Niqab ban for witnesses stands puts alleged abuse victim in 'impossible situation': lawyer | News | National Post
Niq
As far as I know it is not based upon Religion but by culture & cultural habits, customs are not above the Laws of Canada.
The Niqab in now way is comparable to the Sikh Turban.
Niqab - What is the Niqab - How Is It Different from Veils Burqas and Hijabs
The niqab did not originate with Islam. The niqab, or face-coverings similar to it, were worn by Christian women in the Byzantine Empire and in pre-Islamic Persia. Islam adopted the practice, which was not, contrary to common perceptions, required by the Koran. Scholars, students and commonfolk in Islam are in the midst of a rich and varied debate over the importance, necessity or mere validity of the niqab and its sister-negators of the female body as required or even acceptable dress. The debate is nowhere near its conclusion.
Alleged abuse victim forced to choose between faith and justice by courts’ niqab rule: lawyer
The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments Thursday about whether a Muslim woman accusing her cousin and uncle of childhood sexual abuse should be allowed to wear a full face-covering on the witness stand.
The case, which pits the woman’s freedom of religion against the right to a fair trial for the accused, will have national significance for Muslim women in the Canadian justice system.
Joanna Birenbaum, of the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, said the case will have important repercussions throughout Canada because “if the court requires women who wear the niqab to remove them to testify . . . the result will be that niqab-wearing women will not report sexual assaults at all, and the message is that they can be raped with impunity.”
N.S. — whose identity is protected by a publication ban — was ordered during a preliminary hearing in Ontario court to remove her niqab, a Muslim head and face covering which leaves only a slit for her eyes. She refused and, after making its way through the Ontario court system, her precedent-setting case is now at this country’s top court.
Lawyers for the accused argue that, if N.S. is allowed to testify with her face covered, the judge will not be able to determine the truth of her testimony.
However, David Butt, the woman’s lawyer, said the benefits of including people of the Muslim faith who wear a niqab, outweigh the negative aspects of the face covering, which he says are fairly minor.
“There are certain institutions in our society where it’s really important that they take people just as they are — one of those is hospitals, another one is courts. And, unless it’s going to seriously interfere with the functioning of the court, we should say, if that’s your sincere belief, we’re not going to stand in your way.”
If the court rules that N.S. must remove her niqab to testify, “it will put her in an impossible situation. She will have to choose between violating her religion or not seeking redress as a sexual assault complainant,” said Butt.
But, Tyler Hodgson from the Muslim Canadian Congress, said “the niqab, as an institution, undermines gender equality and full participation in a democratic society and the court ought to at least consider that when balancing these conflicting rights.”
“The right to full answer in defence ultimately trumps” N.S.’s desire to keep her face covered, said Hodgson, because her reasons for wearing the niqab are unclear — it could be religious, but it also could be for cultural or familial reasons — neither of which is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
A judge in a lower Ontario court suggested N.S. take a “sincerity test” to prove that her faith is genuine.
“The sincerity test is really more aimed at exploring more marginalized religious practices, which the court many not be familiar with,” said Birenbaum. “But, the wearing of the niqab is connected with one of the world’s major religions and, in our view, the sincerity should be presumed — particularly given how incredibly hard it is to wear the niqab in contemporary Canadian society.”
She noted the onus should be on the accused to demonstrate that their right to a fair trial rests on being able to see the face of their accuser — essentially, to be able to judge her demeanour based on her facial expression during testimony.
Demeanour — how a person expresses themselves physically — is difficult to define, said Birenbaum, but she said there are plenty of examples where evidence is allowed before the court without considering the facial expression of the person giving it.
Butt said he is disheartened by what he calls the “intolerant, racist and ignorant” comments after most online news stories he reads about this subject.
“That’s exactly when you need courts to step in and protect minority rights when there’s a popular sentiment against them,” he said.
The Supreme Court judges were very engaged with the arguments, said Butt. “They were asking tough questions and I like to see that they’re really wrestling with these important issues.”
