Justice unveiled

The story of the Toronto woman ordered to testify against her alleged attacker in a sexual assault trial without her face-covering veil continues to generate controversy. At what point do the rights of the defendant trump religious rights?

Quite the conundrum.

In today's Star, reporter Iain Marlow surveys three Muslim women's advocates on the matter.

Some edited excerpts from his interviews:

THE REALIST

Saira Zuberi
Toronto-based minority rights activist

"It really ends up being a little bit of a tempest in a teacup.

<SNIP>

"It just ends up being a lightning rod for those people who get angry because, `Oh, we're making too many concessions for all these people ...' You know?

"I don't think it's a huge number of people who are asking for this."

THE PRAGMATIST

Shahina Siddiqui
President of the Islamic Social Services Association

"There's a law of necessity in Islam, where you can relax what your understanding of the requirements are." If there are reasons of security or law, exceptions can be made, "and that's why they (unveil) for driver's licence, for passports and for crossing borders."

"I've travelled with women who wear niqab and at airports they do remove it. And some will say, `Oh, can I do it in front of a woman attendant?' And some don't bother with that either ... It can be done, even in Muslim countries. When they're required to, they do it."

Since the case on trial was a sexual assault, "For her, it's her security blanket ... I would say the judge should take that into account.

<SNIP>

"But generally speaking, exceptions can be made. The issue is, is this that case?"

THE ETHICIST

Alia Hogben
Executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women

"It is not a religious requirement to cover your face. That's put very simply. Some women do this because they think it's more modest.

"It's about modesty for both women and men – don't flaunt yourself, dress modestly, etc.

"But the emphasis seems to have shifted, to focus on women rather than men. And a lot of women are interpreting it, or are having it interpreted for them, that modesty means covering yourself. That's a personal choice a Muslim woman makes. It is not a religious directive.''

One thing that bothers me here is this notion that we have to ''protect'' alleged rape victims -- usually women -- from the mechanics of the justice system which, admittedly, can be very harsh and unfeeling. Women often feel twice-raped, by their attackers and by the police and courts.

But are women to be treated as fragile flowers?

Should, say, in the case of family incest, when a male relative is charged with abuse/assault, or in the case of domestic violence, when a husband is charged with the same, the (female) victim be shielded, if she is an adult?

I don't think so.

What if it were a veiled mother charged with abusing her daughter? Should the mother remain veiled while testifying?

It seems to me that equal = equal. We can't have it both ways.

Does this doubly victimize --maybe even triply --some women? Yes. But that's the price we pay for not being confined to the kitchen and nursery.

However I can assure you that, not many feminists agree with me. In some circles, there's a fierce debate going on. I'm looking for links I can add here.

Comments

[MensRightsNow]

How do they know they have the right person testifying? They're hidden!

How does the jury (if there is one), read facial language of the person testifying? It's like listening to a voice on a recorder, except the person is right in front of you.

It's simply another person exploiting Canada's pluralistic generosity.

[hysperia]

If it were a Roman Catholic nun in old-fashioned religious garb, which some do still wear, would they make her "take it off"? Nothing in the Bible says a nun has to wear a habit - it's "tradition", it's a "choice". But we seem to have some respect for it - more likely, we understand it within a "Western" tradition. I can imagine the outcry if a nun was asked to remove her habit. And that might be key. There is more than a little panic about Muslim women who cover themselves - OMG WHAT do they have to hide? If the woman here normally wears niqab, it would seem unfair to me that she be asked to remove it. In terms of victimhood, I don't think we're fragile flowers, but I can't imagine what it would be like to be asked to remove the clothes I normally wear to face an alleged sexual attacker. That seems beyond the pale to me.

[hysperia]

"exploiting Canada's pluralistic generosity"?

Now that's rich. Where's the generosity in this case? And just who is it who's being exploited?

[Keith]

Kudos to you Antonia for your position here. It is refreshing to see the basis for equality.

"Shielding" an alledged victim of an alledged rape in a rape trial amounts to considering an alledged rapist as guilty until proven innocent. Sure does sound like prejudice don't it? Rape is a hanous crime and should be treated harshly, however the nature of the alledged crime does not constitute any cause to throw the justice system out the window and deprive the accused a right to face thier accuser and present thier.

[sooey]

The interesting thing here is that an issue of religious freedom is being portrayed as an issue of women's rights when, in fact, gender has nothing to do with it. Judges are empowered to make decisions. The defendant has the right to face his accuser in court. Law trumps religion - as it should.

[Antonia]

Hysperia,

RC nuns don't cover their faces. Just their heads.

Why would they be required to remove their habits?

[Antonia]

''mankind.''

Hmm. Interesting choice of words there.

:-)

[sooey]

Okay. Having thought about it I've decided the right of the defendant to face his accuser in court is just a different sort of fundamentalist nonsense - British fundamentalist nonsense, this time - with no practical necessity in a modern court of law. Like wigs on judges, which we also used to insist upon.

