The right to face your accuser

Muddy · March 5, 2009

It seems that a judge has made an error in telling a women she had to remove her face covering in court so that those who were accused of sexually attacking her could see her face. Is this another Human Rights declaration? I respect that modest women of faith have every right to cover their face in their usual activities. But has this gone to far? Should face coverings be allowed in banks or other financial institutions ? I am on the side of this women if the accused are guilty, I will be more than happy to see them flogged. But they are innocent until proven guilty and I personally believe ,every accused has the right to face their accuser. What say you my fellow travelers?

M.Dancer · March 5, 2009

I see no reason why the victim needs to be seen. It is the crown that prosecutes a criminal case, it is not the woman.

Muddy · March 5, 2009

I see no reason why the victim needs to be seen. It is the crown that prosecutes a criminal case, it is not the woman.

If you were accused of a crime most foul , you would not think it relevant to see your accusers face? That it would not be pertinent that witness` in your defense be able to recognize the accuser? Thats why they call them witness` is it not?

Edited March 5, 2009 by Muddy

M.Dancer · March 5, 2009

If you were accused of a crime most foul , you would not think it relevant to see your accusers face? That it would not be pertinent that witness` in your defense be able to recognize the accuser? Thats why they call them witness` is it not?

The accuser need not testify, so there is really no reason for her to appear in court unless she testifies. Without any knowledge of the case, I assume there is forensic evidence.... Even so, there can be little added to either the prosecution or defense if she is seen or not seen beyond her humiliation and as is often the case, the attempt be the defense is to intimidate the victim.

Am I wrong to assume that minors (as victims) are not forced to stand in front of those accused of abusing them?

charter.rights · March 5, 2009

The accuser need not testify, so there is really no reason for her to appear in court unless she testifies. Without any knowledge of the case, I assume there is forensic evidence.... Even so, there can be little added to either the prosecution or defense if she is seen or not seen beyond her humiliation and as is often the case, the attempt be the defense is to intimidate the victim.
Am I wrong to assume that minors (as victims) are not forced to stand in front of those accused of abusing them?

Video taped testimony has also been allowed and the lawyers could each enter a list of questions that could be provided in privacy.

Oleg Bach · March 5, 2009

The face coverning would not come off in private..even if the camera operator was another Muslim woman - the image would be recorded and other other than her husband would see her beautiful face and be tempted to .... :lol: What a joke - You come to Canada - you take your hat off when you step into a court or a private home...You come to Canada - you can not sit there on the stand looking like a world war one black tank with a pair of eyes peering out of the gun slit. Maybe this one we can send off to some make shit Sharia court - say in a trailer in the parking lot - they could pay to get a permit to hold court and pay to park. They may as well joint the modified system and pay - you don't play if you don't pay......what's that - dear God I just saw an ankle - better go purge myself with a whip. So the question is - how do they testify in Saudi Arabia if a woman looses her honour --------------------------

Oh yah - she gets to leave her berka on as they stone the innocent woman...works for me. There seems to be a lawyer here - that suggests that there must be some forensic evidence...sound like he might have the accused as a client...nice touch - run with it....and that evidence is in a test tube some where? I doubt that there is this type of evidence ---- not guilty - you can go now....and you in the black garb - GET A LINT BRUSH.

Melanie_ · March 6, 2009

It seems that a judge has made an error in telling a women she had to remove her face covering in court so that those who were accused of sexually attacking her could see her face. Is this another Human Rights declaration? I respect that modest women of faith have every right to cover their face in their usual activities. But has this gone to far? Should face coverings be allowed in banks or other financial institutions ? I am on the side of this women if the accused are guilty, I will be more than happy to see them flogged. But they are innocent until proven guilty and I personally believe ,every accused has the right to face their accuser. What say you my fellow travelers?

Do you have a link, Muddy? Or a bit more info? I'd like to know more about this case... was it here in Canada?

cybercoma · March 6, 2009

This is a very sad place where we live if people are being told what they can and cannot wear. Face coverings are hardly inappropriate attire. The clothes are part of their religious convictions and cultural beliefs and should be respected as such. Demanding that a woman remove her headscarf is ethnocentric and shows complete disregard for the cultural norms of others. Those who say, "when you're in OUR society you'll follow OUR culture," please do me a favour and define our culture. Canada was settled multiculturally and continues to be multicultural to this day. If you're going to hold notions of cultural superiority, you should be prepared to specifically define which culture in Canada is superior and why you believe so.

Oleg Bach · March 7, 2009

This is a very sad place where we live if people are being told what they can and cannot wear. Face coverings are hardly inappropriate attire. The clothes are part of their religious convictions and cultural beliefs and should be respected as such. Demanding that a woman remove her headscarf is ethnocentric and shows complete disregard for the cultural norms of others. Those who say, "when you're in OUR society you'll follow OUR culture," please do me a favour and define our culture. Canada was settled multiculturally and continues to be multicultural to this day. If you're going to hold notions of cultural superiority, you should be prepared to specifically define which culture in Canada is superior and why you believe so.

