Veil of tears
Excuse me, but where in the Koran does it say a woman must wear a bag over her head?
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.
Needless to say, this Star story by my pal Betsy Powell is huge today. Comments have exploded.
More:
A relative of the woman said it's distressing the judge has exceeded his "jurisdiction and ventured into the interpretation of religious laws concerning the veil, not to mention the fact that ... (she) has observed the veil for many years in accordance with her" beliefs.
"This is primarily an issue of protection the court offers to victims of sexual assault – especially those from minority communities, who experience the added stigma of bringing these deeply personal issues into open court."
Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, said, in court "the laws of the country should be acceptable," and although it is important that "sensitivity be shown ... showing the face is acceptable."
Sorry but, not only is this religious fundamentalism at its most extreme, it's patriarchy at its worst.
And, if you think I reserve this kind of judgment only on Islamofanatacism, think again and again and again and again and again ...
UPDATE: I posted this on my Facebook page and elicited some very PC responses from friends.
This is what I replied:
UPPERMOST IN MY MIND DATE: Thanks to many fellow femme bloggers who have attempted to open my eyes more fully to this situation, I lost sight of the fact that this woman is a victim, and is in danger of being victimized twice over.
What's more, I have seized upon the whole ''otherness'' aspect, much to my shame, which I always try to avoid. (But I still detest the mix of religion and patriarchy in all its forms.) It is not right for the media to focus on the veil and not the alleged crime -- although knowing the media as I do, this would not be ''a story'' is it were (forgive me for my phrasing here) just a run-of-the-mill sexual assault or rape. These rarely get coverage.
That said, I still find it very twisted that the veil, which is ostensibly there to prevent men from acting on their lust (as if rape is an act of lust and not power), should potentially work to allow the defendant to get away with a crime.
And so, a patriarchal construct supposedly designed to protect women, ends up hurting them.
Women just win for losing.
One more thing: I have learned quite a bit more about this case since this morning when I first posted. Unfortunately, it is under publication ban and so I can't say much more except that I have to wonder whether, in this case, the judge the right decision.
Still grappling with it ...
Hmm.
Have always seen the requirement of women to wear veils not as a purported concern to protect women or their 'purity', but as a concern to protect men from acting on their 'viler' tendencies. That is, the morality or (spiritual) life of women is of no concern whatever. The concern is entirely with women's purported evil influence on men.
Posted by: Chrystal Ocean | February 02, 2009 at 04:48 PM
There are two issues that bother me about the judge's ruling.
Many women who aren't held back by religious beliefs won't press charges against an assailant because the eventuality that they will be forced to sit in a courtroom, in proximity to the man who battered them or sexually abused them is terrifying. Keep in mind that police expect the victims of crimes to contact them and report as soon as possible so that evidence can be collected and charges laid.
Since it is the judge and not the prosecuting attorney who determines how a witness is allowed to testify, there is nothing that can be promised to a woman who has suffered criminal assault that can allay her fears about a trial. A request can be presented to set up a barrier so that the witness won't be subjected to non-verbal intimidation from the accused but there's no guarantee the judge will allow it.
Why should the right of an accused's to "face" a witness trump any legitimate concerns for the psychological safety of a victim? Why can't the defense attorney's need to observe the witness for the purpose of "assessing her demeanour" be accomodated without transgressing her religious beliefs?
If there is a political will, a way can be found to balance these rights.
Posted by: deBeauxOs | February 02, 2009 at 06:44 PM
Re your title for the entry, since when is religious freedom confined to what is or isn't in the Koran? If this woman and the group she belongs to choose to interpret the Koran a certain way, shouldn't that be respected as religious freedom?
Still, I agree with the judge's decision - the defendant has the absolute right to face his accuser in court. And if that means some Muslim women won't report rapes for fear of having to show their faces in court, that's another price they'll have to pay.
Posted by: sooey | February 02, 2009 at 07:48 PM
I know many women who choose to veil, women who are strong, independent, articulate, and successful. Arguing that the veil is automatically a device of patriarchal oppression is not only an argument made in ignorance of the veil itself, but is also an argument made based on another unequal power structure that we should all be careful of: the dialectic of Western moral authority over the backward East.
The truth is, it isn't the veil that will keep this woman from confronting her attacker, from speaking out, or from making a valid legal complaint against the defendant. She will do all of those things whether she veils or not, and might be able to do so with more confidence and certainty if she were allowed to veil in court. It will be Western attitudes that view veiling only through the lens of Western moral authority that prevents justice from being carried out.
Posted by: Katie | February 09, 2009 at 12:56 PM