[Newsbot]

Title: Woman's right to testify in veil a religious freedom?
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: dino_bobba_renno
Date: 2009-03-02 05:21:27
Canadian

[dino_bobba_renno]

Just to clarify here, the reason I posted this was due to the OHRC’s suggestion that it should be allowed to inject itself into the Superior Court system not because some lady wants to wear a niqab during the hearings against the accused.

Allowing the any of these rouge HRC’s the right to influence the legal system in any way sets a scary president.

[CanadianJeff]

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.

[martin14]

hmm, what about the rights of the defendants here to a fair trial ?
facial expressions can be used to help determine credibility of a person.
Are we willing to just throw that way, and now what about
non religious types who also want to cover their faces.


Question for a cop out there.. if you stop a niqabbed woman for something,
are you allowed to force her to remove the veil for ID purposes ?
and a male officer as well ?

[roger-roger]

The OHRC is getting really uppity lately, its not like the crown is asking her to dance naked infront of the court, its taking off a vail. If you dont like it GTFO.

[commanderkai]

Eisensapper wrote:

The OHRC is getting really uppity lately, its not like the crown is asking her to dance naked infront of the court, its taking off a vail. If you dont like it GTFO.

I'm agreeing with you. I believe in a secular government, and as such, we as responsible citizens must balance between the function of government and respect to the individual's rights. The fact that a man or woman might be punished due to this woman's testimony means that her right of expression is less important compared to the accused right to a fair trial.

[DerbyX]

It all depends on if the rights of the defendant are being affected. Needing uncovered faces for purposes of an ID like a drivers license seems pretty straight forward and if they want a license they submit to our qualifications.

In a trial giving testimony isn't going to be hampered by somebody wearing a veil so as long as the witness's ID is verified what does it affect? We have a right to face our accusers in court but we don't get to dictate what they can dress.

Is there a reason that wearing a veil may hinder either the defence or prosecutions questioning?

[roger-roger]

It allows the accused to face their accuser and the judge can see the emotional impact on the woman. What if she was accused of a crime, would be let her wear it while she is being prosecuted by the crown?

[Brenda]

Quote:

Lawyers representing the two men argued they should be permitted to see the demeanour of the woman while she testified, as part of their right to a fair trial.

We accept anomymous testimonies too, videotaped behind closed doors, with scrambled voices, so for the sake of the trial, I think this is bullshit.

[DerbyX]

Eisensapper wrote:

It allows the accused to face their accuser and the judge can see the emotional impact on the woman. What if she was accused of a crime, would be let her wear it while she is being prosecuted by the crown?

Like I said. Does it affect testimony? I'm not a lawyer so I can't answer that very well.

We have made special cases but often they involve children and victims of heinous crimes not being forced to face somebody who did horrific things to them.

If a veil has no appreciable affect then it wouldn't bother me but if it can be shown that it would hinder courts getting at the truth then thats another matter.

[Brenda]

Eisensapper wrote:

It allows the accused to face their accuser and the judge can see the emotional impact on the woman. What if she was accused of a crime, would be let her wear it while she is being prosecuted by the crown?

Is there a law that states you have to show your face during trial?

I know that in a country like Turkey, you cannot be veiled in public places, like schools, courthouses, that kind of stuff. Do we have the same rules? I don't think so...

So as long as she can show a clear (unveiled) ID to the court, all should be ok.

[roger-roger]

Brenda wrote:

Quote:

Lawyers representing the two men argued they should be permitted to see the demeanour of the woman while she testified, as part of their right to a fair trial.

We accept anomymous testimonies too, videotaped behind closed doors, with scrambled voices, so for the sake of the trial, I think this is bullshit.

Im not a lawyer but I think that any testimony from someone that can be cross examined or does not make the identity of the person known will not hold any water.
This all comes back to a double standard, if I cant show up to my trial wearing a hockey mask I dont know why she is allowed to cover her face up.

[DerbyX]

Eisensapper wrote:

Brenda wrote:

Quote:

Lawyers representing the two men argued they should be permitted to see the demeanour of the woman while she testified, as part of their right to a fair trial.

We accept anomymous testimonies too, videotaped behind closed doors, with scrambled voices, so for the sake of the trial, I think this is bullshit.

Im not a lawyer but I think that any testimony from someone that can be cross examined or does not make the identity of the person known will not hold any water.
This all comes back to a double standard, if I cant show up to my trial wearing a hockey mask I dont know why she is allowed to cover her face up.

Maybe as a matter of law you can. Do we have laws about dress in our courts?

[roger-roger]

Again I dont know, I am sure they do. I know in the states they do, a woman was held in contempt for having an outfit that the judge deemed too revealing. This was after she had been warned on other court appearances.

[Brenda]

Eisensapper wrote:

Brenda wrote:

Quote:

Lawyers representing the two men argued they should be permitted to see the demeanour of the woman while she testified, as part of their right to a fair trial.

We accept anomymous testimonies too, videotaped behind closed doors, with scrambled voices, so for the sake of the trial, I think this is bullshit.

Im not a lawyer but I think that any testimony from someone that can be cross examined or does not make the identity of the person known will not hold any water.
This all comes back to a double standard, if I cant show up to my trial wearing a hockey mask I dont know why she is allowed to cover her face up.

She can be cross examined. She can speak... And she can be identified. She can be told to lift her veil bu the judge to make clear she is the one she says she is.

The fact that the lawyer of the accused want this woman to unveil is enough for me to think they want to make her feel uncomfy and shut up about what happened.
So much for fair trial...