yes you are free to be as odd as you wish.Originally Posted by Paul in Saudi2
what you are failing to acknowlege however is the culture in which you wish to act or dress odd in afforde you that freedom for an unspoken price: assimulate into the culutre. that means that now that you are part of the culture, play by the rules and custumes. it is about respect to a degree. if you dont respect the culture enough to live by their cutomes, why would you keep living there? i do not agree with the cultture in Sadia Arabia, i.e. how woman are treated, so i would not choose to live there. if i did choose to live there, should i then insist on changing their laws, custumes, and culutre just becuase it is not like where im from?? i dont think that would go over very well, do you? how would my girlfriend and i be treated over there if we walked down the street and she was in a mini-skirt? isnt it her right to dress as she wants? it is, but not in that country. if we were there, we would be expected to follow their laws and custums, why should it be different the other way around?
why are the people from controling societies always the loud mouths that raise a fuss about changing their new found homes to be more like their old ones??
as far as you remark about "busybodies in wigs and robes are now deciding on the national dress code"........are you serious.......WTF.......your from a country that has men wearing robes everyday, not just as a tradition held in law!!!!!!! and those guys make more decsions about others lives then just a dress code.
im not even from England and think that your statment about that is from an obvious lack of cultual understanding. that is a kin to a Jew defending the holocust. hello, this is the pot calling the kettle.........God only knows what the ppl from England in here are gonna think about your view on the wigs and robes.
it is very apperant that you are looking at this issue from a point of view that only a person living in a controlled society could see.
Sorry Kinsella, if I was not clear. I am an American. I am just here for professional reasons. Further, as I stated, Saudi Arabia is a contra-example. Why would we want the UK to follow in the steps of the Saudis.
If you find it wrong and silly for the Saudis to insist on a dress code for their courts (and they do), then I would presume logic would require you to see it is wrong and silly for the British to do the same thing.
I can't understand why you don't see that it is perfectly legitmate to apply common sense in regard to what someone is wearing in the court room or as a teacher in a classroom. It is not a random request- in both instances it is very obvious that covering the face hinders communication and to some degree the course of justice in a court- in the classroom it restricts communication between teacher and young pupil-it is self-evident. What gives this women the right in Britain, to fly in the face of this when it is not even a religious requirement?
Britain is one of the most tolerant and diverse societies on earth, and this lady is free to walk on her hands in the street and sing the star-spangled banner backwards while gurgling baked beans if she so wishes. Why can't she remove the veil in court? Why must she make an issue of it? For the life of me I can't understand it.
Maybe you have some contact with the military, or are serving yourself-can you wear what you like? Can you walk around on an army base with your underwear on your head? Does that make the US a less tolerant society?
If I wear my underwear on my head and put pencils in my nose, people might think I am trying to avoid combat. That would be bad. I could be shot.
If it is self-evident that a person in a veil cannot be understood then that barrister will lose cases and will have to change her behavior or be out of work. It is self-correcting.
I do not make it a habit to tell ladies what to wear. Up to now, I have found it to be a wise policy. Perhaps the British government would be wise to follow the same course. (After all it has been their policy for umpity-ump years up to now.)
Just tell her that her bum doesn't look big in that and you should be fine.. in fact say nothing at all, you can't win in my experience
I don't agree with you that it's self-correcting. How about if someone is called to give evidence in front of a jury and they can't be sure if this person is telling the truth because they can't study this persons non-verbal cues? What about a young child who doesn't connect with his/her teacher and thus has a poorer education than would otherwise be the case because he/she can't 'read' her face?
You point up a very real problem.
What if a person is a witness, but cannot bring herself to testify without a veil (or without a duck on her head for that matter)? What if a person has a suit she wants to bring, a grievance to address, but cannot bring herself to do it without a veil (or duck)?
I could see this sort of thing as driving a small number of people out of the courts. They may simply become alienated (which is bad) or turn to self-appointed religious courts (which is much, much worse).
Justice is vital public service and must be provided even to people with ducks on their head. Or veils.
I cant help but think the only problem here is her face being totaly covered, People wouldnt accept young guys in hoodies turning up with them covering their heads, or a man who likes to wear masks turning up in his jason aparil. Why should religion let people get away with things others wouldnt?
Ahhh but we're not talking about people with some kind of real identifiable phobia about showing their face-or people that simply will not take their veil off under any circumstances.
From what I have seen of these cases in the UK they are quite happy to show their faces if neccessary, they are simply trying to promote this idea of muslim 'victimhood' or to try and make a political statement. In many cases it is a backlash to the perceived 'islamophobia' which simply doesn't exist here.
You have been watching to much Blackadder haven't you...I've got a cunning plan...
Pussy footing around with fecking explanations and spewing out pathetic pc crap is fine if you’re on the dole or stuck in an A/C office in some god forsaken place and cut off from reality. The court setting has to establish a standardised procedure if you want justice. If you want to go with a farking duck on your head or a snot rag over your face then try and get a job in a circus or keep it to the bedroom.
