The right to face your accuser

[Molly]

I wonder how many Christian outfits still use the sort of dress code I grew up with. Ladies wouldn't enter a church, or often be seen in 'dressup' public without a hat, preferably, ONE WITH A netted VEIL covering at least the eyes. Short sleeves were questionable, too, even for us kids.

I know that the Catholic branch that one of my daughters best buds belongs to demands very high level modesty: no bright colors, dresses always, and always too long, with neckline to wrists firmly covered. A lot like Hutterites/Mennonites and so on. I wonder if we would demand that a Hutterite woman remove her scarf in court, or whether the outrage is reserved for followers of Islam?

Question: Is this woman 'the accuser', or merely the complainant? If the latter, the judge erred. There is only conversation to be had if she is the former.

[Muddy]

I wonder how many Christian outfits still use the sort of dress code I grew up with. Ladies wouldn't enter a church, or often be seen in 'dressup' public without a hat, preferably, ONE WITH A netted VEIL covering at least the eyes. Short sleeves were questionable, too, even for us kids.

I know that the Catholic branch that one of my daughters best buds belongs to demands very high level modesty: no bright colors, dresses always, and always too long, with neckline to wrists firmly covered. A lot like Hutterites/Mennonites and so on. I wonder if we would demand that a Hutterite woman remove her scarf in court, or whether the outrage is reserved for followers of Islam?

Question: Is this woman 'the accuser', or merely the complainant? If the latter, the judge erred. There is only conversation to be had if she is the former.

If this was a Christian women and was asked to help the court by removing a hat,scarf or veil there would be no argument. That was a silly switch and bait argument on your part.

But I must admit ,I liked the hat, a veil topped off with gloves of yesterday on a women. But it certainly was not dictated by Christian extremists. It was fashion.

[Oleg Bach]

The Russian babushka kerchief was worn for the same reason that Muslim woman cover the hair. Before you entered a church it was hats off for the men and hats on for the Christian orthodox ladies. Yes if you asked baba to take off her kerchief while on the stand - no problem. That would be because her will to do what is correct under God out weighs her will to maintain tradition. Where as the Muslim ladies will to maintain tradition out weighs the common sense that should state - I will make a sacrafice of my tradition in order to assist in the conviction of an destructive man. The approach thus far for his Muslim woman who is non-compliant to doing the right thing - seems to be - a very selfish and arrogant one - that may let a man go free to be free to harm others.

[Muddy]

The Russian babushka kerchief was worn for the same reason that Muslim woman cover the hair. Before you entered a church it was hats off for the men and hats on for the Christian orthodox ladies. Yes if you asked baba to take off her kerchief while on the stand - no problem. That would be because her will to do what is correct under God out weighs her will to maintain tradition. Where as the Muslim ladies will to maintain tradition out weighs the common sense that should state - I will make a sacrafice of my tradition in order to assist in the conviction of an destructive man. The approach thus far for his Muslim woman who is non-compliant to doing the right thing - seems to be - a very selfish and arrogant one - that may let a man go free to be free to harm others.

Absolutely correct! Besides the hiding of the female face behind a veil is just that, tradition in the Muslom world . It is not a religious thing.

[M.Dancer]

If this was a Christian women and was asked to help the court by removing a hat,scarf or veil there would be no argument.

She would certainly not be asked to remove her hat or scarf. Ettiqute says that a woman may wear a headcovering indoors while a man may not.

By and large, women are generally exempt from all of the preceeding rules, particulalrly if their hat is fastened (pinned or clipped) to their hair and difficult to remove easily. Therefore, women are and were allowed to wear a hat in a church, a courtroom or at a funeral.. prettty much anywhere a man would not wear a hat, even today.

http://www.bcvc.net/hats/

[GostHacked]

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

On a lighter note, there are plenty of fashion shows that are telling us what and what not to wear .

All faces uncovered in the courtroom. Welcome to Canada.

[cybercoma]

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.

Your ethnocentrism is hardly reality. It's the type of closed-minded hatred that has lead to some of the worst atrocities this world has ever known. I'm sure you believe your "pride" is innocuous though. In all of what you said, the sheer irony is that the same can be said from any culture to another, but you don't subject your own culture to the same scrutiny. Yeah, maybe my comment was cliched and ridiculous, but not any more so than the bitter intolerance you display regularly.

[Argus]

Your ethnocentrism is hardly reality.

