Islamic woman ordered to remove burqa

[Sever]

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/TopS...ng_501422.html

A judge has ruled an Islamic woman testifying at a fraud trial will have to remove her full-face veil in order to give evidence in Perth. The decision had been previously delayed because the defence council failed to attend the hearing. Mark Trowell and Andrew Skerritt, the lawyers for Anwar Sayed, did not attend Perth's District Court this morning and failed to return to phone calls by the court clerk. District Court judge Shauna Deane says the ruling will help ensure a fair trial for the accused. The 36-year-old woman, Tasneem, said she normally only removed her religious covering - also known as a Niqab - in the presence of family members. Tasneem is due to give her evidence in October. Judge Deane insists her decision will not set a precedent for other court cases.

The issue has caused a little bit of drama here over the last month. Islamic groups say it's a violation of the woman's right to cover her face in public, while pretty much everyone else is of the view that a court room, while public, isn't exactly a public place. A witness box even less so.

What do IWers think?

I know this topic is on the edge of the religious moratorium. Remove if necessary.

[Hindsight]

We were discussion the issue about the law in France about the burqa on the TBF forum about a month ago.

If I were on a jury, I would absolutely want to see the persons face. Either that, or never let anyone accused show their face henceforth. It would be interesting to see what happen, if we judged a person solely on what they said, instead of how they acted.

I think the person should have enough respect to remove the covering in that situation. I most settings however, the covering is just fine.

[Cerek]

I hold the opposite opinion. I feel the court should have respect for the woman's religious beliefs. She is providing testimony. She is NOT the person accused of the crime (at least that's the way I read the article).

While a person does have the right to "face" their accuser(s), that doesn't mean they have the right to see the person face-to-face. They just have the right to be present and hear the accusations being made firsthand. That condition is being met.

As for the jury, they can judge the woman's testimony based on the tone and inflection of her voice, any hesitancy she has in answering questions and different forms of body language. Facial expressions are helpful many times, but they aren't the ONLY way to determine if someone is telling the truth or a lie.

Finally, American courts protect the identity of informants and undercover policeman. They are allowed to provide testimony without ever being seen at all, by the accused or the jury. In those cases, the ONLY factor that can be used to judge the truthfulness of the testimony is the voice of the witness.

American courts also respect the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of non-believers by NOT making them swear on a Bible. In those cases, an alternative oath is administered to respect the person's non-belief in the Bible.

So, I feel there is enough precedent for this court to also respect the woman's religious beliefs. She is willing to perform her civic duty and provide testimony. The court should be grateful for that and not demand the woman provide this testimony in a manner that embarasses her.

[SpiritWarrior]

Im on the fence about this. I agree somewhat that it is overdoing it when she is being asked to remove it in front of an entire courtroom. I would maybe take a middle ground, and either clear out everyone but the jury, judge and lawyers etc. or have her testimony recorded, and viewed only by those who absolutely need to see it.

While it is a violation and perhaps an outrage for some to even suggest she remove it, bear in mind that on a daily basis people are strip-searched in front of police officers. Or asked to remove their hats in church out of respect (not all churches but I would never wear a baseball cap in church for example). I mean, I could claim a hat as part of my spiritual identity if I really wanted to...

Even in court, known thugs dress up in suits and ties to give an air of respect to the judge and jury. I think the court has a right to insist she comply, but must be very careful not to make a spectacle out of this. Maybe, like I said, private and confidential exposure. While her religion deserves respect, the legal system does too so I dunno...mixed feelings.

[Bungleau]

Mmmmm.... I'm on the fence a bit with this, and would need to know more about what's going on.

There is not necessarily a civic duty to testify in court. If you are subpoenaed, you *have* to testify... failure to do so is contempt of court, punishable in its own right.

There is a civic duty to sit on a jury, but that's not what she's being asked to do. Failure to do that, in any case, can result in fines, jail time, or both.

