Though he found it to be an "admittedly difficult decision." Question: If this woman wants to wear the niqab, in accordance to sharia law, would she, a sexual assault victim, also want to apply sharia law's standards regarding female-male testimonies? She's one woman; the accused are two men. According to sharia, then, her testimony, which, as a woman, is worth half that of a man, is being countered by two men; in other words, one witness (the woman) vs. four (the two accused men -- assuming they are men). One wonders if she would like this Islamic aspect to also be introduced into the trial?Woman to appeal ruling forcing her to unveil face in sexual assault trial.
A judge has ordered a Toronto woman to testify without her niqab at a sexual assault trial – raising the thorny issue of whether Muslim women should be allowed to appear as witnesses wearing a veil that covers everything but the eyes.
The issue is a collision of two rights, pitting religious freedom against the right of a defendant to face an accuser in open court.
The case could be precedent setting because it doesn't appear there is any Canadian case law addressing the question of Muslim women in the courtroom. In Canada, home to about 580,000 Muslims, the case will be closely watched, amid fears about Muslim women coming forward in criminal cases.
In October, Ontario Court Justice Norris Weisman reached his "admittedly difficult decision" to force the complainant to testify with her face bared after finding her "religious belief is not that strong ... and that it is, as she says, a matter of comfort," he wrote in his ruling.
Lawyer David Butt is representing the woman and next month in Superior Court will argue that the Oct. 16 ruling should be overturned.
Read it all:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/024684.php#respond
No comments:
Post a Comment