“An Assault on Canada.” A first rate rant by Charles Adler.
Shariah law, the kind practiced in Iran received more than just lip service in a Canadian courtroom in recent days. It got room service from a unanimous decision by the Ontario Appeals Court that said a Muslim woman in the witness box has a right to wear a veil over her head. They – in a unanimous decision – overruled a lower court judge to insist that she abide by Canadian custom and remove her veil so that she could look the accused sexual abusers in the eye and look Canadian justice in the eye. The Ontario Appeals Court and that’s sky high up in the Canadian Judicial food chain – these are the men and women who get a serious shot at Supreme Court Status – the Appeals Bench was unanimous in giving the lower court judge the back of the hand for making a Canadian decision, one that wasn’t driven by the diversity agenda, the tolerance agenda, the agenda that says every tradition in the world is more worthy of more respect than our own tradition. The appeals court told the judge that not enough sensitivity was being shown to the woman’s religious belief and that a compromise should have been sought, a compromise like perhaps agreeing if she takes her veil off to clear the courtroom of all men even if the judge is a man? Even if the prosecutor is a man?
Everyone should show up for court in a burka.
Got a speeding or parking ticket?
Fight it, just for the hell of it, and show up in court in a burka.
Man or woman, who cares?
Since the burka has no actual religious justification then you should be able to justify it for whatever reason you want, the more bizarre the reason the better.
Explain to the judge that it is Chrysler 440 CID Big Block week and you always celebrate by wearing a burka.
Put some STP and Castrol stickers on it.
Or explain that you belong to the Church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
(google it)
It doesn’t have to make any sense, in fact the less sense it makes the better.
Offer to remove it to testify if all the left handed people leave the courtroom.
Be willing to compromise, and be understanding of other people’s views.
Who can question your motives without questioning the motives of those who brought us this stupid ruling?
Embrace the insanity!
Listened to his rant this PM. It was excellent.
And Stan…..you have the right idea.Beat the pussies at their own stupid,leftarded game! Yeh. I like that.
How’s about just a paper grocery bag with eye holes? Otta get some attention and generate some discussion.
And just for kicks ask for trial in arabic and for the courts to provide a translator.
Ah, Charles, how shall ye err? Let me count the ways:
1) The decision did not create the “right” to wear a veil in court;
2) The superior court judge to which N.S. applied for certiorari also quashed the decision of the preliminary inquiry judge ordering her to remove the veil;
3) The decision has been remitted to the preliminary inquiry judge, who will balance the Charter-protected right to full answer and defence with the Charter-protected right to freedom of religion and determine if, in the circumstances, she should be permitted to testify while wearing a veil;
4) Sections 486, 486.1, 486.2 and the common law power of judges to control the process in their own courtrooms already permit the barring of the public, testifying behind screens, testifying by way of CCTV, etc.
Try reading the decision before flying off the handle; it’s reasonable.
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2010/october/2010ONCA0670.htm
Remember we have 26,000 who claimed on the last census that they were Jedi knights – so I’m guessing there are some parts of their attire that might cause a ‘court’ some upset.
But at the very least, if anyone is sitting on a jury – they have the right to demand that any witness show their face – I think the court did include that – so that will be our mission.
Unanimous?! You’ve got to be kidding me! What the hell’s wrong with that province? Who are these judges? What are their names?!!! Ontario you have a real problem on your hands.
Once again progressive judges demean men whilst pandering to the adherents of Sharia Law. How the fork shall a male judge hear the case if he’s dragged out of the court room because some Muslim chicklets finds it offensive to show her face to men? Gurr I’m really starting to hate Islam and it’s never ending demands to submit to it’s Islamic Supremacist’ political dogma tarted up as religious tenents.
The decision did not create the “right” to wear a veil in court
Lawyer,
Actually it is called a precedent.
Same difference.
lawyer…..
expand on your post please….are you saying that what Adler says has not actually occurred ?…..is the decision as Adler states it to be appealed again or altered somehow ?
Lawyer, had I- a non-Muslim- obscured my identity in court, would I be able to testify?
Your answer, I suspect, is no.
That this was even considered gives the populace pause. If the ruling is unclear or unsettled- being veils could be allowed according the sitting judge’s discretion- at what conclusion should one arrive?
“Forgive him, Theodotus, for he is a barbarian, and thinks the customs of his tribe are the laws of the universe.”
Perth, Australia also has moderate courts.
“Last week the Perth District Court imposed a Muslim cultural practice on a group of non-Muslim men. Judge Shauna Deane told the men – all journalists – to leave her court so a Muslim woman could feel free to give evidence in a fraud trial without wearing her niqab.”
Lawyer; “Try reading the decision before flying off the handle; it’s reasonable.”
Only to another lawyer…
A woman robs a jewellery shop, unmasked; she’s arrested and tried. The male proprietor is asked if he can identify the now veiled accused. She refuses to unveil and the judge agrees…
Hypothetical but clearly in the future a possibility, now.
“The Ontario Appeals Court and that’s sky high up in the Canadian Judicial food chain – these are the men and women who get a serious shot at Supreme Court Status – the Appeals Bench was unanimous in giving the lower court judge the back of the hand for making a Canadian decision”
A nation always decays from the top down. The rot on the high bench is deep and malignant.
I don’t believe the veil/hijab/burkha is a part of Muslim religion; it is a part of Muslim culture.
I hope we can drink beer and play hockey in court: Canadian culture.
