Beginning of Sharia Law in Canada?

[Dixie Cup]

Recently the Appellat Court in Ontario overturned a lower court ruling that a muslim woman must have her face uncovered when testifying in a court of law. The Appellat court ruled that, before the woman can testify without her veil in court, all men must be removed from the court, including the defendants and the judge (if male). How absurd is that?

I am absolutely disgusted by this ruling and I am hoping that this can somehow be overturned. From what I have read/heard, the woman in question has only recently started wearing the veil (not relevant) and is not overly "religious" (not relevant).

Is this the beginning of a slippery slop??

Appalling!

 

[Colpy]

Recently the Appellat Court in Ontario overturned a lower court ruling that a muslim woman must have her face uncovered when testifying in a court of law. The Appellat court ruled that, before the woman can testify without her veil in court, all men must be removed from the court, including the defendants and the judge (if male). How absurd is that?

I am absolutely disgusted by this ruling and I am hoping that this can somehow be overturned. From what I have read/heard, the woman in question has only recently started wearing the veil (not relevant) and is not overly "religious" (not relevant).

Is this the beginning of a slippery slop??

Appalling!

It is, of course, completely outrageous.

A basic concept of English Common Law is that one has the right to face their accuser.

As well, where jury trials are the rule, jurors must be able to see the face of the person on the stand.........

In both cases there are exceptions, say where a child is a witness against a molester, or where a blind person sits on a jury....although in that case I would think the blind individual has had enough experience to compensate for their lack of sight.

Nonetheless, to allow the courts to be subverted in submission to the alleged needs of Islam is so completely out of whack...

Western society is commiting suicide.

 

[Tonington]

The Apellant court actually ruled that the right of a woman to wear a niqab while testifying in criminal proceedings will be determined by the judge's, on a case-by-case basis. So a woman who is the victim of an alleged sexual assault may not have to remove her veil as long as the fairness of the trial is not compromised, which will be decided by the judge.

This is not Sharia Law...if the Defense presents an argument for why the view of the victims face is required, and the judge agrees, then her face will be shown. In some cases, it won't make a material difference.

Honestly, this is blown way out of proportion by paranoia.

 

[DaSleeper]

Yet she had removed the garment previously to be photographed for a driver's license...........

 

[gerryh]

The Apellant court actually ruled that the right of a woman to wear a niqab while testifying in criminal proceedings will be determined by the judge's, on a case-by-case basis. So a woman who is the victim of an alleged sexual assault may not have to remove her veil as long as the fairness of the trial is not compromised, which will be decided by the judge.

This is not Sharia Law...if the Defense presents an argument for why the view of the victims face is required, and the judge agrees, then her face will be shown. In some cases, it won't make a material difference.

Honestly, this is blown way out of proportion by paranoia.

Of course it gets blown out of proportion. That's how the bigots and fear mongers work.

 

[Tonington]

Yet she had removed the garment previously to be photographed for a driver's license...........

Maybe there were no men at the DMV...all the DMV's I've been in where staffed by women, curiously.

 

[damngrumpy]

We cannot allow the institution of any Sharia Law within our court system. It has to
remain strictly in the bounds of secular law period. The original comment was that
the first major city elected a Muslim Mayor, therefore we would see such laws
implemented. That is not even possible as the court jurisdiction is not in municipal
control. Stuff like this is to speculate at best. When we start speculating as to each
other agenda based on religious or social beliefs we indeed have trouble brewing.
As yourself, if some city voted for a Devil Worshiper, would we be speculating that
Satanic Law was about to be implemented? Of course not.

 

[taxslave]

Maybe there were no men at the DMV...all the DMV's I've been in where staffed by women, curiously.

That is odd, there are men in ours in B.C. although our system is different than yours. But we also have women doing commercial license testing as well as commercial vehicle inspections. All CVI are either ex military or police. Job prerequisite.

 

[Goober]

The Apellant court actually ruled that the right of a woman to wear a niqab while testifying in criminal proceedings will be determined by the judge's, on a case-by-case basis. So a woman who is the victim of an alleged sexual assault may not have to remove her veil as long as the fairness of the trial is not compromised, which will be decided by the judge.

This is not Sharia Law...if the Defense presents an argument for why the view of the victims face is required, and the judge agrees, then her face will be shown. In some cases, it won't make a material difference.

Honestly, this is blown way out of proportion by paranoia.

No it is not - It is a clear case of the slippery slope - Courts would not accept Christian or Jewish traditions if they impaired the ability of the accused to face their accuser - This case is about Sharia - Not religion - about unreasonable accommodation -

 

[Tonington]

No it is not - It is a clear case of the slippery slope - Courts would not accept Christian or Jewish traditions if they impaired the ability of the accused to face their accuser - This case is about Sharia - Not religion - about unreasonable accommodation -

OK, does anyone here know that the slippery slope is actually a logical fallacy? Just because a judge can decide whether or not a Muslim who wishes to wear her niqab during testimony can do so, does not mean that this is going to initiate a series of events which culminates in the sort of legal system that is dictated by Islam, such as that in Iran or Saudi Arabia....for one our Constitution wouldn't allow that. They don't have constitutions...or a legislature in the Saudi case.

