Nobody knows, nobody sees

Back to the story of the GTA woman being forced to unveil in order to testify in a sexual assault trial.

I came across this analysis on Beautiful Muslimah which should be shared. Here's an excerpt:

This decision was, apparently, based on the complainant’s statement that “It’s a respect issue, one of modesty and one of … in Islam, we call honor [...] I would feel a lot more comfortable if I didn’t have to, you know, reveal my face.” The judge also talked about learning “at the 11th hour” that the woman had “a driver’s license with her unveiled facial impression upon it.”
Although I don’t personally share the complainant’s opinions on niqab, I’m disturbed by the judge’s presumption that he had the authority to draw conclusions on her religiosity and on the religious and personal importance of the niqab to her. Moreover, the idea of religious “comfort” - whether or not niqab is seen as a religious obligation - should not be brushed aside, especially in a case dealing with sexual assault. I’m also concerned that the language around the “11th hour” revelation makes it sound as if the woman was being purposely deceitful and attempting to manipulate the court into allowing her to testify with her face covered. There might have been decent reasons for forcing the complainant to show her face (although I would likely still disagree), but making a decision based on judgments about her religious commitment seems really inappropriate.

For the record, the writer -- and you should read her entire blog entry -- takes issue with some of my previous posts on this issue.

I have been contemplating this case non-stop since it crossed the news radar last week and Muslimah's musings strike me as the most on-point. The woman's ''religiosity'' should not be up for judicial deliberation.  It doesn't matter if she has been veiled for 10 years or 10 months or 10 days. Her religious choice is her religious choice.

That said, I am still disturbed by the idea of women in shrouds. I don't care what the religion is. Anything that puts women at a physical, psychological and/or emotional disadvantage is just plain offensive to me.

But it's not the court's business.

Surely there must be a way to allow this woman to maintain her veil of comfort while putting her on the stand. All kinds of measures are employed when children testify and also to shield witnesses from potential identification in certain cases.

Exposing this woman could only constitute a revictimization, while ensuring the dismissal of the rape charges if the woman here would prefer to shut up to avoid suffering more indignity in court.

Considering at least one recent case in a school, where a Muslim girl was targeted because the perpetrators know that the girls will not report sexual attacks out of shame, we're just increasing the odds that girls suffer in silence.

I have the sense here that the defendant side is exploiting the victim's beliefs to get off the hook.

So I guess I am on the side of letting this woman remain veiled, or hidden.

UPPITY DATE: That Beautiful Muslimah post to which I link above, originally came from Krista at Muslimah Media Watch.

Comments

[hysperia]

I'm having a difficult time with this one myself and, though I think the judge mishandled the situation in word and in deed, I'm not sure that allowing this woman to testify in the ways used to protect children are appropriate for an adult woman either. The real issues for a criminal court in a rape case are, first, that the complainant's testimony is critical to deciding the credibility and consent or lack thereof and judge's use all sorts of clues, including facial expression to judge credibility. And second, the criminal law grants to the accused the right to confront his/her accuser - otherwise, many complainants would choose to give evidence in a different manner.

I'm not sure how you reconcile this woman's rights with the needs of the court and the rights of the accused. But this situation does highlight a few problems with rape trials - one is that everyone from police to a judge and/or jury thinks they can deduce something from the complainant's demeanour and this belief leads straight to ideas about how rape complainants SHOULD behave - so you'll hear "she wasn't upset" as proof that no rape occurred when most reasonable people know that there is more than one way to respond to rape and that many women are numb and show little emotion or "inappropriate" emotion. Also, in some cases, confronting one's attacker is re-traumatizing and there are some women who just can't do it. To praise the women who do it as heroines and damn those who can't as cowards is just not either helpful or humane.

This woman is being asked to face, literally, what every woman who is a complainant in a rape trial is asked to face. For me, the question is not simply whether this particular woman should be judged on the basis of her facial expressions and her resolve to confront her attacker, but whether asking ANY woman to do so actually contributes to achieving justice. And, justice for whom?

[MensRightsNow]

...or she's exploiting Canadian freedoms.....again....how does the jury/judge read her "body language", "facial expressions" when grilled by the lawyer, are they not at a disadvantage then? Is this justice in Canada or Saudi Arabia?.....hockey is my religion, can I wear a helmet and cage in court?

[hysperia]

In case you didn't notice, she isn't exploiting anyone. The judge said she can't wear the niqab bozfrickinozo. Also, complainants are not supposed to get "grilled".

