[Brenda]

Eisensapper wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

We allow men to go topless and not women.

I would definately fight for a womans right to go topless, from the most nubile 21 year old to your fine aged 85 year old all women should be free to bare their breasts!

And most men should cover up!

[roger-roger]

Nah, but I'm all about nudity...

[roger-roger]

back on topic though, what would happen if a woman in a hidjab attacked a woman in a hidjab???

[DerbyX]

Throw in a mud pit, make it rain and you probably have a best seller video to flog on the streets of Kabul.

[DrJones]

Let me chime in for a moment, as a practicing criminal lawyer. I actually know some of the lawyers involved in this case.

An accused person has a constitutional right to confront his accuser. Specifically, the courts have interpreted section 7 of the Charter to grant the accused the right to make "full answer and defence" to the charges before him.

The defence is arguing here that in order to properly assess the woman's credibility as a witness, you must be able to see her face and her facial expressions. In other words, you can assess her honesty by seeing her face. You may or may not agree with that, but that's the argument.

I am pretty sympathetic to that myself. Sometimes witnesses are blatantly lying and you can appreciate this by looking at them. They start to look nervous or smile or something and it's a "tell."

The woman is obviously arguing that you can assess her credibility and respect her religious beliefs by allowing her to wear the veil.

The Ontario Court of Justice judge that ruled against her was a preliminary hearing judge. It has now been appealed to the Superior Court to decide if he was right. (They're also arguing if he should even have had jurisdiction to decide the issue at the preliminary hearing since it wasn't the trial yet, but that's another matter.)

In my experience, for better or worse, the defence almost always wins these arguments, because judges are afraid that if they compromise his right to a "fair trial", they'll be appealed.

Decision expected by the end of the month.

[DrJones]

Oh, and in response to the question of, "should the Human Rights Commission" be allowed to intervene in this case... I firmly say NO. The OHRC is a joke, and even if it wasn't, there is no need to "educate" a sitting Superior Court Justice on human rights law.

If anything, the judges should be educating the ridiculous OHRC on its preposterous rulings on a variety of subjects recently.

[kenmore]

I testified in court recently on behalf of a client. They have removed the swearing in on a bible.. you affirm... so how is it that this person's religion is an issue?
If we dont take steps to protect the Canadian constitution and laws we are headed for big trouble.. time to take the Australian stance.. get tough and if they dont like it they can go back to where they came from..

[kenmore]

The other thing I find quite interesting is that when I go to the casino in Quebec or through immigration when I travel, I am asked to remove my ball cap and my glasses.. there is a problem here. One being that without my glasses I cant see nothing.. the ball cap isnt a big problem, but I see it as a double standard.. You dont see sikhs removing the turbin or muslim women removing the vail.. is it just me or is there two sets of standards in this country..?

[Zipperfish]

Said it before adn I'll say it again. remove relgiious freedom from the constitution and we'd have a better country. Freedom of belief and freedom of expression are already protected. Freedom of relgion just gives the wingnuts a legal advantage to which they should not be entitled.

[BartSimpson]

CanadianJeff wrote:

If you going to testify in a court of law part of honesty is being fully open. Women need to start shaming the Muslim world into letting them know that they are human beings too and don't need to be covered up and hidden like a bad thing.

The real problem isn't the Muslim women but the Muslim men who can't restrain themselves from raping an uncovered woman.