Ontario Approves Witnesses in Burkas

[grainfedprairieboy]

What a goofy country this is, and I'm the guy who is in favour of the right of men to force women to wear Burkas or for women to choose to wear them or whatever the real reason is and I can't understand this ruling that is supposed to make everyone happy on both sides of the debate.

When it comes to bank lines, airport security, drivers license photos etc, Christ, is there no common sense left in this country?

Enter the madness

[guyser]

Edit the title. The court didnt.

[grainfedprairieboy]

Edit the title. The court didnt.

Sure it did, it left it open to interpretation on a case by case basis so that means at some point some woman (or man) will be sitting there behind a veil and the court will have to take it on faith.

How else do you read the ruling?

[guyser]

Sure it did, it left it open to interpretation on a case by case basis so that means at some point some woman (or man) will be sitting there behind a veil and the court will have to take it on faith.

How else do you read the ruling?

I read it as it is. They did not "approve " it. They quashed the judges ruling and they left it open to the preliminary judge. They readily acknowledge that some courts wont approve depending on the situation.

I shall quote your link.............

"However, in its 3-0 decision Wednesday, the Ontario Court of Appeal stopped short of saying the woman can give evidence in front of a jury with most of her face shielded by a head scarf."

I believe that means you should amend your title

[ToadBrother]

What a goofy country this is, and I'm the guy who is in favour of the right of men to force women to wear Burkas or for women to choose to wear them or whatever the real reason is and I can't understand this ruling that is supposed to make everyone happy on both sides of the debate.

When it comes to bank lines, airport security, drivers license photos etc, Christ, is there no common sense left in this country?

Enter the madness

Um, the court ruled that burkas could be read, but where there is any question as to whether the accused can get a fair trial, the judge can order the witness to uncover their face.

What exactly is your problem with the ruling?

[ToadBrother]

Sure it did, it left it open to interpretation on a case by case basis so that means at some point some woman (or man) will be sitting there behind a veil and the court will have to take it on faith.

How else do you read the ruling?

How is this different from countless other areas where a judge has discretion over what goes on in his or her courtroom? I don't think you want judges at all, you want machines that barf out "Guilty" or "Innocent".

[grainfedprairieboy]

Um, the court ruled that burkas could be read, but where there is any question as to whether the accused can get a fair trial, the judge can order the witness to uncover their face.

What exactly is your problem with the ruling?

I believe that under no circumstance should anyone ever be permitted to present evidence against someone accused and not be fully visible. I believe this should also include silent witnesses (behind screens) and anonymous testimony as well. That the judge is left to decide does not bode well as our courts operate on precedence so one judge let's them do it when it's iffy and it is cast in stone after that.

[grainfedprairieboy]

How is this different from countless other areas where a judge has discretion over what goes on in his or her courtroom? I don't think you want judges at all, you want machines that barf out "Guilty" or "Innocent".

We call them HRCs. Of course, they are only capable of "guilty". But by golly, when the accuser, prosecutor and judge are all the same person and 800 years of British Common Law is ignored the system is incredibly efficient.

[Shwa]

I believe that under no circumstance should anyone ever be permitted to present evidence against someone accused and not be fully visible. I believe this should also include silent witnesses (behind screens) and anonymous testimony as well. That the judge is left to decide does not bode well as our courts operate on precedence so one judge let's them do it when it's iffy and it is cast in stone after that.

What if the "someone accused" is blind? Would a burka matter then?

[grainfedprairieboy]

What if the "someone accused" is blind? Would a burka matter then?

It depends on how hot the accused is.

[Bonam]

What if the "someone accused" is blind? Would a burka matter then?

Yes, it would still matter. The accused isn't the only person on the side of the accused in the court room. Presumably, the accused has a lawyer, who hopefully isn't also blind. Having the right to face one's accuser is a key right in our judicial system. Note the word face.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Bonam

[dre]

In general I detest the parade of xenophobic morons whining about the Burka these days. But in this case I have to agree.