It's simply untrue, it's completely incompatible with the sorts of rights guaranteed in our Charter. The notwithstanding clause has limited application as well...

If the right to fundamental justice, as dictated by our Charter is compatible with a woman's right to exercise religion, then there is no issue. The Appellant court has realized that there may be cases where fundamental justice is negatively impacted by allowing a woman to keep covered. Judges are well versed in considering the levels of harm, there are numerous tests in our legal system when there are conflicts in constitutional law...

Slippery slope nothing. It's paranoid fear mongering.

 

[Just the Facts]

This is not Sharia Law...if the Defense presents an argument for why the view of the victims face is required, and the judge agrees, then her face will be shown. In some cases, it won't make a material difference.

Any lawyer that does NOT argue that the view of a witness' face is required deserves to be immediately disbarred. It would leave a gaping grounds for appeal if nothing else.

Honestly, this is blown way out of proportion by paranoia.

I hope so. Time will tell.

 

[DaSleeper]

It sets a precedent to be built on later.....

 

[captain morgan]

It sets a precedent to be built on later.....

How much potential damage can occur in the meantime?

 

[Tonington]

It sets a precedent to be built on later.....

Care to elaborate?

It would leave a gaping grounds for appeal if nothing else.

Based on what?

 

[Just the Facts]

Based on what?

Incompetent representation. How can you question a witness and not be able to analyze her facial responses. Body language is a huge part of communication. If my lawyer did that I'd be livid.

 

[mentalfloss]

Incompetent representation. How can you question a witness and not be able to analyze her facial responses. Body language is a huge part of communication. If my lawyer did that I'd be livid.

It really depends on the case. Sometimes a statement can be contextually qualified without any behavioral nuances.

 

[damngrumpy]

Oh I just thought of something truly frightening. We have a Muslim Mayor in a major city.
What would happen if we elected a left handed person? Remember it was not that long
ago when children who were left handed were being forced to write with their right hand.
I was subjected to that for a short time, however even at six I said no.
There was a time when left handed people were looked down on for some social and of
course religious reasons. Something to do with the Devil, I don't remember. Even today
in the Muslim World the right hand has more privileges than the left hand. I think most
know why, that is why they cut off the right hand for stealing etc.
As for left handed people, do we know how many we elected to public office? Do we know
how many slipped through, and made major decisions that adversely affected our society
and civilization?
This is ridiculous I know it, I am pointing out it doesn't matter if you are Muslim, Jewish,
Christian or an Atheist, or left handed. What matters is who you are and whether you can
do the job, or whether you are an fool who causes all kinds of needless fear and skews
the facts distorting reality.
Under the Law of the land and the Charter that everyone hates, we are protected from
these types of radical departures from the principles of the justice. A city made a
democratic choice to elect the person they wanted to be their Mayor, and he will administer
the laws and rules of the city and it won't make a damn bit of difference or destroy
the legal aspects of the law in Canada

 

[Tonington]

Incompetent representation. How can you question a witness and not be able to analyze her facial responses.

By asking questions.

Maybe you didn't know this, but testimony in Canadian court cases can be given and entered into the record without the witness being in the court room, and without showing their face. Statements can be entered. Witnesses can also give testimony via video links.

There's no constitutional framework in this country that says you have the right to face your accuser...it's the norm, but that's why the Appeals court gave judges discretion.

 

[Dixie Cup]

I guess I would want to read that decision more closely because that is not my understanding of the ruling. My understanding is that if a witness refuses to remove the veil, the Judge MUST allow the court room to be vacated by all males including himself (if he's a male). In otherwords, the precedent has already been set. I sincerely hope that you're right Tonington that the judges have descrietion, but it's not my understanding of the ruling. I will, however, look into it more closely.

As for people entering evidence via video link or having witness testimony "read" into court records, it usually means someone's life is in grave jeopardy or dead!!

JMO

 

[Tonington]

I sincerely hope that you're right Tonington that the judges have descrietion, but it's not my understanding of the ruling. I will, however, look into it more closely.

That's certainly what the court decided. Not sure where you learned of this, I know theirs been a few different op-eds whipping up a froth amongst Canadians. Ezra Levant for one.

You can read the decision of The Ontario Court of Appeal here:
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2010/october/2010ONCA0670.pdf

As for people entering evidence via video link or having witness testimony "read" into court records, it usually means someone's life is in grave jeopardy or dead!!

Or they're outside the country. Point is that it happens, and has not resulted in appeals...