The right to face your accuser

[Molly]

I'm not even seeing it through the lens of freedom of religion-- the religious basis is doubtful, even if that is how one wants to argue it-- just, where, really, should that line be drawn? How important is this precept, and if it's so important, then why don't we go a little more whole-hog on backing it up?

Why all those other false images and not this one?

[Argus]

Other than showing a formal respect for the court by not showing up in cut-offs and a tank-top, I don't think a person's dress has any bearing on the proceedings. Those that believe the woman's face needs to be uncovered, so that the lawyers can authenticate the veracity of her testimony, are you implying that lawyers do not have the logical deductive reasoning skills to catch someone in a lie through questioning? I may not fully comprehend the reasons for women to be entirely covered head-to-toes, but if that's the way she shows her respect to the God and culture she believes in, then I defend her right to dress in this manner. The denial of her freedom of religion and expression, when it does not infringe upon the rights of others, should not happen in our civilized society. Unless someone can come up with a reason, equally as weighty as denying the fundamental rights, for denying these rights, the woman should be allowed to observe her religion and culture.

The reason is we don't put people in prison on the basis of testimony from hidden witnesses. Even when people testify against the Mafia from behind a screen the jurors are able to see them. As Kimmy says, we don't let people wear bags over their heads. There is no religious reason to wear a bedsheet everywhere you go. It is not a symbol of respect for their God it is a symbol of arrogance and contempt for the society around them, a symbol of separateness.

You lefties like to use terms like fundamental rights for absolutely EVERYTHING. "Why, it's my fundamental right to have a cookie at ten each morning! If you deny me you're violating my fundamental rights!"

There's nothing you DON'T believe isn't a fundamental right - unless of course, it's being done by people you dissaprove of. Then there are NO fundamental rights. "Free speehc? Nonsense! Free speech has its limits, you know!"

This is the fundamental hypocrisy of the Left.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Argus

[Oleg Bach]

Islamic males should just be honest and put the woman in a steel box. They could let her out to breed then put her back - It's not saying much of the sects that adhere to the black head to toe robe - Where did that originate? Was it because the Muslim male mind is so weak that the very sight of a female causes an errection that is uncontrolable?

[cybercoma]

The reason is we don't put people in prison on the basis of testimony from hidden witnesses. Even when people testify against the Mafia from behind a screen the jurors are able to see them. As Kimmy says, we don't let people wear bags over their heads. There is no religious reason to wear a bedsheet everywhere you go. It is not a symbol of respect for their God it is a symbol of arrogance and contempt for the society around them, a symbol of separateness.

You lefties like to use terms like fundamental rights for absolutely EVERYTHING. "Why, it's my fundamental right to have a cookie at ten each morning! If you deny me you're violating my fundamental rights!"

There's nothing you DON'T believe isn't a fundamental right - unless of course, it's being done by people you dissaprove of. Then there are NO fundamental rights. "Free speehc? Nonsense! Free speech has its limits, you know!"

This is the fundamental hypocrisy of the Left.

Except it is her right to observe the culture and religion she chooses. It's not a bag over her head and it's not arrogance and contempt for society. In fact, it's respect for society that they dress conservatively rather than strut around the streets looking like half-naked whores. The real contempt for society and arrogance is in Western society creating an idealized version of beauty that is nearly unattainable without some modification to the body (chemicals for hair colour, plastic surgeries, etc). The real contempt is that our wives and daughters are frequently nothing more than sex symbols.

You see Argus, your contempt for a culture works in both directions. If I did not find your opinions about their culture intolerable, than I would be unable to find the above opinions about our culture intolerable. You're no better than the very thing you're adamantly against. I'm sorry you don't see that.

[cybercoma]

Islamic males should just be honest and put the woman in a steel box. They could let her out to breed then put her back - It's not saying much of the sects that adhere to the black head to toe robe - Where did that originate? Was it because the Muslim male mind is so weak that the very sight of a female causes an errection that is uncontrolable?

