To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
This out-dated practice is inequitable and oppressive
Share this:
From June Maxwell.
YES, Magistrate Richard Falle is right (JEP editorial, 4 September); the dignity of the court should always be upheld and contempt should be chastised. But it’s unclear in this case whether he was upholding the law or merely a tradition.
Whichever it is, in the 21st century, what on earth is the place of prayers (to one particular denominational god) in a courtroom?
Courts of law are built on proving cases through the weight of evidence. Prayers on the other hand are built on the opposite of evidence – faith.
There’s no doubt that religion can have a central role in the lives of some persons, but does that mean that this commitment is then extended through the courts to every other person in the land without their consent?
Are courts not places where everyone is meant to be treated equally?
If so, asking those who reject worshipping gods but who otherwise live moral and decent lives to pay homage to a particular god under threat of incarceration would seem not only be inequitable, but oppressive and downright disrespectful.
If this practice is law in Jersey, it should be repealed. If it’s a tradition, it is long past its sell-by date and needs to cease forthwith.
Villa d’Este,
Bagatelle Road,
St Saviour.
Related