Multi-culturalism is not a sweet and kind group hug as our young are taught to believe - it is a an incrimental destruction of all cultures to create a non-culture then call this new thing a CULTURE...even if it is only 30 years old - and cultures that are 3000 years old will all be gone....all because some persons sitting in some university looking like an old hippy with a pony tail read a few books about international socialism and never got any further in his thinking or originality.

tango · March 7, 2009

This is a very sad place where we live if people are being told what they can and cannot wear. Face coverings are hardly inappropriate attire. The clothes are part of their religious convictions and cultural beliefs and should be respected as such. Demanding that a woman remove her headscarf is ethnocentric and shows complete disregard for the cultural norms of others. Those who say, "when you're in OUR society you'll follow OUR culture," please do me a favour and define our culture. Canada was settled multiculturally and continues to be multicultural to this day. If you're going to hold notions of cultural superiority, you should be prepared to specifically define which culture in Canada is superior and why you believe so.

To be fair, it wasn't the headscarf (hijab) but the face covering (niqab) that was the issue.

I wonder ... was she wearing the niqab when she was sexually assaulted? :angry:

Oleg Bach · March 7, 2009

To be fair, it wasn't the headscarf (hijab) but the face covering (niqab) that was the issue.
I wonder ... was she wearing the niqab when she was sexually assaulted? :angry:

She was wearing a spiked chastity belt with pom poms attatched to the hips. Maybe it was the pink pom poms that provoked and inticed the attacker? Really speaking - who was the attacker - was it one from her own culture or was it some westerner who was overly curious and wanted to see the naked sacred ankle? What you are saying is - was her beautiful face in plain view when she was attacked and perhaps under their law she provoked the attack by exposing the poor man to mortal damnation though temptation - and it was HER fault..? :lol:

Melanie_ · March 7, 2009

Did a section of this thread disappear? I'm sure there were more posts earlier, including a link to an article about the case (from Tango?), from the Toronto Star. Or am I imagining things?

Muddy · March 7, 2009

From what I read she only started wearing the traditional dress and face covering before the trial started. I can well understand her retreating from prying eyes and those from her Islamic faith that will judge her inappropriately as being the guilty one. But these men are charged with a very heinous crime most foul and if found guilty flogging will be too gentle a punishment. But I truly believe that they have a right to face their accuser.

Progressive Tory · March 7, 2009

Did a section of this thread disappear? I'm sure there were more posts earlier, including a link to an article about the case (from Tango?), from the Toronto Star. Or am I imagining things?

Chunks seem to be missing from many threads and some topics have completely disappeared. Gremlins?

Progressive Tory · March 7, 2009

But I truly believe that they have a right to face their accuser.

When and where women can cover there face might be a matter for debate, but all rape victims fall under the Rape Shield Law:

"A rape shield law in the United States of America and Canada is a law that limits a defendant's ability to cross-examine rape complainants about their past sexual behaviour. The term also refers to a law that prohibits the publication of the identity of an alleged rape victim."

She doesn't even have to be there or reveal her face or name. It's the law and has nothing to do with Muslim women.

cybercoma · March 8, 2009

Multi-culturalism is not a sweet and kind group hug as our young are taught to believe - it is a an incrimental destruction of all cultures to create a non-culture then call this new thing a CULTURE...even if it is only 30 years old - and cultures that are 3000 years old will all be gone....all because some persons sitting in some university looking like an old hippy with a pony tail read a few books about international socialism and never got any further in his thinking or originality.

This is one of the stupidest things you've ever posted. Multiculturalism preserves minority cultures when faced with assimilation. People of the majority culture should be a little more understanding to the minority ethnic groups because of multicultural advances in consciousness. Without multiculturalism, the minority ethnic groups would be assimilated by the larger and more influential majority groups from the area. In their country you would be assimilated in their culture. In our country, we're a little more forward thinking than that. We protect minority ethnic groups and allow them to keep their beliefs rather than assimilate into another way of life that is not necessarily better and unnecessarily different. That doesn't mean we lose our culture and all cultures are equally worthless. It means all cultures have value and are allowed to be expressed equally. It is equal protection for all and the assimilation of none. Edited March 8, 2009 by cybercoma

Oleg Bach · March 8, 2009

This is one of the stupidest things you've ever posted. Multiculturalism preserves minority cultures when faced with assimilation. People of the majority culture should be a little more understanding to the minority ethnic groups because of multicultural advances in consciousness. Without multiculturalism, the minority ethnic groups would be assimilated by the larger and more influential majority groups from the area. In their country you would be assimilated in their culture. In our country, we're a little more forward thinking than that. We protect minority ethnic groups and allow them to keep their beliefs rather than assimilate into another way of life that is not necessarily better and unnecessarily different. That doesn't mean we lose our culture and all cultures are equally worthless. It means all cultures have value and are allowed to be expressed equally. It is equal protection for all and the assimilation of none.

Boy are you brain washed - tell that to a Muslim father who does not want his daughter dressing like a whore - who raises his voice in authority - so much for him - 911 him and he's gone - Take the traditional red neck rural Ontario culture - The agenda of social services is to destroy the familiar independence of these people also.