Your post is completely sexist in that it implies Islamic women are forced in all cases by their husband to wear headscarves or to cover their faces. Although this is certainly true in some circumstances, it is not necessarily so. In fact, you're taking power away from the woman to choose. Believe it or not, there are some Islamic women that make the choice to cover themselves. They don't believe in objectifying themselves by dressing to the Western cultural standard. They are not comfortable with it and should not be forced to undress because women in our society choose to wear less clothing than they do. Forcing an Islamic woman to take off her head-covering is just as bad as forcing her to wear one. It should be her choice. Making her remove it, would be like asking a woman in our society to put it on. The awkwardness that someone from our culture would feel being suffocated by so much attire would be similar to the awkwardness felt by the Islamic woman forced to undress herself before strange men in a court room.

I truly can't believe the cultural insensitivity of people here. And this is clothing, not even something as complicated as female genital surgery.

[kimmy]

Those that believe the woman's face needs to be uncovered, so that the lawyers can authenticate the veracity of her testimony, are you implying that lawyers do not have the logical deductive reasoning skills to catch someone in a lie through questioning?

Are you intentionally being obtuse, or has this topic turned your usually sharp mind into babaganoush?

I am implying that covering her face reduces the ability of the jury to evaluate the truthfulness of her testimony. As should have been obvious.

Allowing witnesses to testify with face covered would increase their ability to give untruthful responses without being detected. A lawyer can do his job to a high standard of competence and still fail to achieve a just result if a witness is able to lie convincingly. Robbing the jury of one of the key tools in evaluating the truthfulness of the testimony will increase the likelihood of an unjust result.

Hey, why don't we let people testify by telephone?

Hey, ever wonder why when they let children testify in private sessions, they require *video* rather than just audio?

If this woman is allowed to testify with her face hidden and a conviction results, an appeal will be filed within seconds, and deservedly so.

I may not fully comprehend the reasons for women to be entirely covered head-to-toes, but if that's the way she shows her respect to the God and culture she believes in, then I defend her right to dress in this manner. The denial of her freedom of religion and expression, when it does not infringe upon the rights of others, should not happen in our civilized society. Unless someone can come up with a reason, equally as weighty as denying the fundamental rights, for denying these rights, the woman should be allowed to observe her religion and culture.

This man's right to a full and vigorous legal defense against the charges against him absolutely outweighs her right to wear a bag over her head. There are absolutely times when society's well-being outweighs the right to observe religious practices, and this is certainly one of them.

The Sikhs accept restrictions on their kirpans.

If the Jehovah's Witness want to prevent their children from receiving life-saving medical treatment, tough noogies.

The bigamists and child-abusers at Bountiful are heading to court.

The College of Physicians doesn't let immigrants cut the clitorises off of young girls.

I could go on.

If I have to balance the idea that a person could spend years in jail due to false testimony against the possibility that God will be angry at someone for breaching religious convention for an afternoon, our greater concern must be with the possibility that our legal system

This is a secular society with secular law. The legal system must first and foremost concern itself with its own integrity. This woman and her god will have to settle accounts on their own time.

If she were a Christian, I would tell her "render unto Caesar."

Since she is a Muslim, I guess the relevant Hadith is probably something along the lines of "WAHHHHHHHHHH."

That's the same point I was getting at, Rue.

Glasses? Makeup? Wigs? False teeth? At what point do we believe we've truly revealed the individual?

(Don't laugh at the false teeth thing. The shape, number and condition of teeth have HUGE implications with regard to the credibility of the person wearing them... Consider perfect, pretty teeth, vs. gumming , vs. 3 in the front, vs. buck teeth...)

Dressing a South Surrey gangland wannabe in a suit might remove prejudices that his normal manner of dress would invite.

However, it does nothing to enhances his ability to lie convincingly.

I am deeply disappointed that people apparently can't recognize the difference.

Unless we eliminate ALL image manipulations, centring on this one of neutral covering is.... very doubtful.

Since there's shades of grey, we as a society aren't allowed to stand up for any principle, even one as critical as the right to a full legal defense?

What a snivelling, spineless, gutless, cowardly, pusillanimous, and typically Canadian thing to say.

-k

[kimmy]

Was it because the Muslim male mind is so weak that the very sight of a female causes an errection that is uncontrolable?

Essentially, yes. The conservative garb is required to keep males from doing sinful things.

The Australian cleric who famously likened Western women to "uncovered pieces of meat", and asked who would blame dogs for attacking uncovered pieces of meat by way of excusing rape is a good example.