That's right, it's a good thing I'm not a judge, in whom we invest the absolute authority to make decisions about justice, because I just TOTALLY did a 180 on this case. Clap me in irons, yer honour!

[Aurelia]

This right to confront the accuser thing, actually gets twisted way out of shape. Really, it only means that the accused's lawyer should get to cross-examine the accuser under oath during the trial.

Unfortunately, its turned into far far more in our courts, from the right of the accused to see the accuser, which is ridiculous, to the right of the convicted to continuously know the crime victim's address, phone number, family circumstances, appearance, new name, new identity, etc etc...even years after conviction whenever the victim puts an impact statement into the parole board.

Think for a minute. What if a victim of an attack by a stranger in her home, moved to a newer safer home? What if she changed her haircolor, and appearance and her name in a bid to keep her identity secret so that her attacker could not find her while he is on bail? Perhaps she does all this to feel safe, but because the courts move so slow, she is then forced to reveal her new face and new identity to the exact person who attacked her before!

And so she is in danger again....and gets retraumatized again, when the accused shows up at her house, AGAIN.

Happens all the time. People like me think that victims have the right to do whatever they need to do to feel safe, and end the cycle of violence. The courts have shown that they have no intention of ever convicting criminals. Frankly, I'm really not clear why we bother with police and judges and courts. They are so utterly incompetent, they arrest the wrong people regularly. It's not like they keep us safe anyway. Might as well spend the money on something else.

Yeah, cynical me...I guess I know too many crime victims.

[Keith]

Auruelia, The accuser is not a confirmed victim until there is a guilty verdict. A verdict can only be reached after all the facts are presented. To give an accuser the status of victim prior to trial, you are in essence declaring the accused guilty prior to the trial.

Cheating wifes/partners cry rape to cover thier affairs. Scorned Ex partners often cry rape to spite thier lost lover. There are even those who cry rape to spite someone they have never had sex with BECAUSE rape accusers are afforded the victim status and are extremely rarely reprimanded by the justice system for using the system for thier personal agendas.

It is very easy to see the reason for the need for delicate treatment of a true victim of rape, however to deprive a citizen of the right to a fair trial in an effort to protect a presumed victim when no true victim exists is the worst form of justice thier is. The entire reason of a trial is to get all the facts out for independant persons to evaluate the need for justice.

Because a women cries rape, doesn't mean a rape or even sexual contact took place. Boiled down, women don't always tell the truth. To assume a woman would never lie about rape is completely, well, unjust.

[Aurelia]

Keith,

First of all, in the justice system, the word victim is always used to describe the person or even corporation against whom the crime was committed, and it is irrelevant whether someone is convicted of the crime. Even if a criminal is never caught, that is still the term used by all professionals, regardless of the type of crime. Theft, fraud, murder, etc...there is always a victim.

Secondly, his isn't just about rape, it's about all crimes whether they are committed against men or women. Think about it. Home invasion happens, committed by two masked men against a wealthy man. They are caught red-handed by the cops with items from the house, fingerprints are everywhere, etc etc.

Because of the confusion about the so-called "right to face the accuser", (see DiManno's column above) the man's name (which the accused did not previously know), new address if they moved, phone numbers, and other personal details such as medical history and psychological state are automatically revealed. For the entire trial period even if they are on bail, entire duration of their prison sentence if convicted, and for every single parole hearing forever.

There is a reason hardly any crime victims, male or female, ever file victim impact statements, or show up at parole board hearings, and it is because they know that even twenty years after conviction, their identity will never be safe, and the criminal who beat them the first time will come back and get revenge if they do.

This woman's case is about a lot more than a veil and to assume that it does not impact every single citizen of this country is unjust.

If we continue to force crime victims to tell everyone every detail about themselves, then the next person who gets mugged, even you, is in danger too.

[Keith]

Actually Aurellia, in a Justice system where a person is innocent until proven guilty, the correct term is alledged victim. Only after a conviction can it be stated that someone commited a crime and someone was a victim of a crime.

In the case of rape, while a husband or boyfriend is let's say off on military duty, and his partner may have an affair and becomes pregnant. Because she is prolife, she keeps the child but ends up in a situation where she must explain the approaching bundal of joy to her partner. It is not uncommon for the women to tell her partner that she was raped. The resulting investigations into a perpatrator could end up putting her willing conqubine facing a rape charge. Does this alledged victim (mom to be) deserve shielding? Shouldn't her sexual history with the true victim in this case, her conqubine, get the opportunity to question her on her sexual history? Often, women who make these false accusations end up coming clean prior to going to trial, but the victim, the one charged with rape, has already has thier life destroyed by the intentionally false accusation. Where's the protection for those falsely accused?

[Keith]

How does the true victim in this case get protection?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1127303/BBC-personality-40-false-rape-allegations-ex-boyfriend.html