Human Wrongs, Not Rights Abused Here By the Veil

[karrie]

Then explain how an accused individual can post a bond and se freedom?... this is impossible if the individual is guilty until proven innocent, right?

Granting bail IS curtailing their freedom, it is hindering their rights. It tethers you to the area, or to the country depending on the instance. If you leave, you are in breach of law. No one else has those restrictions placed on their movement unless done so for a legal reason.

You are not guilty until proven innocent.... but you are not free as you were before either.

 

[captain morgan]

Fair enough. That said, how does this apply to the request (right) of the accused to wear articles of clothing that may obscure their features?

My point is that if a wearing a niqab is considered a right, the above request may qualify as well... Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't stuff him back in.

 

[karrie]

Fair enough. That said, how does this apply to the request (right) of the accused to wear articles of clothing that may obscure their features?

My point is that if a wearing a niqab is considered a right, the above request may qualify as well... Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't stuff him back in.

Read my first post. The accused has no rights but those granted them by the courts. The victim on the other hand does not need to forfeit a single one of her rights to appear in court and testify. A request might be granted one day yes. That happens. But it doesn't change the fact that they can't demand her to undress.

That you would adamantly want a woman to have to undress for her accused rapists is perplexing. Regardless of how you try to spin it, her personal security, her modesty, is tied to that garment. You are demanding that she be stripped of both in order to speak, when the niqab does not in any way prevent her from speaking.

I'm curious as to why people think that being able to see someone's full face changes the facts of a case. If she had been killed in the commission of their crime, she wouldn't be testifying at all, yet the facts would still stand, even without her face to present them.

 

[Vereya]

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.

Absolutely!
Besides the matter of personal security, there's another point. Having been raped and having been robbed, for instance are two different things. No one will ever blame you for being robbed, and you will never feel ashamed because of it. It is something you can discuss with practically anyone, and get all the sympathy you want. A woman who had been raped won't ever feel comfortable discussing it. And if she has an option of covering her face while testifying in court, it would be cruel to deprive her of it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

How about if the accused insisted that it was their right regardless of what the leagl system or judge said?


That is what this issue is all about.

There is no question of ‘regardless of what the judge says’, captain. In a courtroom what the judge says, goes, nobody can overrule him/her (except for a judge from a higher court).

So what the accused says is his right doesn’t matter, it is what the judge says that matters.

 

[captain morgan]

Read my first post. The accused has no rights but those granted them by the courts. The victim on the other hand does not need to forfeit a single one of her rights to appear in court and testify. A request might be granted one day yes. That happens. But it doesn't change the fact that they can't demand her to undress.

I did, and the question still stands re: the same right of the defendant to wear whatever they wanted. the logic is potentially the same as yours in 'forcing them to undress'. This is about the rights of one person trumping the rights of another.

let's reverse this. If a woman wearing a niqab was accused of a crime, would she then be forced to strip (as Vereya puts it) in order to testify? Would she be forced to "undress"?

Although there is no formal right in the Charter to see your accuser, there is no formal right in the Charter that deals with niqab's either.

That you would adamantly want a woman to have to undress for her accused rapists is perplexing. Regardless of how you try to spin it, her personal security, her modesty, is tied to that garment. You are demanding that she be stripped of both in order to speak, when the niqab does not in any way prevent her from speaking.

A little theatrical Karrie... To start, there isn't even a consensus among Islamic theologians or commentators that maintain that the niqab is essential or obligatory. Further, the expectation from those that demand it is essential maintain that it is worn in front men that the woman doesn't know. There is no obligation to wear a niqab in an environment where she knows the men also exists. That said, please don't paint this picture that not wearing a niqab is somehow related to stripping (Vereya) or "forcing her to undress".

As far as her modesty and personal security are concerned, I'll suggest that the personal security, the reputation and the potential societal stigmitization of the accused (recall: innocent until proven guilty) is also at stake.

If she had been killed in the commission of their crime, she wouldn't be testifying at all, yet the facts would still stand, even without her face to present them.

She isn't dead and the facts will still be the facts regardless and if those facts prove that the defendent is guilty, wearing a niqab won't change reality. However, if the accused is innocent, their rights have been trampled all in the name of preserving modesty, while demolishing someone else's.

 

[captain morgan]

There is no question of ‘regardless of what the judge says’, captain. In a courtroom what the judge says, goes, nobody can overrule him/her (except for a judge from a higher court).