Look at the orthodox practicing Jews - If their family service agents...get wind of any potential old fashioned Jewish values that go against the secularist agenda - In comes the Jewish Family service to dismantle the culture and family - I have seen this...mean while this orgainization is a research facilty with studends doing internships as they watch the tormenting of tradional Jews - and in the end the anglo elite control the whole thing.

Look at traditional southern black Jamacian culture that is easy going and are culturally not into working 50 hours a week - but 20 hours tradtionally and culturally - they run off the "lazy black" fathers and bribe the mother and wife with a social insurance cheque - I could go on and on - untill you are in the field and see the actual results of muli-culturalism...and not just take it at face value - or be conditioned by a liberal university education - that says - we are all one and the same - give it two generations and there will be but one devised unified grey utlitiarian culture - mark my word - all culture will be gone - that is the socialist agenda...and I will not get down to the gayification of youth - where feminine men that once married and had children and a culture are pushed towards the "life style" - whold thing stinks :lol:

Argus · March 10, 2009

This is a very sad place where we live if people are being told what they can and cannot wear. Face coverings are hardly inappropriate attire.

Yes, bank robbers and terrorists wear them all the time.

People have been thrown out of courtrooms before for wearing hats, however.

Let her hide behind her bedsheet, so long as she has nothing to offer up. If she testifies, she has to take off the mask and shows her face.

The clothes are part of their religious convictions and cultural beliefs and should be respected as such.

Even if I have contempt for those convictions and cultural beliefs?

Demanding that a woman remove her headscarf is ethnocentric and shows complete disregard for the cultural norms of others.

Tough crap. She doesn't like it, let her go home.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Argus

Argus · March 10, 2009

When and where women can cover there face might be a matter for debate, but all rape victims fall under the Rape Shield Law:
"A rape shield law in the United States of America and Canada is a law that limits a defendant's ability to cross-examine rape complainants about their past sexual behaviour. The term also refers to a law that prohibits the publication of the identity of an alleged rape victim."

She doesn't even have to be there or reveal her face or name. It's the law and has nothing to do with Muslim women.

As long as she has nothing to say by way of accusing the men involved. If they want to include a single thing from her, any written testimony of the activity in question, she has to be available for cross-examination. That means take off the bedsheet. It is very difficult to gauge the veracity of testimony in courts from people juries have never met. The face is a window to the soul, and tells much about the person giving testimony. We cannot allow people to hide behind spurious "cultural" traditions.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Argus

Argus · March 10, 2009

This is one of the stupidest things you've ever posted. Multiculturalism preserves minority cultures when faced with assimilation.

Hers is not a culture worth preserving.

Without multiculturalism, the minority ethnic groups would be assimilated by the larger and more influential majority groups from the area.

Good. No more women in bedsheets. No more men thinking any woman who wears short sleeve shirts is a whore. No more support for terrorism and extremist religious beliefs.

charter.rights · March 10, 2009

As long as she has nothing to say by way of accusing the men involved. If they want to include a single thing from her, any written testimony of the activity in question, she has to be available for cross-examination. That means take off the bedsheet. It is very difficult to gauge the veracity of testimony in courts from people juries have never met. The face is a window to the soul, and tells much about the person giving testimony. We cannot allow people to hide behind spurious "cultural" traditions.

You might want to look up the law - even the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - sunshine. She cannot be compelled to testify even if she is the victim.

Now that IS the law. If you don't like it then maybe you can leave, instead. I would rather have more people like of her and less of people like you in my country anyway.

Chuck U. Farlie · March 10, 2009

A post I made awhile back, but disappeared included:

I wonder why more criminals have not adopted the muslim look. It would be a perfect disguise including an excellent place to hide a weapon, especially in certain areas of the GTA where completely veiled women are a common site.

I wonder how the public would react to completely covered people then???

cybercoma · March 10, 2009

Well, lace up the jackboots and start marching to Ottawa. Argus is here.

Argus · March 10, 2009

You might want to look up the law - even the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - sunshine. She cannot be compelled to testify even if she is the victim.
Now that IS the law. If you don't like it then maybe you can leave, instead. I would rather have more people like of her and less of people like you in my country anyway.

I am constantly amused that someone who styles themselves "charter rights" clearly has never read the Charter and knows almost nothing about it. I mean, gross ignorance is unsurprising coming from the Left, but that level of ineptness in assessing your own qualities is simply laughable.

The belief you cannot be "compelled" to testify is nonsense. You testify or you're found in contempt of court and sent to jail.

You cannot be compelled to give evidence against yourself, but you certainly can be compelled to give testimony against others, including the people you yourself have accused.

And if you don't want to testify, the Crown will quite possibly allow you to avoid that obligation. But nothing you have complained about, nothing you've witnessed, nothing you've made any statements about can be admitted into evidence if you refuse to testify in support of it and submit to cross-examination. And that's the way it should be.

Argus · March 10, 2009

Well, lace up the jackboots and start marching to Ottawa. Argus is here.

How deliciously cliche'd of you! It must be so frustrating for you PC tongue-troopers whenever you run into reality. Not that most of you are ever willing to acknowledge reality, of course.