I am not getting into the comparison crap of which country has the best law system. I am talking about the victim being put through more trauma in the courts after the initial trauma of being raped. IMO, it is unnecessary.
When the victim makes a report they have to provide evidence of their identity. When they testify they can produce the same evidence. Eye scans, voice recognition, fingerprints if the victim doesn't mind, etc. are all acceptible in the eyes of our law.The solution isn't hard to come up with. The has been the odd case in the States where a victim has testified over tv in court for Pete's sake. I don't see the big deal.
Why take so much trouble for adults when it is not necessary? These complex and costly procedures should only be instituted for exceptional circumstances, such as for abused children in court.
First of all, the woman in question in not an immigrant, but rather "Canadian-born", as the article notes. Secondly, dumpthemonarchy, women are not whipped under Shari'ah law simply for being raped.
As I said, I won't discuss Canada's system in comparison to other countries' systems here because it is irrelevant.
And for not subjecting a victim to more trauma. I agree.
Apparently you are pretty insensitive as to how deeply other people take their traditions. Canada makes a big deal about multiculturalism and at least sometimes lets people hang onto their traditions.
When I see traditions from undemocratic countries intersect and threaten our long standing and successful traditions of justice and fair play, then I am completely insensitive here. Guilty as charged.
Establishing precedents with multculturalism can be a dangerous legal brew. I think the framers of the 1982 Charter did not have sharia law in mind when they discussed the subject. Now it is on the table and I think sharia law in Canada should be squished like a bug wherever it is found.
Canadian born or not, working for this woman is a weird political alliance of half baked HRCs Canadians and fanatical Wahabbi style immigrants who want to shove as much demented sharia law down Canada's throat as they can.
Some Arab women are victims of "honour killings" by their families after being raped. This is true. Worse than whippings.
Here's an article discussing a Saudi woman who was sentenced to 200 lashes after being alone with a man and gang raped.
What about our long-standing tradition of accepting other traditions? The RCMP let Sikhs keep their turbans when in uniform, for instance. I suppose you got uptight about that, too. Perhaps you think we should always wear wigs and gowns when we are lawyers and judges and other court officials because it is OUR tradition, too?
Why would we need to do that when it obviously does no harm in certain circumstances like this one, for instance?
The fact that anyone would expect a woman to strip herself of what she feels to be her modest clothing, in order to appear before men accused of raping her, is far more troubling, degrading, and misogynistic, than the phenomena of the burqas and niqabs.
They can see her just fine without having to violate her personal security even further.
You did say that, however you also said:
"So what the accused says is his right doesnít matter, it is what the judge says that matters."
So, apparently, it does matter if you are a lower court judge.
... I know that this is splitting hairs, but with you, I just can't resist.
As for this topic, I can tell you that if I were given the ultimatum to either take off [part of] my hijab or not help (and possibly fail) to indict someone who attempted to sexually assault me, I would choose the latter. All the munaqabah (women who wear niqab) that I know would most likely do the same, although Allah Ta 'Ala Knows Best. Therefore, a ruling in this case requiring a woman to either remove part of her hijab or receive "justice" from Canadian law would actually persuade many not to report criminal incidents or activities at all, which seems kind of contradictory to the nature of Canadian law.
I think that is generally what happens nowadays in Muslim countries, however, none of them rule by Shari'ah, but rather hide under the term to dispense justice as they see fit. The slight exception to this trend is Saudi Arabia, whose courts often apply Shari'ah, however, the country is not ruled by it.
Amatullah, this is the same copout used by Communists (donít judge Communism by the actions of who claim to be Communists, by the actions of China and USSR) or by Christians (donít judge Christianity by actions of Christians such as Crusades, Inquisition etc.).
Every time this defense is used, it sounds totally hypocritical. There are many Islamic countries which claim to practice Sharia. It doesnít really matter what Islamic scholars say about Sharia. What is important is how it is implemented in practice.
In practice, women are very much stoned to death for adultery (as they recently did in Somalia), are considered second class citizens, little better than animals (one man is equal to two women according to Sharia and Islam).
That is how it works in practice, and that is good enough for me to condemn Sharia and Islam.
This is how "Shari'ah" is implemented now. This is not necessarily how it was implemented during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon), or during the time of the Khulafat Rashidun. If you want to read about Shari'ah should be implemented, then read about its application during those times. These days, Shari'ah is often enforced against women, but not against men. As well, parts of it is often quoted by Muslim men to justify their haram actions, even though their actions go against the rules of Shari'ah anyways.
I don't see how the testimony of one man being equal to the testimony of two women in contract cases means that women are "treated little better than animals", or how we Muslim women are considered "second class citizens". However that's your opinion and you can keep it. But it doesn't change the fact that many men and women try their best to live by Shari'ah, and you can't stop that; only Allah Ta 'Ala Can.
captain morgan, I'm currently awaiting a post that apparently the moderators have to approve before it is officially posted. In it, I actually touch upon your question in response to dumpthemonarchy's assertions in post #65, and clear up certain misconceptions as insinuated in the article he posted in that very same post. Perhaps after my response has been published by the moderators, you could read it, and then specify any questions you may further have on the subject.
I don't see how the testimony of one man being equal to the testimony of two women in contract cases means that women are "treated little better than animals", or how we Muslim women are considered "second class citizens".
That is easy to explain, Amatullaah. Let us consider the implications of this law that one man is equal to two women. Suppose in a Sharia court man testifies one way and woman testified another way. The Sharia judge has absolutely no discretion in the matter, he must believe the man, because one man testified one way, only half a man testified another way.
Thus, man may be an alcoholic, a drunk, a known liar, may be high on hashish, even perhaps the village idiot. Woman may be highly educated, perhaps a professional (doctor, lawyer etc.), that doesnít matter. The Sharia judge must believe the village idiot, rather than the female M.D.
Now, I donít know what this means to you. But to me, this means that women are very much second class citizens. Women are subhuman. Man is human (obviously), but woman is only half a man and hence only half human, or subhuman.
gerryh, I'm not sure what you would like me to 'illuminate' you on, and morever, I'm not sure how you can expect me to respond from my perspective as a Muslim without referencing Islam or my Islamic beliefs, central to which is the Qur'an. Could you be more specific, please?