[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 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.

People tend to have a blind spot with respect to their own cultural peccadillos. I admit that the Muslim version (and it really it's just teh more primitive Muslim countries) are much more extreme, but covering breasts and covering heads comes from exactly the same place--"holy" men.

[Zipperfish]

KorbenDeck 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!

Do you sit during the national anthem? Do you talk about last night's game at the Remembrance Day prayer?

Edit: OK, OK, now I'm just being argumentative. I abhor niqabs and burqas, let's be clear. I despise the cultures of backward Muslim countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia and the like. However, it is my honest belief that you can't do away with the subjugation of women by legislating away their freedoms. Just as you can't offer them equality by sacrificing our own freedoms to suit them.

In this case, I don't see the material harm, though I certainly appreciate and respect the principle being adviocated by Eyebrock, Andy, Bart and others.

[Bodah]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

In this case it should be noted that a young woman was testifying against a cousin and uncle who repeatedly raped her as a child. I would imagine that this woman has spent a good deal of her life in burqa or whatever it's called. So now--at the most stressful time of her life--you're going to make her take it off? That would be the same--in our culture--as making a rape victim testify topless against the accused. And if the lady doesn't take off her veil or whatever, then the rapists walk? I don't think so.

Now, now, Zip, don't go trying to bring context into the argument - it'll only make them madder.

Or you can maybe try reading the article where its stated she's only been wearing it for the past 5 years.

The same group that fought to have the lords prayer removed from schools, the ten commandments removed from legislatures is the same group fighting for this womens right to wear the viel and have all men removed from courtrooms if she choose to show her face.

These types of decisions of allowing one custom over another not even based on religion is a slippery slope to giving one particular part of society or group of people dominance over others. There should be no exceptions the same laws for all. I went to court once wearing shorts, the judge told me don't ever wear shorts in his court room again. It's simple it's not religious its a custom take off the burka. Our custom is to have the right to be able to face your accusers in a court of law.

She do it to board a plane, she's done it to have her picture taken for her drivers license.

Even if I was a fan of the burka, I'd imagine I'd have a pretty hard time listening to her testimony as a juror I'd have serious doubt of being able to come to a honest decision regarding her testimony if she ever takes the stand. Since I can't read her body language.

The fact that this law passed basically can force all males to leave the courtroom there is something fundamentally wrong with that, sharia law in Canada ?. What if we were asking all females to leave a courtroom for whatever reason I'd imagine that wouldn't go over to well.

[kenmore]

All people should have their face in full view. Why in hell are we in Canada supporting or agreeing with any covering of the face. Its absolute bullshit!

[KorbenDeck]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

KorbenDeck 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!

Do you sit during the national anthem? Do you talk about last night's game at the Remembrance Day prayer?

I can't be forced to stand during the national anthem, or to be kept quiet during the prayer (we pray during Remembrance Day?). The main issue I have with this ruling aside from it turning back on separation of church and state, is that based on my gender I can be removed from a court even if I were the defendant.

[Zipperfish]

KorbenDeck KorbenDeck:

I can't be forced to stand during the national anthem, or to be kept quiet during the prayer (we pray during Remembrance Day?). The main issue I have with this ruling aside from it turning back on separation of church and state, is that based on my gender I can be removed from a court even if I were the defendant.

We have a prayer at our service at the memorial in North van, anyways. I'm not forced to partake in it, and I suppose I couldn't be arrested if I broke into a chorus of "Viva Las Vegas." But, though agnostic, I bow my head with the rest of the crowd. It's just respect.

I don't agree with the "forced to leave the courtroom" bit either. Why can't she leave the room with the judge or something? But if she wants to wear a sack, then I'm going to side with her freedom to do that.

[Zipperfish]

kenmore kenmore:

All people should have their face in full view. Why in hell are we in Canada supporting or agreeing with any covering of the face. Its absolute bullshit!

It's called freedom. Look into it.

[Zipperfish]

Bodah Bodah:

Or you can maybe try reading the article where its stated she's only been wearing it for the past 5 years.

I read the article. And others. You should consider that perhaps--just maybe--good ol' Ezra is only telling one side of the story.

[EyeBrock]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

$1:

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.

It's copmpletely a fair comparison. Going topless is legal in most provinces. How many women/girls do you see everyday on the street? None. If you were to ask the women why they didn't go topless, despite the fact that it is legal, they would likely cite reasons of modesty or not wanting to be started at by men. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that Muslim women brought up in more primitive countries feel the same about their sacks.

There is nothing in the law about being able to "face" your accuser. The accuser was there, in body. According to the judge the rights of the accused were not infringed.

And, yes, I would have no problem with Joe Whitebread wearing a veil.

