Well said, Niflmir. By now nobody should be in doubt as to how I feel about Islam, I hold it in absolute contempt. However, in this instance I do support the woman’s right to wear a niqab in the courtroom.
Human Wrongs, Not Rights Abused Here By the Veil
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
Well said, Niflmir. By now nobody should be in doubt as to how I feel about Islam, I hold it in absolute contempt. However, in this instance I do support the woman’s right to wear a niqab in the courtroom.
You are wrong here. While it is not an absolute right, it is only denied in very rare cases.....the example of crime stoppers is not valid, as any information or evidence offered up anonymously is simply not admissible in court.....all Crime Stoppers witnesses do is show the cops where to look for evidence, they are NOT evidence themselves.....
I'm really glad Sir Joseph Porter has blocked me, because I would hate to have him see this.....
I agree with ALMOST everything he has said on this thread.
I agree with ALMOST everything he has said on this thread.
No, I am right. It is not a right. An accuser is not necessarily the same as a witness. If somebody tells me that they know who robbed a bank and they tell me who, I can accuse those people and be safe from them knowing my name. The actual witness will be subpoenaed.
The right of cross examination in an actual trial is fundamental. This is quite different from the right to know who accused you. It is even different from the non-existant right to know you are under investigation and cross examine those witnesses before trial.
Feel free to read all of the acts of Canada looking for this non-existant right though.
I would only support that if they support me wearing a Guy Fawkes mask, reason of: complete cookiness. I see no difference between making a life style (or a day style) choice for aesthetic reasons and religious reasons.
I just found this reply to one of my posts.
So if you accept Sikhs wearing Turbans (part of their tradition, not "Canadian tradition", whatever that is), then why should a woman be required to reject her tradition? It's ok for males but not females? Traditions should only be accepted if it pleases you? I don't understand the two-faced view.
Sikhs being in the RCMP certainly hasn't hurt the force. As for improving the culture of the RCMP, all the stories I've seen involving the lowered integrity of the RCMP have shown white members except the Dziekansky case in which there's 1 native member involved, no Sikhs.
A uniform should be a uniform? I've seen RCMP members wandering about in jeans, sneakers, and only their uniform jacket to show they were RCMP. I see nothing wrong with that. There was still no doubt they were RCMP. What about undercover members and detectives? They should be required to wear uniforms, too?
Your objections to this lady wearing her hijab are very thin.
Rights, practices, conventions blend into one another. I haven't phoned crimestippers myself, but I think the idea here is you give information to police that helps catch a perp. the caller may have heard talk or you just suspect something. I would guess much of crimestopper info is not that useful. You want to say that if you help the police, your face should be in the newspaper or a website.
We are talking in court here, a place that can send the accused to jail for decades, a serious issue. Some of you are hung up on the "sacred" crown prosecutor and obscure legal technicalities.
The basic issue here is that not seeing your accuser is a Star Chamber/Spanish Inquisition holdover. Courts that were by the way, religious courts, and their practices have no place in our modern democratic progressive society.
HRCs are secret, foul and feudal. I am not. Will you denounce feudal HRC practices Niflmir?
I just found this reply to one of my posts.
So if you accept Sikhs wearing Turbans (part of their tradition, not "Canadian tradition", whatever that is), then why should a woman be required to reject her tradition? It's ok for males but not females? Traditions should only be accepted if it pleases you? I don't understand the two-faced view.
Sikhs being in the RCMP certainly hasn't hurt the force. As for improving the culture of the RCMP, all the stories I've seen involving the lowered integrity of the RCMP have shown white members except the Dziekansky case in which there's 1 native member involved, no Sikhs.
A uniform should be a uniform? I've seen RCMP members wandering about in jeans, sneakers, and only their uniform jacket to show they were RCMP. I see nothing wrong with that. There was still no doubt they were RCMP. What about undercover members and detectives? They should be required to wear uniforms, too?
Your objections to this lady wearing her hijab are very thin.
I have absolutely no problem with her wearing the Hijab at all.......She can wear it as much as she likes, and bear witness while wearing it: In Iran, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Saudi Arabia.....but not here. In Islamic nations western women must cover up and modify their behaviour or suffer the consequences.....I simply believe that process should be reciprocal.
Multi-culturalism is cultural suicide.
