The case of the veiled Muslim woman in the Caliphate of Britainistan

I'll tell you what the Muslima's lawyers will do now or at least try to do.  They will insist that she has to keep her face covered but she will put down her signature to a statement which should be considered as evidence given by her.  

When one starts making concessions because of someone's religious beliefs which should never  trump over a country's given laws and regulations,  you are begging for certain kind of immigrants to trample you under their feet.  We have only ourselves to blame ... not the Muslims.  They are doing what they are supposed to do ...which is to bring about Shariah and the Caliphate wherever they go.

This judge, although appearing to stand by the laws of the land, is nothing but a facilitator for the Caliphate. Why "offer the woman a screen to shield her from public view while giving evidence but that she had to be seen by him, the jury and lawyers."   Would he do the same for non-Muslims  who might desire to hide their face too for some reason or the other?  Gross stupidity. 

From BBC:
A Muslim woman can stand trial wearing a full-face  veil but  must remove it to give evidence, a judge has ruled.Judge Peter Murphy made the ruling at Blackfriars Crown Court in London where the woman is due to stand trial for one count of intimidating a witness.

The 22-year-old from Hackney had refused to remove her niqab and reveal her face in front of any man.
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, pleaded not guilty at an earlier hearing.
The order means that if the woman, who started wearing the veil in May 2012, refuses to comply during her trial she could be jailed for Contempt of Court.

In a niqab the only part of the face that is visible is a narrow horizontal stripe showing the wearer's eyes.

The judge said he would offer the woman a screen to shield her from public view while giving evidence but that she had to be seen by him, the jury and lawyers.

At other times during the trial the woman will be allowed to keep her face covered while sitting in the dock.
In the ruling Judge Murphy said: "The ability of the jury to see the defendant for the purposes of evaluating her evidence is crucial."
Referring to the woman as "D", he said he had "no reason to doubt the sincerity of her belief" and his decision would have been the same if she had worn the niqab for years.

He added that "the niqab has become the elephant in the courtroom" and there was widespread anxiety among judges over how to tackle the issue.

He added he hoped "Parliament or a higher court will provide a definite answer to the issue soon."

Judge Murphy said: "If judges in different cases in different places took differing approaches [to the niqab] the result would be judicial anarchy."

The judgement comes as Liberal Democrat Home Office minister Jeremy Browne said he was "uneasy" about restricting freedoms but urged a national debate on the state's role in stopping veils being imposed on girls.

Her defence barrister Susan Meek had argued the woman's human right to express her faith through her attire would be breached if she was asked to remove her veil against her wishes.

When asked if they would appeal against the decision, the woman's lawyer said they would "consider our options".........