[Keith]

Once again, to afford a witness some sort of protection in the court room from being "re-traumatized" PRESUMES that the witness was traumatized in the first place. In doing so, this presumption of victimization deprives the defandant of thier right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Why should there be a presumption of innocence in all criminal trials except rape trials?

Without a presumption of innocence, rape trials will amount to nothing more than witch trials like those held in Salem where defendants were tried by burning. If their bodies burned they were innocent, if thier bodies did not burn they were guilty of being a witch. Ironically, the Salem witch trials were found to be instigated by some girls in thier early teens that wanted to do away with some people the town that they didn't like. Studies have shown that three quarters of false rape claims are motivated by a accuser attempting spite the accused.

On a side note, Antonia why did you find lumping women and children together offensive when the life boats were being loaded, but in the case of rape, you ask that women be treated like children?

[Steve]

I think it speaks well of you that you are able to listen to contrary opinion and change yours upon reflection. Not many in your position are able to do so.

[...pat.]

How do we reconcile "confront" with "face"? Does it mean "face" literally?
If not, then she can confront him from behind the veil.
Body language is not affected by the veil: facial expression is. Voice is not.

There are so many things to consider... and I think back to a case in the news within the last 15 years where a rape suspect chose to represent himself, and used that position to gather information about the rape victim, and further harassed and victimized her while she was on the stand.

I have a cosmos of plusses and minuses circling in my brain, and don't know where I land on this.

[jdv]

Keith -

The court process has already gone through many reformations, specifically for the purpose of not re-victimizing victims. This does not conflict with the presumption of innocence as the accused will still have a fair trial where the judge or jury will weigh the evidence, including all testimony. A trial does not search for factual truth, it searches for legal truth; so the complainant's being afforded certain protections doesn't say anything about whether or not the accused will be found legally guilty. And you can't extrapolate from this to say that rape trials are treated differently. If we admit that a victim is dead in a murder trial, we're not presuming that the accused did it.

Actually, what's truly ironic is that you're using the Salem witch trials as a warning against shielding rape victims and justification for your ridiculous beliefs. The witch trials were misogyny taken to the extreme, driven almost entirely by hate and contempt for women. The vast majority of those killed were women.

As for your so-called studies (which I notice you don't cite)...I'm calling BS. Rapes are one of the most under-reported crimes, especially because of the perpetuation of these terrible myths. Unless of course by "spite the accused" you mean "want to see their rapist be brought to justice."

False accusations of rape are extremely rare, and most studies which suggest that they are likely are looking at cases where police declined to lay charges because they found the charges to be "unfounded." All this means is that there is not evidence to prosecute, which isn't surprising given the highly private nature of the crime. It doesn't mean that the crime did not occur.

[Katie]

When you testify in court, your appearance is the court's business. End of story.

[MensRightsNow]

jdv...rape is a rare crime. Try not to bust out the word mysoginy while describing society's lunatics. There is a difference.

By the way, I'll try not to point out this sordid list....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53859

...ooops, sorry...what a bunch of misandrists...or lunatics...or misandrists...or lunat....?

[Keith]

JDV The reformations IS the problem You can not treat someone as a victim or protect them from "revictimization" until all the evidence is heard so that a verdic can be given. You are putting the cart before the horse. Treating an alledged victim as a true victim in court tells the jury that the defendant is guilty before all the evidence is presented. It is for this same reason that defendants are not require to wear handcuffs and shackles in sight of the jury. Think of it JDV, if someone has truely falsely accused someone of rape, who is being protected when this false accuser is afforded victim status in front of the jury? Look at all the prisoners being released after being in prison for decades now that DNA evidence can be presented to prove they were innocent.

As for the Salem witch trial appearantly you don't know your history. It was some young teen girls that made the false allogations of individuals being witchs. Four of the accused were women and one was a man. What is the term for women hating women? Certainly not misogyny. Misandry for the man that the women accused, but what is the term for women who hate other women?

As for studies, let's start with the US airforce study. Since you called me out, certainly you are ready to give supporting evidence of your claim that false accusations of rape are "extremely rare". What exactly is extremely rare? 20%? 30%? 40%? Your presumtion of guilt when rape is cried speaks volume as to why a strong protection of the innocent until proven guilty principle is needed.

[...pat.]

Keith and MRN, if you're going to go all legal on things, a raped woman in court is a witness, not a victim. The standard for crimes continues... the crown vs. the accused.

And Keith, women can be misogynists, too.

[Antonia]

Keith/Men's Rights Now:

With respect to this case, I hardly think that a false accusation is at issue since it is extremely difficult for a Muslim woman to admit to having been violated. In fact, it is difficult for any woman to whom this has happened but especially so in certain cultures. So I highly doubt that this is a frivolous charge.

