“Once there are multiple spectators in the public gallery wearing niqabs and traditional Islamic dress, working out who was who if something happened in court might not be a simple matter, especially as such dress tends to be very similar. I have previously indicated that, whilst all are welcome in my court, spectators in the public gallery must have their faces uncovered, chiefly for security reasons.”
Common sense. But watch for the cries of “Islamophobia.”
“Terror accused’s wife banned from wearing niqab in court,” by Erin Pearson, The Age, July 17, 2018:
A Supreme Court judge has banned the wife of an accused terrorist from wearing a niqab veil in the court’s public gallery.
The woman, who is married to a man accused of plotting a Christmas Day terrorist attack at Melbourne landmarks, had her application to wear the garment dismissed in court.
Justice Christopher Beale ruled Supreme Court spectators must have their faces uncovered in order to prevent misbehaviour in the courtroom that could lead to the discharging of a jury.
A niqab is a traditional Muslim garb that covers the head and face except for an opening for the eyes.
“Requiring spectators’ faces to be uncovered is, in my view, the least restrictive means of upholding court security,” Justice Beale said.
The applicant is the wife of an accused terrorist, who is facing a six-week trial in the Supreme Court after allegedly planning an attack with explosive devices and weapons on Christmas Day 2016 at Melbourne locations including Federation Square, Flinders Street Station and St Paul’s Cathedral.
Justice Beale said that if one person were to be approved to wear the veil, others would soon follow, with three accused Muslim extremists facing trial over this particular case.
“Once there are multiple spectators in the public gallery wearing niqabs and traditional Islamic dress, working out who was who if something happened in court might not be a simple matter, especially as such dress tends to be very similar,” he said.
“I have previously indicated that, whilst all are welcome in my court, spectators in the public gallery must have their faces uncovered, chiefly for security reasons.”…
elee says
A sane man fears Muslims. Let’s see, what does one do with people who constitute a violent threat to (1) Western civilization and (2) the business being transacted in a room one is responsible for controlling? Well for starters, one does not let them walk a tent-load of weapons into the room under a walking tent. Let them have all the histrionics they want. Have armed men ready to escort them to secure “adult” (?) day care for a long time.
Ric says
The cries of Islamophobia will reverberate because of Australia’s Supreme Court’s decision. Not only Muslims but the Liberal Progressive apologists and panderers of Islam. The decision, of course, is common sense, an aspect which is running on empty in the West’s worldview. Niqabs secret one’s identity, male Muslims have used them in the commission of a crime; hence, the question of security. More importantly, the judiciary, the jurists, and gallery have the right to verify the person is whom they profess to be. Kudos go out to Australia’s Supreme Court.
Jay says
The Supreme Courts in Australia are the highest courts in a particular state (in this case the state of Victoria). The the highest court of law federally is the High Court of Australia.
gravenimage says
Australia: Supreme Court judge bans wife of accused jihad terrorist from wearing niqab in court
………………..
*Good*.
Peter says
Very Good
Peter says
Great
Lookmann says
Another report says the woman was given a private room to watch the proceedings from a live stream.
‘Muslim woman is given her own private room to watch her husband’s terror trial ‘
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5962879/Muslim-woman-watch-husbands-terror-trial-refusing-remove-niqab-veil.html
There is every chance that Western liberal values may be taken as weakness by the Islamic Supremacists.
PRCS says
“A niqab is a traditional Muslim garb that covers the head and face except for an opening for the eyes.”
Note the word “traditional” and that “tradition” is such in only some Muslim countries (like out pals in Saudi Arabia).
It is NOT mandated by any Islamic text to my knowledge.
The judge needs to make clear that such “traditions” have no place in his court.
Rolf Wittwer says
Plse. Australians: Change your laws in that way, that you are able TO KICK OUT SUCH PEOPLE!
The same sould be possible in all western democracies!
Linda says
Agreed.
PRCS says
From The Age article, some sanity:
In written submissions to the court, the couple’s lawyer challenged an earlier ruling, saying that denying the application would be a breach of the right of religious freedom and that wearing the garment was a “fundamental way in which [the applicant] observes her faith”.
While worn by a small number of Muslim women, a niqab is not an Islamic requirement.
Anne Smith says
The Aztecs observed their faith by having mass human sacrifices and cutting their hearts out on raised public platforms or altars.
We don’t allow that any more. So why would we allow other rituals which endanger people? This judge was quite right and I do not see why she should be given her own room. Let her act as other Australians have to or else return to a Muslim country if they find the laws too oppressive for them.
gravenimage says
+1
Lydia Church says
I have NO reverence for anything or anyone other than the God of the Christian Bible!
We can’t be ‘reverent’ towards something that is false.
Lydia Church says
… like islam.
