[EyeBrock]

Surely she was unvieled in the house where the suspects were? They were her family, they have seen her without the veil.
The whole veil thing is cultural, not religious.

Our system and legal tradition is all about the accused being able to face their accusers. This pre-dates the Magna Carta and is a foundation of our legal system. It's obvious from the judgement that the judges had trouble with this.

Really, I sympathise with the victim but we have cultural issues that mean unequal treatment in law.

Sexual assault trials are notorious for false allegations so evidence from the victim is crucial. This is a tough one.

[andyt]

Hey, she wants to use the Canadian justice system, where she actually has a chance of her rapists being convicted, instead of herself, then take it all the way - face your accuser in open court. As other rape victims have had to do. Welcome to Canada, there's benefits, and there may be some drawbacks for you in being here. Take the whole deal or nothing.

And to add context, she's only been wearing the bag for 5 years, was what I read, so she's plenty used to not wearing it. And she had no problem taking it off for her driver's license.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

Hey, she wants to use the Canadian justice system, where she actually has a chance of her rapists being convicted, instead of herself, then take it all the way - face your accuser in open court. As other rape victims have had to do.

Do they have to do it topless? Forcing women to wear tops is just an outdated religious artifact, after all. It serves no intrinsic purpose other than Christian views of what is "decent."

And see the previous page about habeus corpus--corpus means body not face, at least in my understanding. I'd like to see your legal evidence that an accuser must "face" the accused in Canada, if you have any.

[hurley_108]

What's funniest (saddest?) about this whole thing is that the very same people who bleat on and on and on about victim's rights do a complete 180 when the victim dons a niqab.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

andyt andyt:

Hey, she wants to use the Canadian justice system, where she actually has a chance of her rapists being convicted, instead of herself, then take it all the way - face your accuser in open court. As other rape victims have had to do.

Do they have to do it topless? Forcing women to wear tops is just an outdated religious artifact, after all. It serves no intrinsic purpose other than Christian views of what is "decent."

And see the previous page about habeus corpus--corpus means body not face, at least in my understanding. I'd like to see your legal evidence that an accuser must "face" the accused in Canada, if you have any.

I don't have any - but it does seem to be the custom, hence the court challenge. And a custom I think we should enshrine in law.

As far as I know, going topless is legal in Canada, at least in BC and Ontario. Now the judge may have something to say about it, just as they've reprimanded others for improper dress. Personally I always thought that was bullshit, wear what you want. But we've gotta see your face so we can get some sense of the veracity of your answers. An imperfect system, but better than nothing.

[andyt]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

What's funniest (saddest?) about this whole thing is that the very same people who bleat on and on and on about victim's rights do a complete 180 when the victim dons a niqab.

Really? Victims should have rights, and so should accused. When it comes down to splitting hairs, I'll go with the accused every time, since they are the ones who's liberty will be taken away.

[EyeBrock]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

What's funniest (saddest?) about this whole thing is that the very same people who bleat on and on and on about victim's rights do a complete 180 when the victim dons a niqab.

Everybody should get equal treatment in the law Hurley. It's a Charter right. Picking and choosing who can wear what to give evidence isn't equal.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

I don't have any - but it does seem to be the custom, hence the court challenge. And a custom I think we should enshrine in law.

As far as I know, going topless is legal in Canada, at least in BC and Ontario. Now the judge may have something to say about it, just as they've reprimanded others for improper dress. Personally I always thought that was bullshit, wear what you want. But we've gotta see your face so we can get some sense of the veracity of your answers. An imperfect system, but better than nothing.

It's not a matter of whteher or not going topless is "legal." Wearing a naqib is legal--no one questions that, at least in Canada. The question I posed is whether the judge should be able to order a rape vicim to remove her top prior to testifying, because females covering their breasts is just a religious relic. So the rape victim must face her accuser topless. From their cultural standpoint, this is precisely what you would be asking them to do.

Further it might be your opinion that this custom of "face to face" be enshrined in law, but it is not up the Court of Appeal judge to enshrine things into law. His/her job is to interpret and rule on existing law.

The ruling strikes me as a reasonable accommodation to someone with strongly held beliefs that does not materially infringe the rights of the accused, Levant's delirious exhortations notwithstanding.

[EyeBrock]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

andyt andyt:

I don't have any - but it does seem to be the custom, hence the court challenge. And a custom I think we should enshrine in law.

As far as I know, going topless is legal in Canada, at least in BC and Ontario. Now the judge may have something to say about it, just as they've reprimanded others for improper dress. Personally I always thought that was bullshit, wear what you want. But we've gotta see your face so we can get some sense of the veracity of your answers. An imperfect system, but better than nothing.

It's not a matter of whteher or not going topless is "legal." Wearing a naqib is legal--no one questions that, at least in Canada. The question I posed is whether the judge should be able to order a rape vicim to remove her top prior to testifying, because females covering their breasts is just a religious relic. So the rape victim must face her accuser topless. From their cultural standpoint, this is precisely what you would be asking them to do.

Further it might be your opinion that this custom of "face to face" be enshrined in law, but it is not up the Court of Appeal judge to enshrine things into law. His/her job is to interpret and rule on existing law.

The ruling strikes me as a reasonable accommodation to someone with strongly held beliefs that does not materially infringe the rights of the accused, Levant's delirious exhortations notwithstanding.

Who walks around topless in court Zip? It's not a fair comparison.

The Charter guarantees us equal treatment in the law. Being able to face your accuser is a common-law right codified in numerous case law dating back centuries.
If you read the judgement it’s quite obvious the OCA was well aware of the impact of Section 15 of the Charter, that is equal rights in law.

If this victim can wear a veil to give evidence in then so can Joe Whitebread.

[bootlegga]

QBC QBC:

No, but you can wear this, but only if you can prove you're in the Groucho Marx religion...

I recently joined the Knights Templar, so I'll be wearing this to court the next time I'm asked to appear!

[bootlegga]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Consider the source of the article. Sorry, Levant--one minute you're crying for the freedom to express yourself, the next you're trying to restrict that freedom for others.

I don't care for the ruling, but that is par for the course with Levant.

[hurley_108]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

What's funniest (saddest?) about this whole thing is that the very same people who bleat on and on and on about victim's rights do a complete 180 when the victim dons a niqab.

Everybody should get equal treatment in the law Hurley. It's a Charter right. Picking and choosing who can wear what to give evidence isn't equal.

I know, I just saw an irony there I couldn't pass up.

FTR, I disagree with this decision too. Asking a woman to remove a veil for a few minutes is hardly the same thing as banning them outright. I'm an atheist, but I'd swear on a Bible if that was the custom of the court.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zip: I see where you are going with your argument but the real problem is, even with the legality of women going topless very few do in public because also in society, we have sexualized women's breasts. Just look at all the nicknames we have for them, which I won't get into here.
It's not even close to an equal comparison between having to show your breasts in court and having to show your face.

[andyt]

Isn't that what WC Fields originally said? "Show us your face, Mae."

[KorbenDeck]

The idea that I can be kicked out of a court to suit someones "religious" needs makes my blood boil. I should never be forced to do anything for someones religion ever!