Women are held to be to blame for "zina" (that is, sex outside of marriage) because women "control the tools of seduction" as a cleric put it recently. (I think this was discussed in the "rape victim stoned to death" thread.)

Obviously, we can only come to the conclusion that Muslim men are unable to control themselves. If their own clerics liken them to dogs, who are we to disagree?

-k

[cybercoma]

And what of the full beard example given earlier? What if a person has a full beard and large rimmed glasses on? What difference is there between that and the Islamic veil?

[kimmy]

I truly can't believe the cultural insensitivity of people here. And this is clothing, not even something as complicated as female genital surgery.

How is female genital mutilation a remotely complicated issue?

-k

[kimmy]

And what of the full beard example given earlier? What if a person has a full beard and large rimmed glasses on? What difference is there between that and the Islamic veil?

Well, that's gotta be some helluva beard and some seriously fugly glasses, but if a witness's beard and glasses disguise his face to that extent, a defendant's lawyer is free to make the same argument.

I don't see how providing some alternate scenario that could achieve the same effect makes this issue any less clear.

This is an interference in the right to mount a defense, probably the most paramount right we have. If our judges are so fucking cowardly that they would back down on that, it is time to round up a mob and set fire to the law courts.

-k

[Riverwind]

I truly can't believe the cultural insensitivity of people here. And this is clothing, not even something as complicated as female genital surgery.

Male circumcision has been practiced for centuries and not many western people have a big problem with it but I could see how other cultures would find the practice barbaric.

Showing tolerance for other cultures is admirable but at the end of the day we do need to set boundaries and reject certain cultural practices because they violate our fundemental social values. For many people the veil is a tool used to repress women and deserves to be put in the category of unacceptable cultural practice. We can go back and forth on whether it crosses that arbitrary line but it is important to remember that the line is arbitrary and there is no objective way to determine what should be accepted and what should be rejected.

It is worth remembering that we use to have laws that required a wife to lay charges against an abusive spouse but we changed those because we recognized that the power imbalance in a relationship made it impossible for some woman to stand up to their spouse. The same power imbalance issue comes up with the "choice" to wear a viel so I don't think it is reasonable to presume that a woman is really making the choice of her own free will.

Edited March 18, 2009 by Riverwind

[Molly]

Stow the pejoratives, Kimmy. You can make the case without 'em, or explain why you feel that way while using 'em, but to just expostulate adds nothing but colourful words to the discussion.

__________________________________________

If a visible face, even if intensely disguised, is so essential to ascertaining truthfulness, should the blind, or even the squinty, then be ineligible for jury duty?

(Likely let's me off that hook for jury duty. )

[kimmy]

If a visible face, even if intensely disguised, is so essential to ascertaining truthfulness, should the blind, or even the squinty, then be ineligible for jury duty?

(Likely let's me off that hook for jury duty. )

While yourself and cybercoma have searched high and low for non-niqab related situations that could likewise impair a juror, you've both utterly failed to address the fundamental issue, a defendant's right to a fair trial.

-k

[Molly]

How? By daring to explore what it takes to reach ' fair'?

To suggest that there's such a thing as fairness to victims, too? If a victim won't come forward because prosecution is as traumatic as the assault, that's going beyond 'fair trial' for the accused to giving them immunity!

By wondering about our cultural norms, questioning the consistency of some of our assumptions, or wondering what it might feel like if the shoe was on the other foot?

Look, I'm darned uncomfortable about Islamic coverings, but I choose not to knee-jerk into wholesale condemnation of them without first clarifying for myself what it is that I'm reacting to. To do that, I have to question some nuances.

I'm not completely convinced that jurors need to see faces-- but neither am I unconvinced.

Nor am I engaged in 'debate', assuming a particular POV. The point here, for me, is to talk about it, and perhaps come to a better understanding.

You seem to have established conviction about it... so... convince me.

[Oleg Bach]

There are the multi-culturalists and there are the assimulationalists. Those that want assimulation usually do not want it for the fact that it may create equality. They want it out of sheer spite and a need for domination. Perhaps they get glee out of insulting a Muslim woman and expect them to strip down and bare some ass in short shorts on a summer day so they can oggle some hidden and exotic booty. Utlitarian thinkers dispise human dignity - as some dispise woman that will not enter into western style whoredom..that creates equality in the most base way.

