Ontario Court rejects the right to wear niqab

[Mowich]

"Fortunately, at least one lower-court judge has clear sense of right and wrong on this issue – even if his robed superiors in Ottawa are deadlocked.

In an opinion released this week, Ontario Court Justice Norris Weisman rejected a 37-year-old Muslim woman’s demand that she be permitted to wear a niqab while testifying in regard to two men who allegedly raped her when she was a child. As the Judge properly noted, at least one of the two defendants risks being sent to jail for the rest of his life if he is convicted of this repellant crime. Given the high stakes, it would be wrong to compromise the man’s right to a fair trial based on the alleged victim’s extraordinary restrictive definition of female sexual propriety.

Well-stated, and just so. As for the complainant in this case, we can only hope that she has the conviction to proceed with the case without her niqab. It would be an odd interpretation of God’s will to insist that a rapist go free so that a woman might remain a stranger to those seeking to bring her justice."


The right to a fair trial trumps the right to the niqab | Full Comment | National Post

 

[damngrumpy]

The court made the right decision, its no different than anyone else testifying in the
same type of court case. All Canadians should go by the same rules on fundamental
issues. No one cares if you are wearing a dress or blue jeans. Or a man in a suit or
shorts. Impeding identification different unless the issue centers around a child in
that case they allow for closed circuit TV.

 

[petros]

Now what will i do? Wear a mosquito net hat? I'd be covered but not covered. Would that suffice? Why not just ban Wahabis?

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

When accused of crime we should have the right to face our accusers.

 

[petros]

It's not like they are asked to take off their gonch or anything.

Are they embarassed by their big Arab beaks or they aren't allowed to wax or bleach their moustaches?

 

[Sal]

She can still cover herself head to toe. She just has to remove the facial cover. I do however see what Karrie means about it being traumatic for her due to her belief that it is immodest to show her face publicaly.

I can not tell you how much that angers me. I wish we would ban facial covers in public entirely. By allowing it, we condone it.

 

[L Gilbert]

If I end up in court, I ain't shavin my beard.

 

[L Gilbert]

I suppose now any woman in her shoes will now have to weigh justice against religous conviction.

Not justice, just rules. So it's rules against rules. I think rules in law generally make more sense than religious rules.

 

[Sparrow]

Good for the court, because as far as I am concerned if one of us was raped we would not be allowed to hide our faces. There should be no special treatment it is not religious but a cultural belief.

 

[Goober]

Sure, to me and you.

However, to a believer? She may just decide to keep it quiet.

Many, to many do because of a variety of reasons.

 

[Elder]

I must agree wholeheartedly on this decision. This is Canada and it is not our way to hide behind masks or veils of any sort. In fact it is illegal.
Personally I do not want to see these cover up robes in Canadian society. Next there will be Shariah law Instituted and Canada will devolve a 1000 years instantly.
There must be limits on how far we will allow other cultures mores to mold our lifestyles.
Especially if the custom
is religiously dictated....I do not want it to be a part of Canada.

I am a multi-generational Canadian born and raised woman who refuses to accept a habit such as the niqab.

It is offensive to me.

 

[Cliffy]

I agree. All of us here hiding behind anonymity should be exposed before our peers. "Tear down the Wall! Tear down the Wall!"

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I must agree wholeheartedly on this decision. This is Canada and it is not our way to hide behind masks or veils of any sort. In fact it is illegal.
Personally I do not want to see these cover up robes in Canadian society. Next there will be Shariah law Instituted and Canada will devolve a 1000 years instantly.
There must be limits on how far we will allow other cultures mores to mold our lifestyles.
Especially if the custom
is religiously dictated....I do not want it to be a part of Canada.

I am a multi-generational Canadian born and raised woman who refuses to accept a habit such as the niqab.

It is offensive to me.

I'm always amused by "this will lead to. . ." also known as the slippery slope fallacy.

It presupposes that Canadians are so weak-willed that less than 2% of the population can completely overturn the legal system.

Come to think of it, that may be possible. That less than 2% already has many Canadians repudiating a history and reputation of tolerance.

 

[Elder]

I'm always amused by "this will lead to. . ." also known as the slippery slope fallacy.

It presupposes that Canadians are so weak-willed that less than 2% of the population can completely overturn the legal system.

Come to think of it, that may be possible. That less than 2% already has many Canadians repudiating a history and reputation of tolerance.

Your reply has nothing to do with my posting.
I have no tolerance for religion insinuating into our every day lives.

Here is some intolerance for you: If you are American you do not belong in here....this is for Canadians. You guys infest the web forums and I need a rest from you. Go away.

The veil must be banned in Canada and any more attempts to bring Sharia
law into our justice system.

Sharia Law in Canada.

Canada has already had to ward off Sharia law in 2005. Perhaps you should do little research before you make more inane comments.
Thank you.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Your reply has nothing to do with my posting. Are you American?

Yes.

I have no tolerance for religion insinuating into our every day lives.

Will you be agitating to get the word "God" out of the national anthem? Will you try to ban other religious impedimenta?

The veil must be banned in Canada and any more attempts to bring Sharia
law into our justice system.

Yes, you said that. And implied that the veil will start Canada down a slippery slope that will end up with sharia replacing the common law in Canada, which is silly.

Sharia Law in Canada.

Canada has already had to ward off Sharia law in 2095. Perhaps you should do little research before you make some inane comments again.

Aware of it, thanks. It is but one of many, many stupid ideas that are shot down in legislatures on a regular basis.

Nothing to get your knickers in a twist over.

Thank you.

Think nothing of it.

 

[captain morgan]

I'm always amused by "this will lead to. . ." also known as the slippery slope fallacy.

It will lead to a double standard in the legal system.... I see no fallacy there

It presupposes that Canadians are so weak-willed that less than 2% of the population can completely overturn the legal system.

It also presupposes that Canadians are strong willed enough that we will not allow any segment of society to alter the legal system in any way

Come to think of it, that may be possible. That less than 2% already has many Canadians repudiating a history and reputation of tolerance.

Any examples, or is this just more of your drama Queen rhetoric?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

This board teems with examples. Try reading it.

 

[Cliffy]

This board teems with examples. Try reading it.

Muslims have replaced the Commies as the boogy man de jour in both the US and Canada. Tolerant my butt.

 

[captain morgan]

This board teems with examples. Try reading it.

Great, then you should have no problem highlighting a few.

I won't hold my breath on this

 

[karrie]

Since this is our second thread on the subject, I'll repeat my objections.

A woman raised to believe that her niqab is her modesty, is being forced to strip in front of men she is accusing of having assaulted her. I don't see the justice in that. Doubly so since they are men from her family, men who've perpetuated the niqab issue. It is by their pressure that it is normal to face a woman in a niqab. They do not deserve to have her stripped of it in court, and she does not deserve to be forced to do so.