She can be seen just fine..... the accused can see her....she can see the accused... it's not like she's in another room or her testimony is being read into the court record without the defence being able to see her. Not only that, but, the accused doesn't have the right to "see" his accuser, they have the right to confront their accuser. The right to question and cross examine them about their testimony. Quit twisting things to fit your narrow mindset.
That's fine, but it isn't reality here because Canada is different than those countries you mentioned. People in Iran howl their prayers from rooftops at certain times, If I go there, I won't. Some people in Canada pray to gods and whatnot, I won't. If my wife goes to Saudi Arabia, she won't do the bowing to the East bit. She won't do that here. So you think all countries should be the same?
If you go to Switzerland do you spend a year in military training? Do you do the crossing your heart thingy when you visit Catholics' houses?
Perhaps.
I just found this reply to one of my posts.
So if you accept Sikhs wearing Turbans (part of their tradition, not "Canadian tradition", whatever that is), then why should a woman be required to reject her tradition? It's ok for males but not females? Traditions should only be accepted if it pleases you? I don't understand the two-faced view.
Sikhs being in the RCMP certainly hasn't hurt the force. As for improving the culture of the RCMP, all the stories I've seen involving the lowered integrity of the RCMP have shown white members except the Dziekansky case in which there's 1 native member involved, no Sikhs.
A uniform should be a uniform? I've seen RCMP members wandering about in jeans, sneakers, and only their uniform jacket to show they were RCMP. I see nothing wrong with that. There was still no doubt they were RCMP. What about undercover members and detectives? They should be required to wear uniforms, too?
Your objections to this lady wearing her hijab are very thin.
I don't believe in tradition because that means sticking to ways of doing things that are outmoded for the present day and circumstances. The better word is practice. I am happy to day that Canada is an untradtitional country. So we ought to get rid of judges robes.
You may missed my previous post how masks imply ill intent, as mentioned in a Sun newspaper editorial. And anonymity in court is what the Star ChamberSpanish Inquisition used as its stock in trade. A feudal practice.
Do cops have a uniform? Gee, sometimes you can smell them a mile away. Sikhs got their turbans because of political pressure. It is foul HRCs are supporting feudal practices in our modern courts.
I'm twisting? You say, "The accused doesn't have the right to "see" his accuser, they have the right to confront their accuser." Does confront mean see, like with eyes? Humans disappear in this logic. Unproveable godlike theocratic fantastical traditions appear.
I just punched in confront on google and got this definition from the M-W dict,
1: to face especially in challenge
Good. I think they are silly, too. Besides being a pass-me-down from the English court system.
I did. I think, however, that if a mask is worn, whether it is because of ill-intent, intended in fun, or intended as obeying one's religious edicts, following tradition, etc. can be determined easily enough and dealt with accordingly.
How Sikhs managed to have their turbans accepted is more-or-less irrelevant. That they have kept them as an identifier that they are of Sikh religion IS relevant.
Canadians are pretty easy going about most things, and masks are not that complicated. However, in the courts "we" do not decide much, a few people make big decisions on the law in small rooms. Then we must follow what they decide, we must then conform with practices that please a minority with no discernable benefit to the majority and many unintended consequences. And all this, when no great injustice is present.
If this veil case was with gangsters and police said there was a hit out for her, then no problem, put a veil/mask on her, protect her identity because it is for her personal safety, but it is not like that at all.
This is globalization and multiculturalism working against Canada and Canadians. HRCs are picking a poor fight here.
If this veil case was with gangsters and police said there was a hit out for her, then no problem, put a veil/mask on her, protect her identity because it is for her personal safety, but it is not like that at all.
This is globalization and multiculturalism working against Canada and Canadians. HRCs are picking a poor fight here.
And how does this woman wearing her hijab in court of any harm to Canada? How is is of harm to ANYONE, for that matter?
Apparently the courts couldn't see the harm either.
Apparently the courts couldn't see the harm either.
Yes, I do denounce feudal HRC practices: I think most all law should be abolished in an free and democratic society. Most people disagree with me. Many people would abuse their vacuum as well. Oh well, I am an idealist.
I am saying that if you help society, you have a right to your privacy. Only if you need to give evidence in court does the public (and the accused) have a right to know your identity.
