Their was a court case recently in which a Muslim woman was denied the right to give evidence without removing her veil. Is this right? On the one hand people must be free to live according to their religious commitments; on the other the court appeared to believe that the jury needed to be able to face the witness -literally- in order to test the credibility of her evidence. I think this is a really challenging issue raising complex questions about the nature of our multicultural society, but on balance the principle of English law which says that people should be able and prepared to directly face their accusers seems to me to be so important that it ought not to be compromised even for the most earnestly held beliefs. The paradox though is that the rights that allow us all freedom of religion depend on the uncompromising application of the law.
A Muslim women should be allowed to wear a veil in the courtroom because she is upholding her religious beliefs and the First Amendment protects our right to practice and believe in any religion. Since wearing a veil is very traditional to Muslim women because modesty is valued more than a lack of modesty like in Western Society, the Muslim women is using her rights to practice the religion she believes in. I also wish women in modern day western civilization were valued for things like respect and kindness more than skimpy outfits and sexual appeal.
I'm not sure that the first amendment is relevant in the UK where the constitution is unwritten. The real point is that the common law, as developed in the UK ( the home of the common law) requires that both complainant and witnesses should be face to face in the court. A person who is veiled is hidden from judge and jury (or what is the point of the veil?) and is thus not truly face to face. The challenge here is whether or not this principle is sufficiently important to trump a persons wish to maintain their religious observance. The UK courts might be expected to uphold the right to religious freedom (the law forbidding discrimination on religious grounds is absolutely explicit) but in this case conflicts with a centuries old principle of English law intended to prevent accused or accuser from avoiding the adversarial confrontation which is the fundamental basis of the common law.
If English law requires complainant and witnesses be face to face then why is it law if The English Constitution is unwritten so this means your whole argument is not valid.
The use of a veil according to ones is guaranteed because of religious freedom laws which you even admitted exist mean that there is no point in why a Muslim woman cannot wear a veil in court. Also the use of a veil does not restrict speech therefore meaning the veil does not influence the judicial process meaning there is absolutely no reason while a Muslim woman cannot wear a veil in court.