So what the accused says is his right doesn’t matter, it is what the judge says that matters.

My understanding is that the initial ruling was that she was to remove the niqab. The ruling was appealed. Apparently you jumped the gun in stating that no one can over rule a judge.

 

[Just the Facts]

It's a very tough issue. One wants to respect a person's right to dress according to their convictions, but even an accused rapist has a right to a defense, and I can certainly understand how seeing a person's face while interrogating them goes an awful long way towards deciding if they're being truthful or not.

Perhaps as a compromise they can allow her the niqab but have her attached to a polygraph while on the stand.

 

[wulfie68]

In court, anyone taking the stand should have to expose their face.

You can talk about religious customs and security blankets all you like but a trial is an exercise to discover the truth. We take oaths of truthfulness but we also admit (by the inclusion of perjury in the criminal code) that people will break them at times. Facial expression is a primary clue in determining the truth. It can be circumvented/exploited by someone who is a good actor or an accomplished liar so its not infallible in its own right, but it is still important. Facial expressions and reactions can give context that words alone do not.

 

[Scott Free]

Scott Free, my understanding is that US law works the same way as Canadian law. In the case of assault, murder or rape, it is the state which brings the prosecution (same as Crown does in Canada), not the victim.

Maybe, I don't know.

 

[earth_as_one]

Women wear these garments out of modesty. Everyone has different levels of modesty. I would be ok testifying naked, but I imagine most people would feel as exposed as these women. Asking these women to show their faces is about the same to them as asking them to strip naked.

If there is a legal need to see their face, it can be in private or by photograph on an as needed basis to meet legal requirements. But the general public has no need to see their faces.

This is about being respectful toward others. I'm proud Canada is a tolerant nation.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

My understanding is that the initial ruling was that she was to remove the niqab. The ruling was appealed. Apparently you jumped the gun in stating that no one can over rule a judge.

I did nothing of the sort, Captain. Go back and read my post (post #45). I said nobody can overrule the judge, except a judge from a higher court. That is what happened here.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

In court, anyone taking the stand should have to expose their face.

Where does it say that, Wulfie?

Facial expression is a primary clue in determining the truth. It can be circumvented/exploited by someone who is a good actor or an accomplished liar so its not infallible in its own right, but it is still important. Facial expressions and reactions can give context that words alone do not.

I am glad you are aware of the limitation. The articles says that the victim was a Muslim born in Canada, it does not say if her parents were Caucasian or were from Middle East. But I am assuming that she is of Arab extraction, and not a Caucasian. If so, then the whole argument of facial expression is a washout. Non whites immigrants by and large tend to be inscrutable when it comes to emotion. Even when they show emotion, their facial expressions may not match our facial expressions.

So it is quite possible that in her case, either facial expression may not help at all, or even give wrong impression. E.g. suppose she is uncomfortable, fidgeting, nervous while giving testimony. Does that mean she is lying? Probably not. In her culture, it probably is not customary for a woman to appear in public, much less speak in public. Her unease, discomfort may be due to that reason and nothing more.

So I don’t buy the facial expression argument (unless the woman was a Caucasian).

 

[Zzarchov]

I've never seen your face ... but I expect I'd be able to see a hooked nose or a scar over your left eye or .... if you weren't wearing a disguise.

But what about a scar on my chin thats always covered with facial hair? Should I be forced to shave so you can see that scar for the first time?

If she's always been wearing a veil then you wouldn't know if she had a scar over her eye or a hooked nose. You'd only know what she looks like in a veil.

If a woman had a tattoo of a smiley face on her breast it would make it real easy to identify her too, but If I've never seen her without a shirt on I wouldn't know either way, and she really shouldn't be forced to go topless to court.

Which is what this amounts to, the state deciding what level of morality is ok to demand at the cost of violating the morality of the defendant.

Many most Canadian's don't care if you see their face. She does. Many women in the world wouldn't care if you saw their exposed chest either, that doesn't mean we should force women to go topless to court.

Now if she normally does not wear a veil, but is trying to wear one to court, thats different.

 

[lone wolf]

But what about a scar on my chin thats always covered with facial hair? Should I be forced to shave so you can see that scar for the first time?

If she's always been wearing a veil then you wouldn't know if she had a scar over her eye or a hooked nose. You'd only know what she looks like in a veil.