I think there are a lot instances where this wouldnt matter, but I agree that in criminal trials witnesses should not be allowed to testify while wearing a face covering.

[Michael Hardner]

The thread title is indeed wrong, as people have pointed out it could read Ontario approves blind witnesses.

[Shwa]

Yes, it would still matter. The accused isn't the only person on the side of the accused in the court room. Presumably, the accused has a lawyer, who hopefully isn't also blind. Having the right to face one's accuser is a key right in our judicial system. Note the word face.

Then I guess written witness statements or forensic evidence from a dead person are not admissable in court? Because written witness statements and forensic evidence from dead people don't literally have "faces" in the context you are trying to score points with.

But wait! There's more...

If you really want to get technical and pull out literal interpretations, ask yourself who really makes the accusations in "our judicial system" nowadays?

[Shwa]

In general I detest the parade of xenophobic morons whining about the Burka these days. But in this case I have to agree.

I think there are a lot instances where this wouldnt matter, but I agree that in criminal trials witnesses should not be allowed to testify while wearing a face covering.

If the court is satisfied that the witness is indeed who they say they are, then why does face covering matter? So the accused doesn't see them snickering or something? Or are you afraid that the witness will do the old switcheroo in the hallway with someone else prior to the trial? "Hey your honour, they all look alike to me, with their brown eyes and all."

I saw we go back to getting everyone to swear on a 'stack of bibles' because that will take care of several problems at once.

[grainfedprairieboy]

If the court is satisfied

Because the very basis of the British Common Law judiciary is for the accused to be satisfied his trial is fair and impartial. Satisfaction of the court instead, at the expense of the defendant is a wholly new concept and one I wouldn't be too quick to endorse.

[guyser]

I believe that under no circumstance should anyone ever be permitted to present evidence against someone accused and not be fully visible.

Tell that to the blind defendant.

[guyser]

Having the right to face one's accuser is a key right in our judicial system. Note the word face.

Note the words dont say "one has the right to see the accusers face"

[madmax]

Tell that to the blind defendant.

Always here to enlighten us....

[Molly]

Pfft!

Any argument that can be made in favor of the absolute NECESSITY of an uncovered face can also be made to demand the uncovering of all other body parts, yet no matter how xenophobic the bigot, none seem to think that witnesses should all, always, be naked in order to give valid evidence.

Judges are perfectly capable of deciding if there is a compelling need for witnesses to strip, whether just their faces, or down to their toes.

[GostHacked]

Some of the blind responses are hilarious.

Beyond uncontrollable things like a person being blind. There should be no reason to cover your face in court.

[Molly]

Some of the blind responses are hilarious.

Beyond uncontrollable things like a person being blind. There should be no reason to cover your face in court.

(This is so beyond dopey...)

Which person?

[guyser]

Some of the blind responses are hilarious.

Beyond uncontrollable things like a person being blind. There should be no reason to cover your face in court.

Ok...tell that to the 7 yr old who, if allowed to be seen by her alleged perp, ghets scared and intimidated and or refuses to answer questions.

I have used an emotional response as fodder, shame on me, but the better point is there are valid reasons why one 'might' need to.

[GostHacked]

Ok...tell that to the 7 yr old who, if allowed to be seen by her alleged perp, ghets scared and intimidated and or refuses to answer questions.

I have used an emotional response as fodder, shame on me, but the better point is there are valid reasons why one 'might' need to.

There might be exceptions to the rule, but being an adult woman in a burka is not one of those exceptions. That's my opinion.

[Shwa]

Because the very basis of the British Common Law judiciary is for the accused to be satisfied his trial is fair and impartial. Satisfaction of the court instead, at the expense of the defendant is a wholly new concept and one I wouldn't be too quick to endorse.

So the accused decides what admissible evidence is do they?

Now THAT... is a concept I wouldn't want to be too quick to endorse.