Canadian Woman Forbidden to Wear Niqab in Court

[Dulkadar]

Courtesy of AJE

A Canadian woman filing charges of sexual assault will be required to remove her niqab to testify against her alleged attackers. On Wednesday, a Toronto judge ruled that the woman's niqab (or face veil) “masks her demeanour and blocks...effective cross-examination by counsel for the accused". The decision applies to the preliminary hearings where she is expected to face her uncle and cousin, whom she accuses of sexually abusing her during her childhood.

The woman, known as "NS", has fought the Canadian court to wear her niqab during hearings since the case began. A five-year series of decisions and appeals led all the way to the country's supreme court, which ruled in 2012 that the issue should be decided on a case-by-case basis. The supreme court ruling requires the provincial court to consider both the weight of the individual's "religious conviction" and the impact on trial fairness before issuing a decision for the niqab to be removed. "NS" plans to appeal the most recent decision.

The case prompted conflicting reactions from Canadians. From Farrah Khan, an advocate against sexual violence:

Farrah Khan
@farrah_khan
Creating a chilly climate for women who wear #niqab to access justice when they experience sexual violence #VAW cbc.ca/news/canada/to…
A DAY AGOREPLYRETWEETFAVORITE
Public awareness campaign Slut Walk Toronto:

SlutWalk
@SlutWalkTO
TO court judge rules N.S. must remove her #niqab to testify. Massive blow to rights of survivors & #Muslim women. cbc.ca/news/canada/to…
7 HOURS AGOREPLYRETWEETFAVORITE

SlutWalk
@SlutWalkTO
We DO NOT support court systems enforcing what survivors get to put on their bodies in order to share their experiences of sexual violence.
7 HOURS AGOREPLYRETWEETFAVORITE

Haykal Bafana
@BaFana3
Women's rights, Canada Style. | RT @megan_otoole : Muslim woman must remove her niqab before testifying. news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/24/aft…
21 HOURS AGOREPLYRETWEETFAVORITE
A Globe and Mail editorial argued that the ruling upheld tenents of Canadian democracy:

theglobeandmail.com
Being bare-faced in court is a bona fide requirement in a democratic society, just as it is at border security points – the same woman said she would take off her niqab for border checks.
Share

6 HOURS AGO
Commenters on the op-ed echoed support for the decision. From Stan Duptali:

theglobeandmail.com
This is a no brainer. When Sikhs wear a ceremonial kirpan, it has very little effect on others. Women should be free to wear whatever they want in homes, places of worship and in public, but in a court of law, there is a danger that the ability to hide behind a niqab could land someone else in jail. Expression, emotion and inflection all play a crucial role in determining the truth. Denying others the opportunity to observe those displays is unacceptable.
Share

6 HOURS AGO
Climaxica pondered what the case meant for the rights of the accused parties:

theglobeandmail.com
I'm not sure if the right to face your accuser is an actual right in Canada like it is in the US, but it does have a lot of merit and goes towards a fair trial. Imagine being charged with sexual assault, but when you go to court, the person who is accusing you is hidden and you can't see them...It's almost Kafkaesque in that sense as you aren't allowed to see your accuser.
Share

6 HOURS AGO
Georges Sioufi said that appearing in court with the niqab is tantamount to anonymous testimony.

Georges Sioufi
@GeorgesSioufi
What, did they expect for there not to be a problem? In our society, we don't accept anonymous testimony in court. cbc.ca/news/canada/to…
A DAY AGOREPLYRETWEETFAVORITE

Shaena Dean
@ShaenaDean
@CBCToronto This is basic logic when law must confirm identity. There are ways to manage it respectfully.
8 HOURS AGOREPLYRETWEETFAVORITE
Responding to a critique of the ruling, Twitter user @wickeddollz focused on what she says is a need to keep religion out of the courtroom:

wickeddollz
@wickeddollz
@SlutWalkTO cant agree we need to keep the legal system secular, cant start changing proceeding due to religion.
7 HOURS AGOREPLYRETWEETFAVORITE
Legal analyst Steven Skurka spoke to CTV News about the ruling, saying the Toronto judge's decision may be fitting for trial, but not necessary for the preliminary hearing:

So, TLDR a woman is wanting to wear a face obstructing garb in court, and the Judge is saying no.


Personally, I think that the Judge's decision is a correct one. A court is no place for religion, especially one that might conceal a person lying OR telling the truth. I also wonder, if the woman here wants to live by Muslim rituals and laws, then why isn't she trying to get tried under Islamic law?

Anyway, i'm wondering what NSG thinks of this turn of events?