Ethnocentrism? Does that mean I think our culture is more advanced, more open, and better in almost every way to what exists in the likes of Saudi Arabia and Iran? Guilty as charged!

Sorry. It's this thing called "good judgement" I've been cursed with much of my life. If you ever discover any, you'll understand.

It's the type of closed-minded hatred that has lead to some of the worst atrocities this world has ever known.

Drivel. And ironic that someone as close-minded as you uses it as a pejorative term for others. PC zealots like you are anything BUT open minded.

I'm sure you believe your "pride" is innocuous though. In all of what you said, the sheer irony is that the same can be said from any culture to another, but you don't subject your own culture to the same scrutiny.

I subject anyone and everyone and everything to the same scrutiny with the same standards for all. That's what infuriates the politically correct, who always make special allowances for minorities. Again, it's ironic that the reason you do this is you consider them and their cultures inferior, but can't bring yourself to admit it. Whereas people like me who judge them on the same standards as I judge anyone else, you refer to as bigoted in some way. Sorry, doesn't wash.

Yeah, maybe my comment was cliched and ridiculous, but not any more so than the bitter intolerance you display regularly.

We're just intolerant about different things. I'm intollerant towards societies and cultures which are filled with violence, hatred, and primitive bigotry, and those who embrace those cultures. You're intollerent towards anyone you percieve to be criticising minorities for any reason whatsoever.

[Molly]

Ahhh Muddy-- it wasn't an argument. Just a (should have been kept private) contemplation. Any 'point' was bound in the final paragraph... "Was this woman 'the accuser' or merely the complainant?" To my mind, that makes a difference.

I'm still contemplating, though, the two continuums of facial coverings and religious vs. traditional activities.

Certainly the wearing of hats and veils was, in the 50's and 60's, fashion-- AND a 'tradition'/social expectation--- but I also know that my mother would have been acutely uncomfortable to enter, particularly, a church without a head-covering. She would have felt vulnerable, and been embarrassed to a degree similar to a present -day 20 year-old being requred to doff her shirt in public. I'm just wondering how fair it is to ask this, particularly under circumstances under which embarrassment and vulnerability are already enough to drive one away entirely. Whether it is deemed fair or not, it certainly isn't kind, and shouldn't be dismissed cavalierly, as though it is meaningless. It risks, at very least, treading on someones moral code, and that's not small beans.

But where in that does fashion become morality, since the 'rightness' of modesty and 'wrongness' of immodesty is part and parcel of both fashion and morality---and where, further inside that, does morality become religious conviction, since modesty=morality and morality is defined by so many as religious conviction? Is it fashion, tradition, moral stricture or religious rule that prevents me from leaving the house without my pants? (And would the correct answer for me be the same correct answer for you?) I find it a puzzle.

Further to that, while we object to burka, and even the facial veil, hats and scarves are maybe okay.... and I can put on a batch of makeup that would prevent you ever knowing what I look like. Many, many, many folks dye their hair (or wear wigs) wear false teeth, and glasses (some even with deeply coloured lenses) that seriously alter the look of and cover most of their face.... What criteria should we be using to decide what is and is not allowed? Appearance can misrepresent as easily as truthfully present a person. Some defendants, for instance 'clean up real good'.

So, I wonder how much of the question is based in cultural unfamiliarity (pointedly NOT using 'Islamophobia', because I don't think it extends that far except for a few people) rather than reason.

I don;t have the answers. Just questions.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Molly

[cybercoma]

Argus, the difference here is that you're not condemning a society, culture or laws. The thread is about a woman being covered. You're being bigoted towards an individual's innocent expression of respect for her God and religion. The violence, brutality and hatred that exist in those societies are quite separate from this issue and rightfully deserve to be condemned. However, your disgusting display of hatred towards an individual's freedom of religious expression, that does not infringe on the freedoms of anyone else, should also be condemned. I guess I'm intolerant of intolerance, pity.

Edited March 11, 2009 by cybercoma

[Argus]

Argus, the difference here is that you're not condemning a society, culture or laws. The thread is about a woman being covered. You're being bigoted towards an individual's innocent expression of respect for her God and religion.