English judicial attire is part of it, pathetic (or not) as it may be. But justice is the name of the game in our system. Isn’t that why people want to come to the UK? If you like ducks get some crispy pancakes and if you like snot rags on your face go else where for justice…..and see if you can find it. If you can’t, try writing a stiff letter the local Riyadh rag the day before being marched off to chop-chop square. I’m sure you’ll feel better for it.
Justifying such crap is like trying to pull people’s todgers. I’d like to see what a judge would say if someone refused to take off their Bell Apex.
Last edited by Lazy Lob; 11-14-2006 at 03:53 PM.
ok, so your an american in Saudi for business. while you are there, you follow there laws and custums. if you didn't follow their laws, then i doubt you would be allowed to do business there.
i see the point you are trying make. people are free so why cant they do what they want, wear what they want wherever they want. the problem, or the stumbling block i should say, is that you are holding the "freedom" concept to its' literal meaning.
i shall use the US to explain this. we are considered free in this country to do as we wish. that is what we take the meaning of freedom to mean. that does not mean that we can literally do whatever we want. we cannot kill, steal, drive without a seatbelt drive without a license, go onto others land, ect....... if you were to apply the literal meaning of "freedom", then should we be able to do all of those things without any consequences? we cannot because as a society we have decided that certain things are appropriate and some arn't. that is what seperates, amoung other things, countries from one another. its just how things are done here vs. how they are done elsewhere. when in other countries you do as they do, wheather or not your are from there. that is respecting the country and their culture.
the lawyer in question had to take some kind of test to be a certaified lawyer in England im sure, like the bar in the states. having done that, she knew the custumes of the courts that she would be working in. she took it upon herself to go against those custumes, hence the uproar.
now not all custumes are a good thing, slavery is bad one. but this does not fall under that catagory of "badness". a proper dress code in a court of law is not taking away anyones freedom of dress. it is simple requiring one to conform to the ways of the land while in that court. you wouldnt think of showing up in a court in the US wearing a wife beater, cut-offs, and snadals would you? if you did that you would be told to come back when you are dressed apperitally. we have dress codes in schools, night clubs, and other businesses. think about the classic "no shirt, no shoes, no service". those are accepcted by society and lived by. as should the "no neils in court".
it can be all be summed up with this: When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
Of course, but dressing as you choose to dress is a much more important custom that allowing some government official to enforce a dress code.
If we followed your proposal, we would create a (small) underclass who would not/could not enter a courtroom. This group would not assimilate. This would be a Bad Thing. It would be against all we in the West stand for to create a group so wretched that the courts could not or would not hear them.
"Equal justice under law." Ring any bells?
yes a group that doesnt assimulate is a bad thing. that is exactly why you should follow the countries customs. why is is too much to ask, or even expect a person to behave as the rest of the people around them on this point. if this was really an issue for so many people, then more would rise up for it to change. civil rights ring a bell? enough people said it was wrong to continue to treat blacks the way the white people of that time were treating them. they raised up and changed the laws and customs.
the will and ways of a country cannot be changed because some people from other countries want to make it more like their own. again, i point to where you are currently located. things are way different over there, why arnt you carring on as would in the states? maybe because it is not their way and you are in their country, so you do as they do.
making someone dress a certain way in no way hinders the justice they would recieve. again, it is about respecting the ways of the country that one lives in. dont like it, then move to where other people do as you like.
I admire your libertarian views, really, they sound wonderful.
But pal, if you are willing to offer concessions to every single group who refuse to assimilate for one reason or another, I'd say you are creating more problems than addressing a non-issue which hasn't become a problem yet.
Shouldn't the burden of giving concessions belong to that small group, who are new to the lands they choose to inhabit...? We are not talking about a merciless decision here, just a stern one to thwart a political movement that wish to create a storm in a teacup.
Why should people concede rights to the state? That is not Democracy or a free state, it is the very model of Fascism. Everyone gives up some rights for the benefit of 'Society.'
All 'Society' is is a bunch of people. Bunches of people generally do not have a right to tell any one person what to do. People got (or should have) rights. Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. And wearing a duck on your head if you have half a mind to.
Look, in all of British judicial history I am unaware of anyone ever before setting a dress code so strict that a court would not hear a plea from an improrperly dress person. (Remember when I guy charged with indecent exposure showed up in court to plead not guilty, in the ****?) So is a freakin' veil enough of a threat to overturn a couple of centuries of history?
ok, one more time..........
we are not (no one is) literally free to do anything we wish. we have decided, as a society, what is acceptable and what is not. we have decided what the limits are and what exceeds them. live by the rules or go elsewhere.
if you want to truly live as free as your imgaination wants, then do what people throughout history have done::
pick up a weapon, whip the ass of a peoples that aren't as strong as you and thake their land. then you can set up a society as you see fit.
as for the rest of us, we are content with the society (for the most part) that we live in.
im not going to argue or explain it anymore. you either understand what the rest of our society does or you dont.
since not being able to wear what you want at anytime or anyplace or do anything you want, regardless of what the rest of the society thinks, then i would suggest not going to ANYPLACE that doesnt fit your ideas. doing so will only hinder your "freedoms".
i have to wonder though, why are you in Saudi if being able to do anything you want anytime you want means so much to you? surely you aren't as free there as you wish? i know its for business, but if it means all that to you, why go there at all for any reason?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote