'Your Honour, I Object'
In Britain it is okay to hide one's face when suing for divorce. Case in point:
Shereen Lohar, 21, was applying in the High Court for a declaration of nullity over a marriage, which she said had been forced on her. Solicitors acting for Ms Lohar had successfully applied to the Family Division for her case to be heard by a female judge, but Ms Lohar refused to lift her veil because her barrister was a man.
An umbrella was placed between the woman and the barister effectively hiding her face from onlookers, but allowing the presiding judge to see her.
Those Brits are ingenious, eh. But Blog MyyyyyAsssss worries that a precedent has been set.
What happens when some smart-ass nudist gets brought before a judge for exposing himself in public and the nudist insists on appearing in the buff? Is the court to allow his custom of appearing undressed? Will the barrister be forced to remove his white wig? Will the general public in the court be asked to cover their eyes? Will the defendant be allowed to insist that he be judged by a jury of his peers?
If a man who suffers with excruciating pain whose doctor has prescribed the use of cannabis, is arrested and brought before the courts, is the judge to allow this man 'to toke up' when on the stand? Surely we cannot deny this man of his rights.
The examples that can be listed here are infinite, but we'll save you the bother of any more - you see what we're getting at. Just where does the Western World draw the line with folks whose customs differ from ours?
Are we to build seperate courts for Muslims, Bungee Jumpers, Cross-dressers, Nudists, People In Pain, Steroid-Using National Leaguers, or Folks That Insist On Mooning?