[guyser]

I'm not completely convinced that jurors need to see faces-- but neither am I unconvinced.

Allowing witnesses to testify with face covered would increase their ability to give untruthful responses without being detected. A lawyer can do his job to a high standard of competence and still fail to achieve a just result if a witness is able to lie convincingly. Robbing the jury of one of the key tools in evaluating the truthfulness of the testimony will increase the likelihood of an unjust result.

Jurors do not have to see anyones face. We ask blind people to be jurors do we not?

In fact, no one has a right to see anyones face, although a judge can ask

The idea that one has the right to see the face of the accuser is false. One has the right to face his accuser , but that is entirely different.

The court can easily determine who that is under the veil, the beard or the bandages from surgery.

[DrGreenthumb]

I'm not going to read this whole thread, just poppin in to drop an opinion bomb and see what happens. I think any religious freedom to cover one's face is left at the courthouse door. A person should always have a right to face their accuser, and the judge, attornies, and the jury all need to be able to see any witness's face to determine truthfullness, and sincerity. The justice system should be swayed by nobodies religious beliefs.

I would go farther than banning head coverings in court. I would ban the use of evidence provided by anonymous witnessess, and outlaw the granting of warrants based on anonymous (crimestoppers) tips. (except in cases where there is a very serious threat to the public, like a bomb, not a possibility of a house containing potted plants.) A person has a right to know who their accuser is, and to look them in the eye in court when they are making those accusations. We shouldn't let amateur cop/citizens go around investigating their neighbors, and then provide evidence to law enforcement that would require a warrant to get if the police had to get that evidence themselves. That is a circumvention of the right to free from unreasonable search. If a citizen wants to investigate his neighbor he should have to get permission from a judge just like a cop would.

[Oleg Bach]

I'm not going to read this whole thread, just poppin in to drop an opinion bomb and see what happens. I think any religious freedom to cover one's face is left at the courthouse door. A person should always have a right to face their accuser, and the judge, attornies, and the jury all need to be able to see any witness's face to determine truthfullness, and sincerity. The justice system should be swayed by nobodies religious beliefs.

I would go farther than banning head coverings in court. I would ban the use of evidence provided by anonymous witnessess, and outlaw the granting of warrants based on anonymous (crimestoppers) tips. (except in cases where there is a very serious threat to the public, like a bomb, not a possibility of a house containing potted plants.) A person has a right to know who their accuser is, and to look them in the eye in court when they are making those accusations. We shouldn't let amateur cop/citizens go around investigating their neighbors, and then provide evidence to law enforcement that would require a warrant to get if the police had to get that evidence themselves. That is a circumvention of the right to free from unreasonable search. If a citizen wants to investigate his neighbor he should have to get permission from a judge just like a cop would.

Some times the accuser is a collective corporate entity and you may see a dozen faces in the court room and the real accuser sits in private in his boardroom never to be seen. Nor do you know who the accuser is but he still controls the process.

Also: I don't know what the hell you are talking about - For instance ---- have a loud party - or maybe a quiet one - Have a nasty neighbour who calls the cops out of spite to invade your home and shut down the festivities even if joyful and civilized...You ask the cop.... "Who sent you and who is the complainant (accuser) and he will NOT tell you - This is just like not seeing the face of the accuser but not even knowing who they are - this is done all the time - the accuser can lie - and harm you ------whether they be hidden behind a fence or vail - so I don't see your point - persecutive actions are common practice and law enforcement can be used to harm innocent people - who do not get the right to counter the accuser.

[Cuzzin E]

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?

What about in child-rape cases, or any other crime involving serious emotional trauma? It would only cause further stress & harm to the victim to be forced to face their accused.

[guyser]

I'm not going to read this whole thread, just poppin in to drop an opinion bomb and see what happens. I think any religious freedom to cover one's face is left at the courthouse door.

If only that were the case law.

A person should always have a right to face their accuser, and the judge, attornies, and the jury all need to be able to see any witness's face to determine truthfullness, and sincerity. The justice system should be swayed by nobodies religious beliefs.