Furthermore, and again, a woman who has been truly assaulted is almost always reluctant to report it because she knows the hell she will go through. Ever seen what a ''rape kit'' involves??? A through physical examination, complete with scrapings and swabs. Not fun.

And the rest of the process isn't exactly a thrill either when you have people like you screaming that so many rape charges are false. Unless you're beaten black and blue, and bleeding from all orifices, you're going to get doubted.

Why didn't you fight back they'll ask?

Uh, maybe because I didn't want my head bashed in as well?

No woman wants her sex life probed, her wardrobe questioned and her behaviour judged. What were you doing in a bar? Why did you wear that skirt? How many drinks did you have?

It's the you-asked-for-it-lady third degree.

As for those false rape charges, nobody denies that they happen. But do the math. If more women who falsely yell rape end up reporting that assault while few women who are actually attacked go to police, what are the stats going to reveal?

How is your deductive reasoning?

Finally, the witch trials. All over Europe and North America, including Canada, hundreds if not thousands of women were tortured, drowned, burned alive. It wasn't just Salem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Alleged_witches

[MensRightsNow]

Antonia....you're describing the extreme rape examples that any sane man would agree should be prosecuted to the extreme. A female may be in psychiatric care the rest of her life experiencing such a trauma. I agree with you 100%.

The problem with feminist statistics and false accusations is that the feminist try to pawn off extreme rape as the same as an inappropriate touch, comment or look. This is where the statistics are blurred and lose their validity.

At a recent sexual assault seminar I sat through, I heard for example: 25% of college females have been sexually assaulted. Well, based on the strict definition of sexual assault presented, all of my male friends as well as myself have been sexually assaulted. I have been groped, touched inappropriately, had girls cat call me as well as stare at me from across a room. But again, Animal Farm equality. Had I called the police, they would have laughed at me.

It's interesting, a female can use her sexuality to exploit, entice, lure, control a male, spew sexual innuendo via email and texts, but when the man ogles her, says something inappropriate or grabs her butt at a bar, he's charged with sexual assault.

We all know the woman who presses the charge isn't going to end up at the psychiatrist as opposed to a woman who suffers a real, horrible rape. But she will check "yes" on the next sexual assault questionaire by some kooky feminist organization. Is there not a difference?

Again, just in case your minions blow a gasket.... Rape is a terrible, terrible thing. But you cannot deny that feminists use statistics to promote their agenda.

Again............

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53859

What about these winners?

[Keith]

Thank you for making my point Antonia. Because she is a (fill in the blank) woman you highly doubt the charge is frivolous. Talk about pre-JUDGING. Yet another example of how the mere utterous of the R word means guilt. There can be no justice in a feminist mind.

What do you have to say about all the rapists free via Amnesty International and the new DNA tests?????? Those Ex Prisons are the ones that need protection from prejudice like your's Antonia. Those are the true victims.

[Aurelia]

From your February 4th post, a quote from Rosie DiManno's column:

"The judge, Ontario Court Justice Norris Weisman, determined he had the jurisdictional authority to make that ruling under the Canada Evidence Act, because it involves the manner in which the woman is to give testimony, the fundamental right of a defendant to make "full answer and defence" and the "traditional right" of an accused to face the accuser. This last, however, is "not a basic tenet of our legal system," not enshrined in jurisprudence."

Again, there is no legal reason on earth why this woman should have to be forced to remove anything, in fact, no reason on earth why any complaintant, male or female, of any kind of crime, should ever have to be visibly identified to the accused.

When you get down to it, this is about a lot more than just a piece of cloth on the face. This is about whether or not accused, and sometimes, convicted criminals, in the case of parole board hearings have the right to every last scrap of information about the victims of the crime. Do they have the right to the person's address? Their phone number? Their current appearance or name or place of employment?

What if all of those have been changed in an effort to protect the victim of the crime from harm, like in the case of violent biker gangs or the mafia?

I really hope this goes to the Supreme Court because frankly, this needs to be resolved.

[jdv]

Keith and MensRightsNow -

Are you joking? Witch trials happened all over the world, do a little research (try not to use people inventing facts like you're prone to doing as your "sources") and then we'll talk about the consequences.

You say that protecting an alleged victim is tantamount to abolishing the presumption of innocence. First, you're wrong - study the law a little bit because your ignorance is staggering. Second, if a woman truly was raped and it was proven in court - you don't think it would be a wrong done to her to have re-victimized her more than necessary through the court process?

Women aren't people to you.