I don't know if she's being subpoenaed in this case, but all it takes is a piece of paper for the judge to make that happen.

And the judge can issue a subpoena if, in the judge's view,

if and only if the truthful testimony of that named person has the specific and plausible potential to affect the final decision of that justice in the proceeding (extracted from here)

That said, there are alternatives. Video testimony, restricted audience, remove everyone except jury, counsel, and necessary court officials from the room... I'm sure the judge can get creative.

While I have not grown up in a world where women are constantly covered, I understand how divisive an issue it can be. If I were the one making the decision, I would want it to be completely above-board, with logic and reasoning behind it that will withstand scrutiny. Anything along the lines of "because I said so" or "This is my courtroom, and I will run it how I want" are immediate failures.

WRT strip searches, those are done in private areas with members of the same sex present (AFAIK... hasn't happened to me ). A courtroom, while not *fully* public, is certainly more public than that.

So in a nutshell, I disagree that the judge's decision to have her appear uncovered will not set a precedent. Judges' decisions always do, and this one certainly will. For that reason, it had better be well-thought-out.

[Sever]

A bit more info for you, B. My understanding is that the woman in question is being brought in as a witness for the defense. She's not been ordered to attend. The defendant has recieved death threats and has been assaulted, possibly for bringing her into the mess, possibly for the mess itself; who knows. The trial is about misappropriated funds for an Islamic school, or somesuch, so either is likely.

I personally think it's a win for common sense. A letter to a newspaper summed it up nicely for me. A woman wrote that in this country she's perfectly free to wear a bikini in public if she feels like it, but out of respect for the judicial system, she wouldn't wear a bikini in court. Islamic women are perfectly free to wear a burqa in public if they feel like it, but out of respect for the judicial system...

[Sever]

Originally Posted by Bungleau Anything along the lines of "because I said so" or "This is my courtroom, and I will run it how I want" are immediate failures.

Twice i've been to court, and that's been the attitude of the presiding judge/magistrate. Mini-Hitlers. In fact, now that i think about it, that bitch told me to take my sunglasses off my head... Anyway, for obvious reasons apart from the one below, the judge is right to tread carefully in this case.

Originally Posted by Bungleau I disagree that the judge's decision to have her appear uncovered will not set a precedent. Judges' decisions always do, and this one certainly will.

Yep and yep.

[Firestormalpha]

Originally Posted by Sever A letter to a newspaper summed it up nicely for me. A woman wrote that in this country she's perfectly free to wear a bikini in public if she feels like it, but out of respect for the judicial system, she wouldn't wear a bikini in court. Islamic women are perfectly free to wear a burqa in public if they feel like it, but out of respect for the judicial system...

But wearing a bikini isn't part of anyone's religious imperatives. Granted, the objective, I'm suspecting, is to remove distractions from the courtroom. And, considering women wearing a burqa in respect to their faith isn't incredibly common outside the mid-east, it could be seen as a distraction.

[Hindsight]

Sever, I have a feeling you are shady, with, or without glasses on.

If only the persons eyes were seeing because of a burqa, would it be possible for a person to take anothers place? I mean, they don't asking for ID, do they?

[Sever]

Originally Posted by Firestormalpha But wearing a bikini isn't part of anyone's religious imperatives. Granted, the objective, I'm suspecting, is to remove distractions from the courtroom. And, considering women wearing a burqa in respect to their faith isn't incredibly common outside the mid-east, it could be seen as a distraction.

Actually, it is apparantly customary for burqas to be removed in Islamic courts as well, according to the news clip i just watched. I think that clinches it. The whole thing is looking like someone trying to take the judicial system for a ride, for just purpose: Distraction.

Originally Posted by Hindsight Sever, I have a feeling you are shady, with, or without glasses on.

Nonsense. Anyway, i wasn't wearing sunnies over my eyes. They were just on top of my head, where they normally are while not covering my eyes.