You have a right to face, not a right to see the face.

. I would ban the use of evidence provided by anonymous witnessess,

It already is, and is called 'hearsay'. Not allowed in court.

and outlaw the granting of warrants based on anonymous (crimestoppers) tips.

Already is. You really, of all people, should be up on this.

, and to look them in the eye in court when they are making those accusations.

Nope.No right exists.

We shouldn't let amateur cop/citizens go around investigating their neighbors, and then provide evidence to law enforcement that would require a warrant to get if the police had to get that evidence themselves. That is a circumvention of the right to free from unreasonable search. If a citizen wants to investigate his neighbor he should have to get permission from a judge just like a cop would.

Again, you should know the answers to this.

People can do what they want, investigate all they want.They are accountable to our laws at all times. So no worries there.

Unreasonable search is against the law, so why confuse the issue?

I can investigate you all I want. Public records, internet searches, paid data searches ,hire an investigator all legal and above board. You should already know this.

[DrGreenthumb]

If only that were the case law.

You have a right to face, not a right to see the face.

It already is, and is called 'hearsay'. Not allowed in court.

Already is. You really, of all people, should be up on this.

Nope.No right exists.

Again, you should know the answers to this.

People can do what they want, investigate all they want.They are accountable to our laws at all times. So no worries there.

Unreasonable search is against the law, so why confuse the issue?

I can investigate you all I want. Public records, internet searches, paid data searches ,hire an investigator all legal and above board. You should already know this.

I , of all people Do already know this. Why the hell do you think I'm saying it should be banned? If it was banned already it wouldn't make much sense to say i think it should be banned?

Crimestoppers tips ARE used to get warrants all the time, I personally know people who have had their homes ransacked by cops on the basis of crimestoppers tips. Why would want to mislead people about that?

You may not have the legal right to "see" the face of your accuser but you should have. Lies are most often given away by a person's eye movements, facial expressions, and inability to make eye contact while lying.

Even in cases where the victim is a child, the accused should still have the right to be accused face to face. Someone accused of hurting a child should be facing a long period of incarceration, and so we must make sure that they are truly guilty before we find them so. Don't give me any bullshit about how children are honest either, I have 3 of my own, and I've sure been told a lot of whoppers when they are trying to escape taking responsiblity for something they done.

[DrGreenthumb]

Also: I don't know what the hell you are talking about - For instance ---- have a loud party - or maybe a quiet one - Have a nasty neighbour who calls the cops out of spite to invade your home and shut down the festivities even if joyful and civilized...You ask the cop.... "Who sent you and who is the complainant (accuser) and he will NOT tell you - This is just like not seeing the face of the accuser but not even knowing who they are - this is done all the time - the accuser can lie - and harm you ------whether they be hidden behind a fence or vail - so I don't see your point - persecutive actions are common practice and law enforcement can be used to harm innocent people - who do not get the right to counter the accuser.

Oleg that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about, a person should always be made aware of who is making a complaint against them. If they are going to have their freedom infringed upon, or be forced to discontinue some activity because "someone" has complained I think they SHOULD HAVE the right to know who is doing the complaining. That might encourage some busybodies to mind their own business.

Example: I slept with this woman in my building a couple of times years ago, well we never actually slept, but that story is innapropriate for this forum. She wanted some kind of committment and I only wanted the not-sleeping. I told her that we shouldn't see each other anymore because we wanted different things from the relationship. Soon after that I would have the cops arriving at my apartment every other day responding to "noise complaints" if even my TV was on. This went on and on, and I was threatened with fines etc. In the 3 years I lived there previously I had never had one complaint. Eventually i just decided it wasn't worth the headache and moved out.

Edited March 18, 2009 by DrGreenthumb

[Oleg Bach]

Oleg that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about, a person should always be made aware of who is making a complaint against them. If they are going to have their freedom infringed upon, or be forced to discontinue some activity because "someone" has complained I think they SHOULD HAVE the right to know who is doing the complaining. That might encourage some busybodies to mind their own business.