Angus MacDonald says
Or Christianity
dave says
which god are you talking about lydia? there are a dozen or so named in the bible i think that you need to be more specific im hoping you mean yahuweh the creator, and not any of the others such as baal gd which by the way, is the hebrew words for the false christian god the lord god! yahuwehs worst enemy.
Rosie Barnes says
As always, the question is why did Australia allow these immigrants from the world’s most backward and violent culture to enter in the first place?
The possible dangers are well-documented. They are unlikely to integrate or contribute and are likely to be a drain on public finances and services.
As with all Western countries at its root will be the insanity of “multiculturalism”: the absurd belief that there is something inherently wrong or lacking in societies being predominantly white and Christian, so they need to be “enriched” and changed through “diversity”. And of course, to be diverse, the “new” citizens have to be the opposite of the educated, white, Christian Westerners – and so millions are brought in from the uncivilised cultures of black Africa and the Muslim world.
tim gallagher says
Australia is way behind in dealing with the full niqab type veil, which is a point made by many presenters and callers on talk back radio in relation to this decision. Several presenters have given the list of European countries such as France, Switzerland, Austria, et al, which banned this foul covering garment from all public places. They have said, rightly, that we can’t even get a public discussion, amongst the politicians in Australia, about banning it. When Pauline Hanson wore the vile, totally covering garment in the Senate, to make a point about its security problem aspects, most of the media seemed to criticise her severely. Australia is a very PC affected, or maybe just a very passive, laid back, place. This full covering garment should have been banned years ago. We’ve got a long way to go.
tim gallagher says
I just want to add the point that I’ve heard callers and presenters on talkback radio here in Australia making. The normal non-Muslim cannot, for example, walk into a bank while wearing their motorcycle helmet. Apparently, they have to take it off for security reasons.. But the niqab wearing Muslim women don’t have to follow such rules. I guess it’s part of the way we constantly cave in to Muslims and bend the rules to cater for Muslims and I suppose because it’s a “religion”. Women, or men,( I mean who knows what’s inside the tent garment), wearing these completely covered up garments could obviously have a bomb or a gun inside the tent they wear. We need to see one another’s faces and the expression on the faces. It’s the way we interact in western societies. The ruling by this judge is, nevertheless, a small improvement.
gravenimage says
True–and Muslim women, and men, have used the Niqab and Burqa to commit crimes and Jihad terror.
tim gallagher says
Yes, gravenimage, this type of garment is an obvious security risk. It should be so bloody obvious that it needs to be banned to keep us safe. A lot of people here in Australia cannot believe that our pathetic governments of both the main parties won’t ban it. Pathetic pandering to the Muslims. We often hear that western Europe is very far down the path of being conquered by Islam, and, no doubt, many countries there do have large %’s of Muslims, but several countries there are being far tougher than Australia in that they have banned the niqab. I would expect the USA to be tougher than Australia in standing up for its values and would ban garments like the niqab. Is there any prospect of the USA banning this foul garment and clear security risk? Or is the USA government being as pathetic and ruled by PC type pandering to Islam as Australia is? Europe seems to be ahead on this issue. It should be so obvious that the niqab needs to be banned as a security threat.
abad says
Australia needs to start deporting these Moslems from their soil.
gravenimage says
+1
Aussi says
Congratulations to the Supreme Court and it’s judge, who finally have shown the rest of Australia that bending over backwards to facilitate,and appease our moslem ” refugee ” population is not legally required, or indeed justified under our laws. It should also be noted that there has never been a requirement under islamic law that women must be covered, many countries,around the world including islamic ones are now requiring by law that women’s faces MUST be uncovered.
Carrie Lowery says
For those of us in America, what is the % of Muslims in Australia?
Jay says
2.6% of Australians are Muslim according to the 2016 census.
Jay says
That will be triple in 10 years due to their rapid breeding at the host’s expense.
jack says
time for the next Crusade!
Aussie Infidel says
What a landmark decision; and about time too. Justice Christopher Beale is to be congratulated for rejecting this medieval madness.
Now all we need is a Prime Minister with the guts to initiate a Bill in Parliament to Legally Define Religion once and for all. Apart from the basic belief in some supernatural entity, religions must have other essential attributes, such as empathy for others – whether believers or not. Following the principles spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, would be essential. But inciting followers to kill unbelievers would result in complete rejection. Any appeal by Muslims would force MPs to actually read and debate Islam’s holy scriptures, and expose their hatred and violence to the public gaze.
Jay says
Thir 2.5 % will be triple in 10 years due to their rapid breeding at the host’s expense.
James K. says
Sorry for her discomfort. Sorrier still: the grief and pain these *satanists* who follow muhammad the pervert bring on non muslims.
*Allah is DOGMEAT, Muhammad is Allah’s pervertes spawn, the UNHOLY QU’RAN is TOILET PAPER, and Mecca along with medina are MANURE PILES.*