 Court decision puts veil over women's rightsProvincial Politics | 207035 hits | Oct 18 2:42 pm | Posted by: Bodah  It is illegal for a woman wearing a face-obscuring veil to board a plane in Canada. But a unanimous ruling last week by the Ontario Court of Appeal says it�s just fine for that same woman to give testimony in court with her face covered.Commentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
Who voted on this?
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
We like to thank you for flying the former Air Canada, now known as Ramadan Airlines, named in honour of our newest citizens and future masters.
What if she's the defendant and her lawyer is male - he has to remove himself. What if it's a jury trials - will only women be selected for that jury? If the trial is judge only, and the judge can't be there to observe the testimony, how can he make a ruling?
The Sun is actually overplaying this a bit - the judges said the judge in the case has to balance the woman's rights and the defendant's. But in the extreme case it will be just what the quote says above.
What if she's the defendant and her lawyer is male - he has to remove himself. What if it's a jury trials - will only women be selected for that jury? If the trial is judge only, and the judge can't be there to observe the testimony, how can he make a ruling?
On that note what if I'm the accused. Aren't I granted the right to face my accuser.
All I can see that will come of this is a hell of a lot of appeals.
No, but you can wear this, but only if you can prove you're in the Groucho Marx religion...
"Yes sir, your honor. I've walked this way for forty years now."
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.
Did Levant write this. No wonder it was over the top. People here accuse the Sun of being a leftist rag, but if they have Levant writing for them, that can't be right.
Still, he's not really wrong is he - if a judge decides a woman has a legitimate case for keeping on the bag unless the court is cleared of men, that would seem like a travesty of justice to me.
Did Levant write this. No wonder it was over the top. People here accuse the Sun of being a leftist rag, but if they have Levant writing for them, that can't be right.
Still, he's not really wrong is he - if a judge decides a woman has a legitimate case for keeping on the bag unless the court is cleared of men, that would seem like a travesty of justice to me.
Clear the courtroom of men--I wouldn't agree with that. But people should be able to wear what they feel like wearing. I mean, here's Levant saying he wants the freedom to be able to draw cartoons of Mohammed doing a goat or whatever, but when it comes to a woman who wears clothes he doesn't approve of, all of a sudden he wants the heavy hand of the state to come down and stop it.
But people should be able to wear what they feel like wearing.
Absolutely, unless required otherwise. For identification, and in court they should have to show their face. I agree with the idea that a person's face should be open to scrutiny during testimony. Otherwise, let everybody who wants to wear a bag over their head - makes it easier to lie. In fact don't they often ask witnesses to identify the accused? What if the accused is wearing the bag? (Of course then she probably would have been wearing it during the crime, so maybe that's not much of an example.)