You are getting accuser mixed up with witness. These "obscure" legal technicalities are not obscure at all. Imagine this, not so hypothetical situation: a child is being abused by their parents but of course under pain of, well, more pain they do not say anything; however, their teacher can clearly see the abuse and so calls child services who files with the police who find independent evidence and the parents are tried. Were the teacher's name not protected Mr. and Ms. Pacifist (the abusive parents) could (and this has happened in the past) come around and give the teacher what's for.
For what possible reason would the accuser need to be named for other than so the accused could seek revenge? If they are not a witness and there is no mischief, there is none.
It is often true that the accuser is simultaneously the witness (victim in fact) and so would have to appear in court to be cross examined. However, one should not conflate the two.
First, for children, privacy here is no problem. I mentioned that before.
Secondly, confront means to face to see, let's be clear here: the whole face. That was your confusion.
Sure, we have strong rights to privacy in our every day lives, but when a crime is committed and it goes to court, our every day lives are disrupted and society becomes intimately involved. There is little justice in Asia I'm afraid and if you are against the secretive attitude of HRCs then you must be against the use of hijab in court this as it causes serious harm to society as it allows sharia law to pollute our system of justice.
This is a choice where privacy, which is a key part of democracy, must be temporarily sacrificed in the pursuit of justice. Justice must prevail.
Here is an example of what will happen if the Canadian justice system rules against allowing women who wear niqab to testify in court:
I think it's also telling that, as far as I can recall, all the responses in this thread to are against the wearing of niqab during testimony in court all come from men.
Edit: I would also recommend to anyone who is interested to read the analysis and commentary done by MuslimahMediaWatch (a blog run by Muslim women [feminists]) on this topic.
So women who wear niqab won't be able to to pursue court cases if they are required to testify. Once this barrier to munaqabaat becomes public knowledge (which is most likely, as this case has already made national headlines here in Canada), they will most likely be targeted for crimes since the would-be perpetrators know that most will not remove their niqab to get justice or protection. This would mean that a segment of Canadian society no longer has the recourse to feel safe and feel protected from its criminal elements, and that instead of helping women feel more safe, a antagonist ruling in this case would actually cause more women to feel unsafe in Canada. In fact, it would probably persuade more munaqabaat to generally stay at home than go out in public (which would be one positive outcome of this case), since they would fear being taken advantage of in public for whatever reason without recourse. It would also further alienate Muslims in general, but Muslim women and, specifically, munaqabaat, in particular.
I think it's also telling that, as far as I can recall, all the responses in this thread to are against the wearing of niqab during testimony in court all come from men.
Edit: I would also recommend to anyone who is interested to read the analysis and commentary done by MuslimahMediaWatch (a blog run by Muslim women [feminists]) on this topic.
then you must be against the use of hijab in court this as it causes serious harm to society as it allows Sharia law to pollute our system of justice.
Really dumpthemonarcy? And what does wearing hijab have to do with Sharia? Anyway, Sharia does not mandate that women must wear hijab (and in this case we are talking about niqab, not hijab).
Sharia is absolutely vicious to women, it considers women to be subhuman, but it does not mandate wearing of hijab. All it says is that a woman must cover her body at all times, none of her body must be visible. Different Islamic countries do this different ways. Some use hijab, some niqab, some use chador (mainly Iran), some use full body veil etc.
But then if niqab or hijab is somehow linked to Sharia, I suppose at an emotional level that strengthens your argument.
Reminds me of a discussion I had with Machjo regarding wealth tax. I told him that Sharia has wealth tax, and if there are attempts to introduce wealth tax in Canada or USA, it will be knows as Sharia tax. He didn’t believe me.
Are you reading this thread, Machjo?
Really dumpthemonarcy? And what does wearing hijab have to do with Sharia? Anyway, Sharia does not mandate that women must wear hijab (and in this case we are talking about niqab, not hijab).
Sharia is absolutely vicious to women, it considers women to be subhuman, but it does not mandate wearing of hijab. All it says is that a woman must cover her body at all times, none of her body must be visible. Different Islamic countries do this different ways. Some use hijab, some niqab, some use chador (mainly Iran), some use full body veil etc.
But then if niqab or hijab is somehow linked to Sharia, I suppose at an emotional level that strengthens your argument.
Reminds me of a discussion I had with Machjo regarding wealth tax. I told him that Sharia has wealth tax, and if there are attempts to introduce wealth tax in Canada or USA, it will be knows as Sharia tax. He didn’t believe me.
Are you reading this thread, Machjo?