The seven-justice Supreme Court panel is expected to announce its decision in four to six months.
Niq
As far as I know it is not based upon Religion but by culture & cultural habits, customs are not above the Laws of Canada.
The Niqab in now way is comparable to the Sikh Turban.
Niqab - What is the Niqab - How Is It Different from Veils Burqas and Hijabs
The niqab did not originate with Islam. The niqab, or face-coverings similar to it, were worn by Christian women in the Byzantine Empire and in pre-Islamic Persia. Islam adopted the practice, which was not, contrary to common perceptions, required by the Koran. Scholars, students and commonfolk in Islam are in the midst of a rich and varied debate over the importance, necessity or mere validity of the niqab and its sister-negators of the female body as required or even acceptable dress. The debate is nowhere near its conclusion.
Alleged abuse victim forced to choose between faith and justice by courts’ niqab rule: lawyer
The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments Thursday about whether a Muslim woman accusing her cousin and uncle of childhood sexual abuse should be allowed to wear a full face-covering on the witness stand.
The case, which pits the woman’s freedom of religion against the right to a fair trial for the accused, will have national significance for Muslim women in the Canadian justice system.
Joanna Birenbaum, of the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, said the case will have important repercussions throughout Canada because “if the court requires women who wear the niqab to remove them to testify . . . the result will be that niqab-wearing women will not report sexual assaults at all, and the message is that they can be raped with impunity.”
N.S. — whose identity is protected by a publication ban — was ordered during a preliminary hearing in Ontario court to remove her niqab, a Muslim head and face covering which leaves only a slit for her eyes. She refused and, after making its way through the Ontario court system, her precedent-setting case is now at this country’s top court.
Lawyers for the accused argue that, if N.S. is allowed to testify with her face covered, the judge will not be able to determine the truth of her testimony.
However, David Butt, the woman’s lawyer, said the benefits of including people of the Muslim faith who wear a niqab, outweigh the negative aspects of the face covering, which he says are fairly minor.
“There are certain institutions in our society where it’s really important that they take people just as they are — one of those is hospitals, another one is courts. And, unless it’s going to seriously interfere with the functioning of the court, we should say, if that’s your sincere belief, we’re not going to stand in your way.”
If the court rules that N.S. must remove her niqab to testify, “it will put her in an impossible situation. She will have to choose between violating her religion or not seeking redress as a sexual assault complainant,” said Butt.
But, Tyler Hodgson from the Muslim Canadian Congress, said “the niqab, as an institution, undermines gender equality and full participation in a democratic society and the court ought to at least consider that when balancing these conflicting rights.”
“The right to full answer in defence ultimately trumps” N.S.’s desire to keep her face covered, said Hodgson, because her reasons for wearing the niqab are unclear — it could be religious, but it also could be for cultural or familial reasons — neither of which is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
A judge in a lower Ontario court suggested N.S. take a “sincerity test” to prove that her faith is genuine.
“The sincerity test is really more aimed at exploring more marginalized religious practices, which the court many not be familiar with,” said Birenbaum. “But, the wearing of the niqab is connected with one of the world’s major religions and, in our view, the sincerity should be presumed — particularly given how incredibly hard it is to wear the niqab in contemporary Canadian society.”
She noted the onus should be on the accused to demonstrate that their right to a fair trial rests on being able to see the face of their accuser — essentially, to be able to judge her demeanour based on her facial expression during testimony.
Demeanour — how a person expresses themselves physically — is difficult to define, said Birenbaum, but she said there are plenty of examples where evidence is allowed before the court without considering the facial expression of the person giving it.
Butt said he is disheartened by what he calls the “intolerant, racist and ignorant” comments after most online news stories he reads about this subject.
“That’s exactly when you need courts to step in and protect minority rights when there’s a popular sentiment against them,” he said.
The Supreme Court judges were very engaged with the arguments, said Butt. “They were asking tough questions and I like to see that they’re really wrestling with these important issues.”
The seven-justice Supreme Court panel is expected to announce its decision in four to six months.