Example: I slept with this woman in my building a couple of times years ago, well we never actually slept, but that story is innapropriate for this forum. She wanted some kind of committment and I only wanted the not-sleeping. I told her that we shouldn't see each other anymore because we wanted different things from the relationship. Soon after that I would have the cops arriving at my apartment every other day responding to "noise complaints" if even my TV was on. This went on and on, and I was threatened with fines etc. In the 3 years I lived there previously I had never had one complaint. Eventually i just decided it wasn't worth the headache and moved out.

You can be a fine father and some mean spirited person who hates you because you are honourable and want nothing to do with them - can make the secret call and before you know it..someone is taking your kids out the door with a police escort to some shelter because some secret accusation was made to you - and that person maknig the accusation does not have to be identified... Or someone knows you are a pot smoker and they make a call that you have a grow op...you may not be busted for the non-existant crimminal grow operation - but law enforcement will have to bust you for the joint.

Point being - I understand your story and know these things take place...If YOU knew who the accuser was at least you could nip the abuse in the bud...You could quickly give investagators your side of the story regarding the motivation of the accuser and avoid a court appearance.

For instance if your accusers identiy is made available - then you can say "I know this person - but not personally - they are drug addicted and unsavory and I rejected them from my social circle and did not welcome them into my home - this person now hates me and wishes to harm me .......at least some perspective could take place- some balance - Not to know who your accuser is allows them great power over you - People - law enforcement and the court are always willing to believe the worst before the best - I can pick up the phone and say to some authority - Joe next door is kicking and starving his dog - and I hear children crying - I think he is sodomizing the children ============== YOUR LIFE WOULD BE RUINED AND YOU WOULD NEVER RECOVER - AND I the accuser can walk away feeling smug and powerful'

They mythical Satan figure was oringally like a heavenly crown attorney - He was refered to as the accuser - and he did a good job - but he got overly ambitious and started to falsely accuse human beings of sins - this was the beginging of the break down of that other dimentional society ...If the devil is going to accuse you - then I want to see his damned face! You are right..the mask must come off the Muslim - If they are going to be in our courts - if not - stay out of OUR courts and send you brother with a baseball bat to correct the offender.

[cybercoma]

I'm amazed that people are completely unwilling to understand and explore cultural differences. Everyone should follow Western ethnocentric traditions. Native people should be put in resident schools, Inuit should stop clubbing seals and Muslim women should stop wearing head coverings. Our way of life is not necessarily the best way of life for everyone. Maybe we should live off the land, instead of giving up our freedom to a capital system, and perhaps Western women should stop debasing themselves by dressing sexually suggestive around strangers. Maybe. Maybe not. People should be able to live the life they choose, so long as it doesn't forcibly infringe upon the freedoms of others. And honestly, I'm unconvinced that a trial will be more "fair" because the jurors can see the face of the accuser. Two important questions have been raised: what if a juror is blind and what if the accuser is a corporate entity. I'm sorry, but the opinions of some on here seem to be a little too ethnocentric Islamophobic for me.

[guyser]

I , of all people Do already know this. Why the hell do you think I'm saying it should be banned? If it was banned already it wouldn't make much sense to say i think it should be banned?

Wow, ask for something to be banned, and it already is, makes me the goat ? Do explain.

In particular...this statement.."I would ban the use of evidence provided by anonymous witnessess"....meaning you would ban that which is already banned? Um ok ....

Crimestoppers tips ARE used to get warrants all the time, I personally know people who have had their homes ransacked by cops on the basis of crimestoppers tips. Why would want to mislead people about that?

Dont know why you would say I am misleading when in fact I am correct.But that is patently false (ransakced by crim stopper tips). If I am wrong prove it.

You may not have the legal right to "see" the face of your accuser but you should have. Lies are most often given away by a person's eye movements, facial expressions, and inability to make eye contact while lying.

Keep going , I am blind, so now what? My accuser is covered in bandages, now what? the judge allows a veil now what?

Even in cases where the victim is a child, the accused should still have the right to be accused face to face.

Lordy dont be so thick. They are and they do. Who has said they dont?

Someone accused of hurting a child should be facing a long period of incarceration, and so we must make sure that they are truly guilty before we find them so.

Irrelevant

Don't give me any bullshit about how children are honest either, I have 3 of my own, and I've sure been told a lot of whoppers when they are trying to escape taking responsiblity for something they done.

Irrelevant.