Human Wrongs, Not Rights Abused Here By the Veil

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
What about the right, fought for over centuries to see your accuser in open court? How can a bunch of losers on a Human Rights Commission see a veil as increasing our rights by supporting this? This is not accomodation, this is abusing rights that make Canada democratic in spirit and laws.

To allow feudal, archaic and medieval religious laws to trump laws passed in a democracy is perverse.

And it's in Ontario, where most the HRC corruption occurs.


Court rules Muslim woman allowed to wear niqab during rape trial - The Whig Standard - Ontario, CA

Court rules Muslim woman allowed to wear niqab during rape trial

JUSTICE: Lawyer argued he needs to see witness' entire face during cross-examination

Posted By COLIN PERKEL, THE CANADIAN PRESS

Posted 2 days ago





A Toronto-area Muslim woman who alleges she was sexually assaulted by two men has won a round in her battle to testify in court while wearing a niqab, a veil that covers all of the face except the eyes.
In a highly anticipated ruling addressing what appears to be the first case of its kind in Canada, Ontario Superior Court Justice Frank Marrocco has overturned a decision by provincial court Judge Norris Weisman.
Presiding over a preliminary inquiry for the two defendants, Weisman last year concurred with their position that the woman should be required to testify with her face in full view, and he instructed her to remove her veil.
However, Marrocco's ruling does not necessarily clear the way for the woman, a Canadian born mother in her early 30s, to testify from behind her veil.
Instead, he ordered that the preliminary inquiry, on hold since the issue surfaced, hold two hearings, one to be videotaped to determine whether the woman's testimony would be admissible as court evidence under those circumstances.
He also granted intervener status to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which backs the contention of the woman and her lawyer David Butt that she should be allowed to give evidence while veiled because the garment stems from a sincere, deeply felt religious conviction that lies at the core of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Pitted against that is the competing principle, articulated last month by Jack Pinkofsky, lawyer for one of the two accused, that open testimony, including a complainant's appearance, is a pillar of a fair criminal justice system and should supersede religious beliefs.
That too is a core charter principle, the preliminary hearing heard.
"Seeing the demeanour of the witness is a matter of critical importance not only at the trial but also at the preliminary inquiry," Pinkofsky told Weisman. "My cross-examination is determined by my assessment of the demeanour of the witness."
As well, the defence noted the woman has an Ontario driver's licence bearing her photograph, unveiled, which led Weisman to conclude that her convictions about baring her face were perhaps not as strong as she made out.
But whether deployed for or against the woman's bid to stay veiled, charter arguments have no place at a preliminary inquiry, Marrocco ruled, alluding to a 1986 Supreme Court of Canada decision.

Weisman, he said, "had no jurisdiction to hear and determine whether a charter right had been infringed."
Butt had hoped his client's right to stay veiled would be resolved by Marrocco's ruling, which it was not.
Butt said yesterday that while he was cautiously pleased with the outcome, the hearings ordered by Marrocco to determine the admissibility of evidence given by a veiled witness have raised fresh questions that may be the basis of an appeal.
"Because of the complicated nature of the two hearings he has proposed, a procedure that would be very new and is something the judge has devised for this case in particular, we'll be looking at whether that should be reviewed by a higher court," Butt said.


Article ID# 1550373
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
I can't see the big deal about seeing someone's face in court. There are several other ways of identifying who is who. As far as facing your accuser goes, I can imagine that sometimes your victim would never want to see your face ever again and shouldn't have to, especially if you're accused of raping her.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
I can't see the big deal about seeing someone's face in court. There are several other ways of identifying who is who. As far as facing your accuser goes, I can imagine that sometimes your victim would never want to see your face ever again and shouldn't have to, especially if you're accused of raping her.

Canadians easy going attitude is in itself a form of corruption and undermines tried and true legal practices. Being nice accomodating, who can argue with that? Yet, it is foul in this case.

Immigrants just have to adjust. In a sharia law country, she might be whipped for being raped. So, which country has better justice?

The accused, in court, is in an innocent person, and must have 100% assurance that the person who is charging them in court was actually the person at the crime scene. How can this be altered?
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Uhm...excuse me, why do we need to see her face again?

Because you want to? Where do we get off determining modesty laws.

What if we determine people should have to be topless to testify? It makes about as much sense, and hey, its legal.

