The recent controversy over the wearing of veils by teaching assistants had now spilled over into the courtroom.
Judge Glossop at an immigration tribunal in Stoke-on Trent asked a legal representative appearing in a niqab (full face veil) to remove the veil because he could not hear her properly. She refused and the case was adjourned for the opinion of Sir Henry Hodge, a High Court Judge.
Ruthie understands the High Court Judge has now ruled in favour of the legal representative.
Ruthie is surprised by the decision, and suspects that it was made to avoid the Judiciary entering into a politicised debate.
It is generally accepted that the wearing of a full face veil is not a requirement of Islamic belief, therefore the wearing of the veil can best be described as a cultural practice, although many Islamic women would no doubt describe the practice as a faith based decision.
Ruthie remembers the days when the phrase “I cannot hear you” was a metaphor from a Judge to express his displeasure at some, hitherto unidentified offensive item of clothing e.g. brown Hush Puppies, grubby bands, wrong type of gown etc. The phrase would be repeated until the advocate, with rising panic had examined himself to try and identify the source of the offence.
Ruthie would love to roll up to court with her pink leathers under her gown as an expression of her cultural allegiance to the fraternity of bikers. But surely the point is this: she cannot because she is required to conform to the dress code expected of a member of the bar. And what goes for pink leathers surely also goes for veils..
Readers will note Geeklawyer had listed a category of “wimmin” for Ruthie to file her heartfelt posts on womens rights. Ruthie felt that arguing about the offensive nature of the title would simply encourage him, so she encourages you to do so, as he might listen to you more than he does to me.
[…] The Guardian carries the story that UK shoppers may soon be able to order duty-free alcohol and cigarettes on the internet. The European court of justice will decide this month whether goods from EU countries can be delivered to British homes free of UK duty. It has always been mildly irritating thatbooze and fags are cheaper in most European countries than in Britain. I don’t have time to hire a white van, take a booze cruise to France, load the van to the roof with booze and bring back supplies of Silk Cut, Rioja and other red wines ‘for personal use’. The news that I may soon be able to log onto my EU supplier of choice (probably Latvia or Poland) and buy wine and cigarettes at considerably cheaper EU prices - free of UK duty - appeals to me. It certainly won’t appeal to The Treasury. It is believed that the government make £15 billion a year from duty on booze and fags. I’ll certainly be a customer if the EU court comes up trumps and gives the topers of Britain new hope and belief in Europe. Ruthie, writing on the Geeklawyer website draws attention to the intervention by a senior judge (Hodge J) in the veiled lawyer Immigration case. Frankly, whether a lawyer wears a veil or not is of no importance, no concern to others - provided the lawyer can be heard and is able to do her job properly. If a veiled lawyer is not able to do the job properly, because of communication problems, then it seems not unreasonable that she should face the consequences. Ruthie makes some interesting points about judges refusing ‘to hear’ barristers who are improperly dressed - citing the old favourites of suede shoes (Cads and bounders, sah!), dirty bands etc etc. […]
A section entitled “Wimmin”. God, almost as bad as Mike Newell’s marvellously offensive comments, for which he has issued the best non-apology ever (”I apologise for my ill-timed and out of order remarks”). Apparently the object of his affection has been refusing to take his calls so that she does not have to accept his non-apology. Now, there’s a potential topic for you. See what happens when you let wimmin into the profession.
Thanks for your comment Anne. I would take issue with Geeklawyer over the use of “wimmin” but since arguing would just encourage him its much easier to give him a slap next time I see him. And anyway, lets just say when it comes to restaurants its rarely Geeklawyer that picks up the bill. I do think that success is always the best form of revenge.
For anyone who doesn’t know about Mike Newell, this is the manager of Luton town football club who threw his toys out of his pram when his side lost 3-2 to Queens Park Rangers last Sunday. Instead to the usual abuse of the ref Mr. Newell took particular issue to a woman linesman who he felt refused his team a penalty with the following comment “She should not be here. I know that sounds sexist but I am sexist. We have a problem in this country with political correctness and bringing women into the game is not the way to improve refereeing and officialdom.” Whoops. Not feeling a bit insecure are we Mr. Newell? Ruthie looks forward to the day when womens teams play mens teams and the best womens teams whip the asses of some mens teams. Like I said, success is the best form of revenge.
As an aside Ruthie despairs about the standing of refereeing in football generally. Ruthie plays rugby, which is a game where no abuse of the ref is tolerated. You’re either back ten yards or sent off. I think its time that the FA start toughening up the rules for football.
I shall attempt to go one better than Mr Newell and not issue a non-apology. The section “wimmin’ ” (taken from Private Eye’s 1980’s parody section) was created as a response to Ruthie’s interminable articles on the rough time women have at the mercy of a profession only slowly learning to appreciate their contribution. I’m afraid that I feel the occasional need to poke fun at those who take themselves a little too seriously.
As a liberal I’m not naturally a sexist or unsympathetic to the oppressed - it has taken much practise - and it isn’t my intent to cause offence …
that’s merely an unforseen bonus.
I think that barristers should be allowed to wear whatever they like, as long as it does not look completely ridiculous, so a niqab would be fine. Unfortunately, that does rule out the wigs.
The wig debate..rages ever onwards. Ruthie thinks its just one more thing to forget. We do look cool in the European Court though!