That's simply nonsense. She is bowing to a custom, not a religious requirement. Most of those societies which currently wear these face shields, these bedsheets, didn't wear them a generation or two ago. They've gotten more conservative over there, not less, and women have been pressured - forced - beaten into covering themsleves in these black funeral garments by the morons who set the guidelines for those cultures. Well too bad she's decided to buy into that women-are-dangerous-and-evil bullshit in the last year or so and thrown on a bedsheet to hide herself lest she arouse men. But the necessity of being able to look an accuser in the eyes does not get overruled by ridiculous cultural beliefs in the hazards of looking upon a female face in this country.

The violence, brutality and hatred that exist in those societies are quite separate from this issue and rightfully deserve to be condemned.

No, they ARE the issue, and her deciding to cover her putrid, disgusting, evil, dangerous female body and face, as dictated by the ignorant goat-herds who set the standards in those societies is also an issue.

However, your disgusting display of hatred towards an individual's freedom of religious expression, that does not infringe on the freedoms of anyone else, should also be condemned. I guess I'm intolerant of intolerance, pity.

Like the rest of the PC police, you are intollerent only of white people and Christians. Everyone else gets a free pass, except when directly confronted, where you make an uncomfortable lip-service "oh yes, they deserve condemnation" kind of aside, then turn your eyes away lest someone think ill of you for daring to criticise someone else's culture, especially the culture of brown-skinned people.

[M.Dancer]

is there a link yet to this story?

Anyway, I stand on the side of time honoured tradition and precedent. The victim need not face the accused...the accused already faces the accuser..which in all cases of criminal law, it is the Crown.

[Oleg Bach]

is there a link yet to this story?

Anyway, I stand on the side of time honoured tradition and precedent. The victim need not face the accused...the accused already faces the accuser..which in all cases of criminal law, it is the Crown.

Face the accuser does not mean literally look at the face..It means to clearly idenify the accuser by name and personage..so the accused knows EXACTLY where the charge originates and that a fair playing field is ensured by this so the accused can mount a full and fair defence. If there is a problem with the clear identity of the accuser - then let three people who know her - take the stand to verify via oral testimony and sworn affidavit that it is the person --- Then proceed - problem solved - so far this has been an attack against Muslim culture - if you want to see a face - let three faces be shown and sworn. NEXT!

[GostHacked]

Face the accuser does not mean literally look at the face..It means to clearly idenify the accuser by name and personage..so the accused knows EXACTLY where the charge originates and that a fair playing field is ensured by this so the accused can mount a full and fair defence. If there is a problem with the clear identity of the accuser - then let three people who know her - take the stand to verify via oral testimony and sworn affidavit that it is the person --- Then proceed - problem solved - so far this has been an attack against Muslim culture - if you want to see a face - let three faces be shown and sworn. NEXT!

Cause it could be ANYONE under that burqa (bedsheets to the ignorant) even a man. I like to hear testimony first hand, not something that can be purple monkey dishwasher'd through proxies.

All faces uncovered in the court room. I don't care who you are.

[Oleg Bach]

Cause it could be ANYONE under that burqa (bedsheets to the ignorant) even a man. I like to hear testimony first hand, not something that can be purple monkey dishwasher'd through proxies.

All faces uncovered in the court room. I don't care who you are.

What? Those eyes peering out through the tank gun slits were the sexy eyes of a man? Maybe the attack was induced by some sort of homo-errotic man crush - You know how it is - some woman have female parts by the minds of males --- I would say that maybe it was a gay Muslim hate crime....."purple monkey dishwasher....let it rip buddy - let it all out... - I see your point - If some sob is going to put my life on the line and possible suck out 5 to ten years in a prison box - I want to have a damned good look at not just the eyes but the whole person....at least I would have the opportunity to make them flinch and see that flinch if they were bearing false witness....Judges and the accused have the right to study the face of the accuser.

It is important to note that some lawyers are very shrewd - a judge must observe the person on the stand and study each reaction ---- just out of interest let me tell you a story.

I was on the stand - the questioning lawyer requested that she adjust the position of her podium - the jerk takes the podium and shifts it all the way over to the far left wall - like almost against the wall - a podium must be fairly centred - I figured out what she was doing - she was angling my face away from the oberving judge..so the judge could only see the back of my head and not see the expressions or reactions to the questions.

All that was left for the judge to observe was the expressions on the face of the questioning lawyer - in effect she became me - She would ask the question and then make a face - It was very clever - I request of the judge to put the podium back to where it belonged....seeing the face of all in the room is very important - It was kind of cute...the lawyer would ask if I was happy about something taking place - then SHE would make the sadest cow eyed expression imaginable - The dumb judge translated her experession as being a reflection of mine when it was NOT -

[guyser]

Cause it could be ANYONE under that burqa (bedsheets to the ignorant) even a man. I like to hear testimony first hand, not something that can be purple monkey dishwasher'd through proxies.

