Migrants ‘treated badly by press’, fairness handbook tells judges

[Social Media]

 

A judicial handbook advising judges on fair treatment in court has sparked criticism for its stance on migrants and its use of a contentious definition of Islamophobia. The Equal Treatment Bench Book, a 352-page document published annually by the Judicial College, aims to enhance judges' understanding of those appearing before them and to promote effective communication in courtrooms. However, critics argue that it promotes political bias and a two-tier justice system.

 

The handbook states that migrants and asylum seekers face negative portrayals in sections of the UK press and some political debates. It notes that many have suffered imprisonment, torture, or rape before fleeing their home countries and that asylum seekers in the UK often experience high levels of stress due to insecurity, social isolation, and the fear of deportation. The guide cites figures from the Home Office, highlighting that while the UK received 74,751 asylum applications in 2022, Germany processed 244,132 and France 156,103.

 

 

Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, has criticized the guide, calling it a sign of a politically influenced judiciary. “This guidance is another concerning example of the politicisation of the judiciary. Sentencing decisions should be made on the facts of the case, not on activist guidelines which are pro-open borders. Illegal migrants and asylum seekers who break the law should not be treated any less robustly than a British citizen, otherwise we have a two-tier system.”

 

The handbook also adopts the definition of Islamophobia proposed by the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on British Muslims in 2018, which states that “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” The definition has been widely criticized, including by Muslim groups, for being overly broad and potentially restricting free speech.

 

Fiyaz Mughal, founder of Tell MAMA, an organization that monitors anti-Muslim hate incidents, expressed serious concerns about its inclusion. “We’re now moving into Stasi-land when such a loose definition [is used] through which a coach and horses could be driven through by people who want to defend their Muslimness, and which can be used to stop free speech and the right of people to question beliefs. The judiciary always is willing to listen to issues of inclusion but this avenue is being abused by some really bad actors to attempt to get a form of protection of religious beliefs and practices through the back door and through our judiciary.”

 

Jenrick also condemned the handbook’s stance on the matter, saying, “The APPG definition of Islamophobia is a Trojan horse for a blasphemy law — the judiciary should stick to established law to tackle anti-Muslim hate, not writing in ever more expansive definitions.”

 

The guide further advises judges not to raise “unnecessary objections regarding dress code” in cases where defendants wear a full-face veil and encourages them to “show understanding” if defendants are unable to attend court due to religious observances.

 

The Judicial Office has been contacted for comment on the controversy surrounding the handbook.

 

Based on a report by The Times  2025-03-18

 

 

[JonnyF]

34 minutes ago, Social Media said:

The guide further advises judges not to raise “unnecessary objections regarding dress code” in cases where defendants wear a full-face veil and encourages them to “show understanding” if defendants are unable to attend court due to religious observances.

 

The judges already know they need to treat ethnic minorities, religious minorities, females etc. favourably compared to white male Brits.

 

It's in the official sentencing guidelines. 

[mikeymike100]

"Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, has criticized the guide, calling it a sign of a politically influenced judiciary. “This guidance is another concerning example of the politicisation of the judiciary. Sentencing decisions should be made on the facts of the case, not on activist guidelines which are pro-open borders. Illegal migrants and asylum seekers who break the law should not be treated any less robustly than a British citizen, otherwise we have a two-tier system.”

 

Jenrick is absolutely correct, everyone should be treated by the judiciary equally, irrespective of demographics or religion!

[Andre0720]

Some people fear for their lives, because of Islam facts that they have raised..

Richard Dawkins is one of them.

Silenced by Islam.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Social Media said:

The guide further advises judges not to raise “unnecessary objections regarding dress code” in cases where defendants wear a full-face veil and encourages them to “show understanding” if defendants are unable to attend court due to religious observances.

That's BS, the veil is nothing to do with Islam, and there is nothing that precludes them appearing in court when required, in Islam.

[mikeymike100]

1 hour ago, Andre0720 said:

Some people fear for their lives, because of Islam facts that they have raised..

Richard Dawkins is one of them.

Silenced by Islam.

 

 

He is visibly <deleted> scared of saying anything about them, speaks volumes!