Well actually there is something in law about being able to face your accuser, although it is not an absolute 'right'. The SCC have held that being able to face your accuser is a basic tenet of Canadian criminal law, see SCC R. v. Levogiannis, 1993. Here's an excerpt;

$1:

My conclusion, based on the foregoing, is that, since it is an accepted tradition of our legal system that judge, jury, witnesses, accused and counsel are all present in sight of each other, it can be said that normally an accused has the right to be in the sight of witnesses who testify against him or her. That this is probably so is confirmed by the need for a judge's order providing otherwise if the accused is not to be in the sight of the witnesses....



Accepting that it is a right, of a kind, I do not think that it can be said to be an absolute right, in itself, which reflects a basic tenet of our legal system. It is a right which is subject to qualification in the interests of justice."

This case was involving a 12 year-old victim. The case discussed on the thread involves an adult who has only recently (the past 5 years) been wearing the veil. These are factors in deciding 'qualification'.

The Criminal Courts themselves are places for sober consideration of the law and as such, are able to impose dress codes that reflect that. Wearing a shirt is generally seen as acceptable but going topless can be construed as a contempt of court, therefore a breach of the Criminal Code.

So it's not an equitable comparison in my view but nice try!

Further on this, the SCC suggested that parliament would be the place to settle the issue of 'facing your accuser'.

[Zipperfish]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Well actually there is something in law about being able to face your accuser, although it is not an absolute 'right'. The SCC have held that being able to face your accuser is a basic tenet of Canadian criminal law, see SCC R. v. Levogiannis, 1993. Here's an excerpt;

$1:

My conclusion, based on the foregoing, is that, since it is an accepted tradition of our legal system that judge, jury, witnesses, accused and counsel are all present in sight of each other, it can be said that normally an accused has the right to be in the sight of witnesses who testify against him or her. That this is probably so is confirmed by the need for a judge's order providing otherwise if the accused is not to be in the sight of the witnesses....



Accepting that it is a right, of a kind, I do not think that it can be said to be an absolute right, in itself, which reflects a basic tenet of our legal system. It is a right which is subject to qualification in the interests of justice."

This case was involving a 12 year-old victim. The case discussed on the thread involves an adult who has only recently (the past 5 years) been wearing the veil. These are factors in deciding 'qualification'.

The Criminal Courts themselves are places for sober consideration of the law and as such, are able to impose dress codes that reflect that. Wearing a shirt is generally seen as acceptable but going topless can be construed as a contempt of court, therefore a breach of the Criminal Code.

So it's not an equitable comparison in my view but nice try!

Further on this, the SCC suggested that parliament would be the place to settle the issue of 'facing your accuser'.

I agree with the judge's comments in the case you reference. And I think allowing a Muslim woman to wear her naqib--considering that she may well feel naked without it, and considering that the charge involves child rape--I think the judge take into account the interests of justice.

As for the contempt of court issue, you kind of prove my point. Despite the fact that women are legally "allowed" to go topless in most provinces (I think), you say they would still be charged with contempt of court if they attempted to do so. Public display of a woman's breats in Canada--like a woman's face in Afghanistan--is that blaspehmous and offensive, apparently.

Ezra Levant, brave defender of freedom, would rather let rapists walk the street so that he can enforce his diea of a suitable dress code in Canada.

[Brenda]

Don't we have such a thing as a "video" trial? As where the victim doesn't have to face the accused? Or something? Why can't we just do it like that? Why does every man have to leave the court room when she has to remove her veil?

There are so many other options...

[EyeBrock]

Zip, a guy wearing no shirt in court would be charged with contempt too but I agree with your other point and the SCC decision. Each case should be decided on it's merits or;

Parliament should draft a law that deals with the matter.

I prefer the latter.

[Zipperfish]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Zip, a guy wearing no shirt in court would be charged with contempt too but I agree with your other point and the SCC decision. Each case should be decided on it's merits or;

Parliament should draft a law that deals with the matter.

I prefer the latter.

And I agree wiht yours re: clearing the courtroom of men. That's baloney.

[Canadian_Mind]

Simple solution to the argument. It should be legislated that, regardless of culture, religion, or other personal beliefs, any person in a court environment is expected to expose enough of themselves in order to allow for:

1. Accurate identification (fingerprints, face, DNA if neccisary)

2. Communication in it's full scope between the Accused, the Accuser, the defensem prosecution, judge, jury, guard, courtroom witnesses, courtroom viewers, etc. As it is scientifically identified to occur between humans. Communication is 10% vocal, and the rest is physical, smell, and other. A person must atleast expose their face and hands in a courtroom setting to allow for the full range of human communication to occur.

This would effectively solve the debate, and eliminate the argument of a woman going topless in court. To see a face would be required, to see a womans breasts would not.

[kenmore]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

kenmore kenmore:

All people should have their face in full view. Why in hell are we in Canada supporting or agreeing with any covering of the face. Its absolute bullshit!

It's called freedom. Look into it.

They have freedom, lots of it. Canada is a land of freedom. Go over to their country and see how free you will be. People don't have problems with head scarfs and religious expression. Neither of these are reason to cover ones face!