Immigrants do not have to adjust. Sorry.

If we wanted them to adjust we should have told them that before we granted them citizenship and they put large amounts of money into coming here. But we are multicultural and have told people we will accomodate them. Thems the bricks.


And with good reason, we use immigration as a crutch to cover our own messed up culture. We need them more than they need us.

We have piss poor educational system for creating jobs, and we have a piss poor system for allowing new adults to start families.

We need immigrants to bring education and population, because the alternative is fixing our own problems. In anti-immigration areas of Europe they did just that.

We adjust to immigrants and not vice versa because we need them, not vice versa. We aren't bringing in the sick and the poor and the tired like we used to, we are bringing in the best and the brightest. They are the valuable commodity, not us.
 

Amatullaah

New Member
Dec 12, 2007
32
2
8
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.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Will she need seven (or whatever it is) male eye witnesses to the rape as required by Shari'ah?
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
This woman and the sorry pieces of subhuman waste masquarading as judges in this ruling, should learn:

"WHEN IN ROME, DO AS THE ROMANS DO!"
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
In all fairness to the lady though, in Canada it is the crown that accuses, not the victim, so the accused is facing his accuser without a veil, that is, provided the prosecutor and the judge aren't muslim women also wearing veils (burkas,niqab or whatever they're called). The victim is only a witness against the accused who is technically being charged with what amounts to crimes against the queens property.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
By the same token, the defendant has the right to face their accuser, that is enshrined in English Common Law. The rape victim will act as a witness, but that same victim also had a strong hand in identifying the rapist... She is infact, the primary accuser while the Crown is the mechanism by which the judgement/punishment will be effected.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
No, the crown accuses, she is a witness.

This confuses a lot of Canadians raised on too much American TV.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Sure, as a matter of opinion, once the evidence is dismissed out of hand, then anything can be considered a travesty of justice. Why bother with a system at all? I'm sure our opinions can serve us much better than pesky facts.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
The face is our primal means of recognition. One piece of cloth pretty much looks the same as another. In a country where now you can't identify someone so they can vote, why can't that piece of cloth accuse too?
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Assuming that her testimony is the primary evidence is a mistake IMO. If that were the case then she probably wouldn't be able to wear her veil.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Sure, as a matter of opinion, once the evidence is dismissed out of hand, then anything can be considered a travesty of justice. Why bother with a system at all? I'm sure our opinions can serve us much better than pesky facts.



What do you mean by this?.... Am I to understand that a rape victim contacts police and informs them they have been raped.. The police get her contact information and basic details about the day/time, etc. and then the cops scour the country a question every man that happened to be in that city on the day/time the rape occurred?

Again, the victim must not only provide details re: the rapist, but in all likelihood, will be asked to physically ID or confirm the person via photo or line-up.

That specific action absolutely involves the victim in the accusation process.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
What do you mean by this?.... Am I to understand that a rape victim contacts police and informs them they have been raped.. The police get her contact information and basic details about the day/time, etc. and then the cops scour the country a question every man that happened to be in that city on the day/time the rape occurred?

Again, the victim must not only provide details re: the rapist, but in all likelihood, will be asked to physically ID or confirm the person via photo or line-up.

That specific action absolutely involves the victim in the accusation process.

The only reason police ask Canadians if they would like to press charges is to determine if the person will be a hostile witness or not. If the primary victim will be a hostile witness, which is often the case in domestic assaults, then it is pointless for the police to pursue charges.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
The face is our primal means of recognition. One piece of cloth pretty much looks the same as another. In a country where now you can't identify someone so they can vote, why can't that piece of cloth accuse too?

Its only a primary means of recognition if you see the face. For instance, I would not expect to be forced to shave my facial hair so you can see my face uncovered. Anytime you've seen my face it has facial hair on it.

Anytime you've seen her face, she's had the veil.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Canadians easy going attitude is in itself a form of corruption and undermines tried and true legal practices. Being nice accomodating, who can argue with that? Yet, it is foul in this case.

Immigrants just have to adjust. In a sharia law country, she might be whipped for being raped. So, which country has better justice?
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.

The accused, in court, is in an innocent person, and must have 100% assurance that the person who is charging them in court was actually the person at the crime scene. How can this be altered?
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.