Last Updated: 1:27am BST 30/06/2007
A magistrate is facing an inquiry after refusing to deal with a defendant wearing a full Muslim veil, the Judiciary of England and Wales said yesterday.
Ian Murray walked out of the case at Manchester magistrates' court yesterday because Zoobia Hussain, 32, of Crumpsall, Manchester, was covered by a hijab.
Hussain's lawyer, Judith Hawkins, said her client was "shocked and distressed" and found Mr Murray's treatment of her "insensitive and unacceptable".
Miss Hawkins said she would submit a formal written complaint to the court on Monday. When the complaint is received, the judiciary will launch an internal investigation into Mr Murray's behaviour, a spokesman said.
Miss Hawkins said yesterday: "She [Hussain] remains shocked and distressed. She suffered hurt feelings and felt intimidated and deeply embarrassed by the treatment she received at court.
"She is also concerned for the feelings of others who were present in court.
"She feels that the court's treatment of her was insensitive, unacceptable and against the traditions of fairness and equality that we have come to expect from our system of justice.
"She is angry that, as a result of the ensuing publicity, she has now had to explain to her children what happened."
Hussain, who is charged with criminal damage, covered her entire face apart from her eyes when she faced the three magistrates.
Mr Murray, a taxi driver from Cheadle Hulme, Stockport, who has served on the bench for 12 years, felt the way she was dressed raised identity issues but left the hearing without explaining why.
Before he walked out, Miss Hawkins told the bench that her client, as a practising Muslim, covered herself in public places where men were present.
A statement from the Judiciary of England and Wales said: "Mr Murray is concerned about questions of identity when the full veil is worn in court.
"However, he agrees that he acted unwisely in disqualifying himself without giving reasons, and acknowledges that he should have sought the advice of his legal adviser in court, and discussed the provisions of the national guidelines with his colleagues on the bench, before taking action.
"Mr Murray is supportive of those of different faiths and cultural traditions and acknowledges and regrets his action could be misinterpreted."
The judiciary's guidelines indicate situations should be judged on a case-by-case basis. But they state there should be a "willingness to accommodate different practices and approaches to religious and cultural observance", provided "justice can be properly served".
A spokesman for the Ramadhan Foundation said: "It is despicable that the judiciary is ignoring the guidelines about the wearing of the hijab set out only in February by the Judicial Studies Board.
"They require that magistrates and judges be 'sensitive' to a woman's religious requirement to wear the hijab and work around it when possible."
Hussain's case was adjourned until July 18.
Yep, the old boiling water and frog scenario.
Give the Judge his “props”!!
Hey.....MUZZIE-SCUM.......PHUQUE EWE!
Since when do people who appear before the court get to dictate to the court what is acceptable to wear? This is ridiculous.
Just like I am every time one of her fellow worshipers chops off someones head.
How do they know it was a “she?”
So if I am a practicing Nudist can I go to court Nekkid?
IMO they should have strip searched her to be sure she wasnt carrying a weopon in all that cloth.
So I guess this means I can wear a Bozo the clown mask in court to mock the messed up legal systems that would allow a women to wear a medieval robe covering her from head to toe and no one object. England has a serious (series, it’s hugh) problem, but seem spineless to do something about it.
What till a bus full of explosives kills a few hundred. Then they will whine......
After all the excitement in the UK today, I'll bet this issue falls by the wayside..
hooray for the judge
Judy Hawkins, you legal idiot! How does the judge, or anyone else, for that matter know who is behind that costume?
Combine gay and transvestite rights with this occurence, and the possibilities are endless.
... and ridiculous, humorous and intolerable!
Taxi driver and magistrate?
Okay, she was charged with criminal damage. What does that exactly mean? Did she egg a house or key a car?
These muzzies should be given a choice to voluntarily leave, or come to court showing their faces. Thank God we don’t deal with this crap in my neck of the woods....yet.
That one baffles me too. I've heard of small-town and rural judges in New York State who have no legal training, but I've never heard of one driving taxi.I'm also not sure what the charge of "criminal damage" means.
No masks in court. If you want to live in the West, at least respect our culture to a minimal degree.
From the title, I thought that he had stepped on the damn thing.
Stick around -- we're getting there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.