A triumph for stupidity

November 5, 2013 at 1:32 am (apologists and collaborators, blogosphere, islamism, Jim D, law)

This has appeared at the so-called “Socialist Unity” site:

The triumph of irony

Posted by on 4 November, 2013

Ken Clarke

This freak has the cheek to describe the veil worn by some Muslim women as “peculiar”.



JD comments: two rather obvious points appear to have eluded the author of that post:

1/ Mr Clarke is not appearing as the defendant in a court of law (though perhaps he should – an entirely different matter)

2/ You can see his face (ridiculous garb notwithstanding).



  1. Andrew Coates said,

    Another obvious point that escapes the author is that the Burkha stops people who rely on lip-reading understanding what’s said.

    Meanwhile Facebook remains alive with this news (GIta Seghal’s information is better than mine):

  2. Andrew Coates said,

    The news being: http://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/british-islamist-chowdhury-mueen-uddin-found-guilty-as-war-criminal/

    Apparently genocide is less important than making puerile remarks.

  3. Pinkie said,

    I don’t like anybody hiding their face, but what is the serious problem?

    • Jim Denham said,

      …ehh..justice? A fair trial? The jury being able to make a proper assessment of evidence? Equality before the law, for all? You know, those sorts of old-fashioned enlightenment values.

      • Pinkie said,

        I think you need to explain why hiding your face denies the possibility of a proper assessment of evidence.

      • Dave said,

        a Defendants facial expressions during examination in chief and cross examination. A burkha denies the juror that right. It was outrageous that this Defendant put her own supernatural allegiances above thos of the juror. I tried to post this on SU but was banned by the commission for the suppression of freethinking .

  4. Jim Denham said,

    “The right to face your accuser” (and, logically, vice versa): note the use of the word “face.”

  5. Monsuer Jelly More Bounce to the Ounce (Much More Bounce) said,

    the owlde grammEr and SpeeliNfg and shit wenT owt the wiNDOW a LOOng time ago on this blergHH did it NOTT

  6. Pinkie said,

    Where is the evidence that seeing the face of a witness or accused allows people to properly assess the truth of what they are saying? I don’t think there is any. Tell me otherwise, with good reason.

    ‘Facing’ your accuser could also be called ‘confronting’ your accuser, this has nothing to do with seeing their face.

    • Dave said,


      No one on here has mentioned the word truth in regard to a defendant wearing a face covering, whilst being cross examined. This is about the right of a juror to judge facial expressions full stop-period. There are so many peer reviewed articles relating to how facial expressions affect other peoples judgements regarding what they say or their emotional state it, it would be ludicrous to deny that, a) no such evidence exists


      b) To deny that any such peer review studies are accurate.

      It is also interesting to note that facial expressions are the same across different races, ethnic groups etc. Something that would compel a cultural relativist to deny any evidence contradicting that proposition.

      • Pinkie said,

        It is not about the fact that people judge others by their facial expressions, of course they do. What is at issue is whether those judgements are accurate.

        I do not like anybody hiding their face, but am sceptical about whether doing so is an affront to justice. Opposition to misogynism cannot be built on gut feeling.

      • Jim Denham said,

        Pinkie: “What is at issue is whether those judgements are accurate.”. Pinkie, this is gibberish. Exactly the same point could be made about hearing verbal testimony. The point is allowing juries to see and hear *all* the evidence, and then make their judgement.

        I am still, frankly, mystified as to what point you’re trying to make.

  7. Jim Denham said,

    “‘Facing’ your accuser could also be called ‘confronting’ your accuser, this has nothing to do with seeing their face”: eh, do you really think so, Pinkie? So you can “confront” someone without seeing their face? Assuming you’re not actually visually impaired? This really is nonsense on stilts and flies in the face of all known concepts of a fair trial and equality before the law. What point are you *really* trying to make, Pinkie?

  8. R F McCarthy (@RF_McCarthy) said,

    It is pitiful that we are so terrified of upsetting the deluded and fanatical that we have to resort to such narrow instrumentalist arguments against the most monstrous misogyny.

    To calm myself down I had to spend a few minutes paging through this wonderful collection of 1920s Soviet propaganda posters: http://rosswolfe.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/soviet-antireligious-propaganda/

  9. jimmy glesga said,

    You can still see his nose and he is not covered in a bin bag.

  10. Babs said,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: