Woman must remove niqab to testify

[Akasa]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...face-veil.html

[s_stabeler]

sorry, but reading the article, I think it is appropriate. She has removed the Niquab for police and border patrol before as well as while driving. Her reasoning was she didn't have a choice. Here, the face veil blocks the defence's ability to see certain cues that could indicate she is lying. ( to say nothing of the fact that in a niquab, it can be difficult to tell people apart)

[Nekojin]

I'm with Stabeler - I think that it's important to be able to see a witness's face when they're on the stand. Religious beliefs are all well and good, but they must give way to practical issues.

[Ree]

Akasa, we have a policy where, if you're going to post a link, you are to offer an opinion on what's contained in the link.

(At CS, we ask you to at least give a brief outline of what's contained in the link, since many people log in from work, but on fratching, since it's a debate site, it's expected that you not only explain the content, but that you also open a debate point.)

So, Akasa, what is your opinion on this issue?

[Akasa]

Sorry Ree.

I think that she was already traumatized by the rape, and making her expose herself to a room of strangers and be subjected to a cross examination would be doubly traumatic. It's hard enough to get up there and talk about it. If the niqab is a sign of decency, which to her it is, she would be feeling extra exposed without it and people looking for signs she may be telling false will take her discomfort to mean just that.

[Panacea]

I think that she was already traumatized by the rape, and making her expose herself to a room of strangers and be subjected to a cross examination would be doubly traumatic.

I understand where you are coming from on that. She's a victim; by taking off the niqab, she's essentially being victimized again.

However, her rights do have to be balanced by the rights of the defendants to confront their accuser.

In this case, since it is family members who are accused of the crime, I think the judge has made a mistake. This insistence by the defense is intended to intimidate the witness.

Put up a screen so she is shielded from the courtroom, and allow a prosecution and a defense lawyer to view her body language.

If an undercover cop can be shielded from the court, so can this victim.

[bara]

I think Panacea is on the right track. Compromise. No reason to let her accusers or the court 'audience' see her. Just the attorneys judge and jury.

Its not perfect, but a screen wont allow facial expressions to be seen either. So only allow those who are directly involved in questioning and decision making see her face. (Apologies if that is what Panacea was saying).

What is it? Like only 90% of what you are saying is coming out of your mouth.

[Anthony K. S.]

It worries me when people talk about these cases as if we already know that the defendants are guilty. The trial hasn't even started yet.

If this woman is telling the truth, then I genuinely feel for her.

But if these men are actually innocent, then I would find it just as sad that they will have such a stigma attached to them for the rest of their lives.


The defense lawyers do have a point. It is difficult enough under any circumstances to judge whether somebody is telling the truth. Being unable to see the person's facial expressions and body language makes it even harder.

Given what's at stake, I think that instructing the witness to remove her veil, and perhaps asking the jury to keep in mind the context of her discomfort, might be the best that a judge can do.


As for compromising, I would note that the judge offered one that the woman's attorney rejected.

One of the options [the judge] proposed is having the woman testify without the veil over closed-circuit television.

However, her lawyer says her religious beliefs mean she must leave it on, closed-circuit TV or not, while the lawyers for the accused say they cannot get a fair trial unless they, and the court, can see her facial expressions as she testifies.

The judge asked the lawyers to consider a compromise, testifying via closed-circuit television.

The defence agreed, but the lawyer for N.S., David Butt, said no as it would still lead to her "objectification and sexualization" just as much on television as in person.

The adamant statements made by this woman's lawyer make me think that she would have insisted on keeping her veil on, no matter who was present to see her. That's just my feeling on it, though.

[fireheart17]

sorry, but reading the article, I think it is appropriate. She has removed the Niquab for police and border patrol before as well as while driving. Her reasoning was she didn't have a choice. Here, the face veil blocks the defence's ability to see certain cues that could indicate she is lying. ( to say nothing of the fact that in a niquab, it can be difficult to tell people apart)

This is sort of the line that some people down here have been using to justify the idea of banning the burqa. Problem is though, barely ANYONE wears the niqab/burqa at all down here. You're more likely to have women covering their heads and leaving it at that.

Put up a screen so she is shielded from the courtroom, and allow a prosecution and a defense lawyer to view her body language.

If an undercover cop can be shielded from the court, so can this victim.

Pretty much this.

And I didn't quote it, but CCTV =/= screen.

Also, going through a trial for a rape victim is not easy in the slightest.

[Gravekeeper]

The other aspect of this is for the jury, in that it would likely be in her best interest not to wear it. You run the risk of the jury becoming suspicious of why she is hiding her face rather than sympathetic. Especially in light of the fact she has been fighting for his in the courts for 6 years.

That means she's been holding up the actual criminal trial for 6 years over this.

Never mind the fact that face veils are cultural, not religious. There's nothing in the Quran about them. The verse used to justify it is an even bigger stretch than the one used to justify homophobia in the Bible.

Quran 33:59:
"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters, and the believing women, to draw their cloaks over their bodies. That will be better that they should be known so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

In the context of the full chapter, Muhammed's wives and daughters would go out at night to, well, go to the bathroom and some dick heads on the streets would tease them about it. Calling them slave girls and what not. But if they wore a cloak, they could be distinguished from slaves and the dick heads wouldn't tease them.

Seriously, that's the basis. Some dicks were trying to scandalize Mohammed's family, and in response Allah told them to hold their cloaks up in front of them when they went outside so they couldn't be teased by saying they looked like slave girls. The word "face" does not appear anywhere nor does "veil". They drew their cloaks around over the front of their body, they did not cover their face at all.

All the other crazy bullshit inflicted on Muslim women in ass backwards countries comes from similar justifications based on how Mohammed's actual wives had to behave.

Not allowed to converse with other men?

Quran 33:32
"Wives of the Prophet, you are not like other women. So, if you fear God, do not be too complaisant in your speech, lest the lecherous-hearted should lust after you. Talk with such people in plain and simple words."

This is referring to dealing with lecherous assholes who are within the household. AKA male guests in the house that are trying to sex her up. They were to speak bluntly with such people as to dissuade them and show them they didn't have a chance in hell of getting anything.

All of the rules imposed on Muslim women by crazy conservatives are derived from these chapters that outlined how Mohammed's wives and daughters had to behave in the face of an organized public smear campaign against his family in one specific town at one specific time. They acted this way as not to give the assholes any ammunition that could be used against them publicly.

Thus ends today's episode of Quran 101. -.-

[Amanita]

^Yeah, pretty much that. I read a book on Islam recently (I'm planning a trip to Dubai) and it mentioned Mohammed's wives wearing veils and being behind screens in their house. But then again, Mohammed's house also served as a Mosque, and had male visitors coming and going.

I got the impression that the rules were a form of CYA- they served to protect the reputation of Mohammed's wives, so no men had direct contact with them while in the house. And I suspect that the rules may have protected decent men as well- nobody could accuse them of hanky panky either- men were instructed not to go to the Prophet's house without reason, and not to linger any longer than needed.