[Pope Joan]

So let's just declare open rape season against Muslim women who want to respect their culture while protecting themselves from assault?

[Dulkadar]

So let's just declare open rape season against Muslim women who want to respect their culture while protecting themselves from assault?

I didn't realize we lived in wherever the hell she'her parents were from? It's Canada, Canadian law, and Canadian values

[The Emerald Dawn]

If it is determined that, according to the laws of Canada, the Niqab would unduly influence the Jury, then the decision is correct.

[Pope Joan]

So let's just declare open rape season against Muslim women who want to respect their culture while protecting themselves from assault?

I didn't realize we lived in wherever the hell she'her parents were from? It's Canada, Canadian law, and Canadian values

Canadian values support rape then, and do not support personal religious convictions.

[Samuraikoku]

My opinion is that of Canada's Supreme Court.

I'm afraid I lack details on this to say whether this particular decision was correct.

[Disserbia]

Not in court for obvious reasons.

[Choronzon]

So let's just declare open rape season against Muslim women who want to respect their culture while protecting themselves from assault?

.....wat

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Fair enough.

[Salandriagado]

Hold on. Who the fuck requires victims of sexual abuse to testify in front of their abusers? Isn't there an option to do it out of sight or via videolink or something?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Hold on. Who the fuck requires victims of sexual abuse to testify in front of their abusers? Isn't there an option to do it out of sight or via videolink or something?

Canada.

[Salandriagado]

Hold on. Who the fuck requires victims of sexual abuse to testify in front of their abusers? Isn't there an option to do it out of sight or via videolink or something?

Canada.

... Sigh.

Can't they at least rig up something so that the accused/public can't see her?

Do they really force everybody who is abused to testify in front of the people that abused them?

[Dulkadar]

Hold on. Who the fuck requires victims of sexual abuse to testify in front of their abusers? Isn't there an option to do it out of sight or via videolink or something?

You don't have them involved in the Court preceding?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Hold on. Who the fuck requires victims of sexual abuse to testify in front of their abusers? Isn't there an option to do it out of sight or via videolink or something?

You don't have they involved in the Court preceding?

I think you accidentally your post.

[Choronzon]

Hold on. Who the fuck requires victims of sexual abuse to testify in front of their abusers? Isn't there an option to do it out of sight or via videolink or something?

....countries that think the accused has a right to face their accuser?

[Dulkadar]

You don't have they involved in the Court preceding?

I think you accidentally your post.

How do I into the English language? Sorry, of immigrant

[Varijnland]

You'll see no oposition from me. No pun intended.

[Salandriagado]

Hold on. Who the fuck requires victims of sexual abuse to testify in front of their abusers? Isn't there an option to do it out of sight or via videolink or something?

You don't have them involved in the Court preceding?

We do, but there are provisions for people to give evidence without having to physically be in the same room as them, or even see them, such as via videolink with carefully arranged screens/cameras.

[Choronzon]

You don't have them involved in the Court preceding?

We do, but there are provisions for people to give evidence without having to physically be in the same room as them, or even see them, such as via videolink with carefully arranged screens/cameras.

I don't think testifying via videoscreen would change the fact that this woman cannot wear her niqab.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I think you accidentally your post.

How do I into the English language? Sorry, of immigrant

iLaugh.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

Courtesy of AJE
So, TLDR a woman is wanting to wear a face obstructing garb in court, and the Judge is saying no.


Personally, I think that the Judge's decision is a correct one. A court is no place for religion, especially one that might conceal a person lying OR telling the truth. I also wonder, if the woman here wants to live by Muslim rituals and laws, then why isn't she trying to get tried under Islamic law?

Anyway, i'm wondering what NSG thinks of this turn of events?

I see no problem with this.

[Threlizdun]

I must agree with the Court's reasoning on this matter. Religious convictions does not make one above the law.

[Flaxxony-Setram]

Good. There was sound reasoning behind it.

[Salandriagado]

We do, but there are provisions for people to give evidence without having to physically be in the same room as them, or even see them, such as via videolink with carefully arranged screens/cameras.

I don't think testifying via videoscreen would change the fact that this woman cannot wear her niqab.

It would mean she wouldn't have to stand in front of the people that sexually assaulted her in what she would consider an inappropriate state.

[Choronzon]

I don't think testifying via videoscreen would change the fact that this woman cannot wear her niqab.

It would mean she wouldn't have to stand in front of the people that sexually assaulted her in what she would consider an inappropriate state.

Agreed, but we are now moving beyond the scope of the thread.

The topic of conversation is about whether or not the court was right to forbid her from wearing the niqab. The manner in which her testimony is given doesn't really alter that ruling.