All faces uncovered in the court room. I don't care who you are.

Seems a few missed this......

dancer

Anyway, I stand on the side of time honoured tradition and precedent. The victim need not face the accused...the accused already faces the accuser..which in all cases of criminal law, it is the Crown

[Oleg Bach]

Seems a few missed this......

Canadian Crowns are a tough and ambitous lot. They NEED to convict - no matter what - innocent or guilty it does not matter to them. I was stunned during a private conversation with a head Crown...I said "You know there is no evidence against this man - you know and I know he is innocent" The Crown appears to get emotional and blurts out " It is policy" - what the heck...convict regardless of guilt. No matter who faces the accuser or does not face them - The Crown will have his or her - pound of flesh - It's a wonderful and Draconian ancient system....Makes Sharia law look civilized. Maybe that is why they do not want to allow Sharia law in Canada ...because it will reveal that the Muslims are more just than we are...or maybe just more austere?

[guyser]

I was stunned during a private conversation with a head Crown...I said..blah blah

Is there anyone in the justice system you havent talked to? We get it, you lost and are bitter.

[kimmy]

Cause it could be ANYONE under that burqa (bedsheets to the ignorant) even a man. I like to hear testimony first hand, not something that can be purple monkey dishwasher'd through proxies.

All faces uncovered in the court room. I don't care who you are.

Even if some other means were provided to conclusively identify the individual under the tent, I think people should be able to see a person's face as they deliver testimony. People say as much with their facial expressions as they say with their voice. Being able to see this woman's facial expressions when she delivers her testimony is integral to the man's right to a legal defense.

I would feel the same about a white-person attempting to testify from behind oversized dark sunglasses and a hat. It's supposed to be a court of law, not the World Series of Poker.

I have no sympathy for any of this, or any of the other demands the burqa brigade have made over the past few years. Wear a bag over your head in your drivers license or passport photo? No. Wear a bag over your head when you report to the polling station? No.

Most Muslims don't even believe women should wear bags over their heads. Bending over backward to accommodate the few who do seems about as sensible as allowing the Snakehandlers to take their poisonous reptiles around town with them.

-k

[Rue]

Is there anyone in the justice system you havent talked to? We get it, you lost and are bitter.

Me thinks he is watching to many Law and Order Sex Crime unit reruns.

[Rue]

Even if some other means were provided to conclusively identify the individual under the tent, I think people should be able to see a person's face as they deliver testimony. People say as much with their facial expressions as they say with their voice. Being able to see this woman's facial expressions when she delivers her testimony is integral to the man's right to a legal defense.

I would feel the same about a white-person attempting to testify from behind oversized dark sunglasses and a hat. It's supposed to be a court of law, not the World Series of Poker.

Can't argue with what you said. I agree with it. Problem is K you know what I can do as a lawyer to argue against what you said. I can stand up and say why don't we ask people to shave their beards then adn take off their turbans-how do you define what constitutes a level playing field?

See the problem. The woman in your scenario will say but you can see here eyes. If you want to see her whole face then you will have to apply the same standard to all, i.e., everyone must have a clean unobsructe face.

Now me I am on record as stating I have anyone with a beard, man or woman.

On a more serious note I agree with you unfortunately its easier said then done. Knowing where to draw the line gets absurd at times.

I personally do not believe this is a religious issue simply an issue of freedom of choice and I do think the law has to draw the line and say no there comes a time when the best interests of justice transcends in importance certain individual rights and in this case I just do not see keeping the face covered as a crucial element of preserving individual freedom.

I am also serious. I wonder sometimes if we demand an unobstructed face what do we do with someone with a beard?

Your thoughts?

[Molly]

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...)

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

Edited March 17, 2009 by Molly

[Argus]

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...)

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

I don't think wearing false teeth, a wig or a beard makes it easier to lie convincingly. Hiding under a bedsheet, however, is altogether a different level of concealment, especially when you're probably speaking a foreign language to begin with, so that an interpeter often has to repeat your words in English.

[Molly]

Come into my makeup room. Would you like to be a CEO, or a bum? 15 years older, or 15 years younger?

It's EASY to make your appearance into an outright lie.

[cybercoma]

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.