If a woman had a tattoo of a smiley face on her breast it would make it real easy to identify her too, but If I've never seen her without a shirt on I wouldn't know either way, and she really shouldn't be forced to go topless to court.

Which is what this amounts to, the state deciding what level of morality is ok to demand at the cost of violating the morality of the defendant.

Many most Canadian's don't care if you see their face. She does. Many women in the world wouldn't care if you saw their exposed chest either, that doesn't mean we should force women to go topless to court.

Now if she normally does not wear a veil, but is trying to wear one to court, thats different.

You're preaching to the choir....

 

[L Gilbert]

Quoting captain morgan
Would it be equally fair fro the accused to wear a deep-set hoodie, dark glasses and ball-cap that covered their identifying features, assuming that this was their accepted dress?

I'd be fine with that. I doubt it'd make a favorable impression on a judge or a jury, though. As I said, there are eye scans, fingerprints, etc. that can ID persons. Don't need a face.


Um, DNA testing isn't cheap, people, and trials are expensive as it is.

 

[L Gilbert]

Nope... in many legal cases those rights are often curtailed through imprisonment until the issue is resolved.

Exactly. Your right to remain anonymous in the eyes of the law is removed as soon as they print you, your freedom of mobility is taken away until you can prove you won't scoot, etc.
But I still don't see anything wrong if some idiot wants to were speedos and a skimask to court if that's his thing.

 

[captain morgan]

I did nothing of the sort, Captain. Go back and read my post (post #45). I said nobody can overrule the judge, except a judge from a higher court. That is what happened here.

You did say that, however you also said:
"So what the accused says is his right doesn’t 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.

 

[captain morgan]

I'd be fine with that. I doubt it'd make a favorable impression on a judge or a jury, though. As I said, there are eye scans, fingerprints, etc. that can ID persons. Don't need a face.

I think that most will fully agree with your statement. My point is that the application of the law (Charter Rights especially) must be applied equally regardless of culture, race, religion, gender, etc..

 

[Amatullaah]

My understanding is that in Sharia law, if a woman accuses a man of rape and cannot prove her claim, she can then be charged with adultery and stoned to death if convicted.

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.

I'm not a Shaykha so I can't give a complete explanation, but from what I've learned so far, female rape victims under Shari'ah are supposed to be protected. It is possible that a failure to prove a rape claim can open the door to a charge of adultery (but that would affect the male would-be rapist in question as well), but it really depends on the situation. Generally, for adultery cases you would need four male witness (or two female ones for each male) to prove the adultery claim true, however, in terms of rape, if there is proof that this deed did take place, you don't necessarily need the four witnesses. This is due to this hadith:

“One day (at the time of the Prophet) a woman left her house to go and pray at the Mosque. On her way she was met by a man who forced her to have sexual intercourse. The woman screamed while the man raped her. After he raped her the man ran away. A group of men (who accompanied the Prophet on his flight form Mecca to Medina) passed by the girl and she said to them (pointing in the direction of the man running) “that man just raped me”. They then ran after him and caught him and when face to face with the woman she said “yes that was the person”. They went to the Prophet and the man said “Yes Prophet it was me who did this”. The Prophet said to the girl “go now, God has already pardoned you”. The Prophet then said to the man (while appreciating his confession) “stone him”. He then said “Actually, he has already learnt his lesson and if someone learns their lesson all the people of Medina will understand”.

-Translation of the hadeeth reported by both Abu Dawood and at-Tirmidhi

Also, there are other ahadeeth that demonstrate that only the male rapist was punished during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), such as:

“There was a girl who was raped (at the time of the Prophet), she was freed from punishment for perzinahan (sexual intercourse outside of marriage), while the perpetrator was subjected to punishment”

-Translation of the hadeeth as reported by at-Tirmidhi

and;

"Shafiyyah bin Abi Ubaid reports: “that a male slave meets a female slave and forces her to engage in sexual relations, so Khalifah Umar ( a close friend of the prophet) says punish him with a lashings but do not punish the woman”.

-Translation of the hadeeth as reported by al-Bukhari and al-Malik.

Also, I would encourage you to read these following links where Islamic scholars explain the issue of rape and Shari'ah more fully.

Ruling on the crime of rape in Islam.

Does a woman have to defend herself against a would-be rapist?

The ruling on one who steals robs or rapes at knife-point or gun-point

Anyways, I hope this clears up any confusion I left with you.
​