He shoots. He scores!
FriendOfUSA:
The precedent you refer to says that in a case like this, as in any other case in which Charter rights are in conflict with each other, the judge tasked with attempting to resolve the conflict is required to engage in a balancing act to determine which rights will prevail and in what form. It didn’t decide the issue of whether a veil can be worn in a courtroom, but instead pointed out the judicial error committed by the original preliminary inquiry judge (ie. failure to balance and failure to fully inquire into the sincerity of the religious belief in question) and determined the way in which the assessment is meant to take place in future.
Begley:
Adler has it very straightforwardly wrong, as does Levant, as does basically every other commentator that has addressed the decision. There is no free-standing right to wear a veil in court simply on the basis of asserting that right.
Kinyobe:
The question is whether or not you can relate your obscuring your identity back to some Charter-protected right. In this case, the complainant sought to testify while wearing a niquab. The preliminary inquiry judge ordered her to remove it. As the courts are a state actor, this brought the order within the ambit of the Charter, with all of its attendant protections for religious freedom etc. So if you’re a pastafarian, and you sincerely believe you’re required to testify in a Freddy Kruger mask, you MAY be permitted to do so depending on the circumstances. Although this case did not enunciate a rule as to whether a veil has to be removed or not, instead remitting it to the preliminary inquiry judge for final determination according to the test, there should be no issue with testifying behind a veil during a preliminary inquiry as the only issue is whether the accused will be committed to a criminal trial proper, the test for whether he will be is whether there is ANY evidence on which a reasonably instructed jury might convict, and as such issues like witness credibility do not enter into it as it is a jurisdictional error for a prelim judge to weigh the evidence in any circumstances outside of those contemplated by R. v. Arcuri, SCC 2001
step by step, inch by inch….
This is an outrage. Why do Canadians put up with this? If ANYONE thinks that this affront to our democracy will endear Muslims to us…THINK AGAIN. There will be no assimilation and we will become nothing more than an odd collection of people each fighting for a special status and the special entitlements that go with that. Muslims should note that there is nothing more alienating to one’s religion by the general population than the insistence that they are entitled to a “special” law, a special place under the law. You are not making any friends. Work within our democracy OR GO HOME.
Ontario always grabs the Muslim diversity brass ring first, Inshalla.
Why don’t we all just pay a dhimmi tax and bow to Mecca as we enter a courtroom.
Wouldn’t it be a hoot if signs starting showing up on the 400 highways that said:
“Canada doesn’t want Sharia – fire them all”
Adler is a hoot…”my name is not Colonel Williams.”
If it were, would the accused show up in stolen lingerie?
In western jurisprudence, you have the right to “face” your accuser, which of course presumes you can see it!!
The niquab ruling is just semantic pandering to cultural rather than ‘religious values’. No one is asking anything more than to ‘face’ the accuser.
The rest is more mockery of western judicial values. In future all female thieves will become ‘muslims’ of convenience.
Of course by muslim jurisprudence they wouldn’t just remove your veil but the whole hand!!
Prosit!
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
What bugs me is Canadian academics think they are on the cutting edge of “cultural sensitivity” by promoting the most superficial and oppressive elements of Muslim culture. It reminds me of people who eat junk food at “Taco Bell” to experience authentic Mexican cuisine.
Many of the women who insist on wearing niqabs never wore them in their lives until recently. Lets face it, Muslims have been in Canada for many years – I remember meeting Muslims in my home town decades ago and they were scarcely identifiable apart from the rest of the populace. At most, Muslim women would wear a headscarf – practically indistinguishable from the traditional “babushka” worn by Polish Catholic grandmas. I strongly suspect that the sudden appearance of niqabs is more a political provocation than any sort of “spiritual” devotion.
I think you will actually find atheists – NDP feminists – hiding behind some of those niqabs. They’re just trying to stir up s**t and waste taxpayer money – the only thing the Dippers are proficient at. The Dippers need to keep the burgeoning Islamophobia Industry at full production to compensate for the recent downturn in the Misogyny and Homophobia markets. Don’t laugh – diversity manufacturers are being hit by the economic recession too. Tens of thousands of newly graduated social engineers could be laid off, and Canada could plunge forever into that dreaded dystopia called social harmony.
Canada needs radical Islam to keep social conflict alive, which employs progressives and stimulates the economy!
(P.S.: An insider’s tip on the stock market: buy Islamophobia shares then trade them for Misogyny and Homophobia futures, 12 months from now).
Hey, “lawyer”:
It is because of people like you that our country is being flushed down the toilet.
In a SECULAR liberal democracy like ours, whether you are in a “preliminary inquiry” or an actual trial, no religious needs should make some one more equal than the law. That woman should have taken her veil off, end of story.
I strongly suspect that the sudden appearance of niqabs is more a political provocation than any sort of “spiritual” devotion.
Exactly bang on.
I’ve worked in a federal prison. I’ve noticed a large number of Muslim “jail house conversions” where I used to work, and that also goes for many of my peers who work in other institutions. The “alternative arrangements”, for lack of a better (and more polite) term, that these aggrieved Muslims say are a requirement for practicing their religion are used as nothing more than a means to keep the correctional staff hopping much more than any genuine pronouncement of faith. If their demands are not met or run into opposition, well guess what – lawfare.
Once bored prisoners who have nothing but time see that a mere but disingenuine “change of heart” is all it takes to get the prison staff kowtowing, well, what do you think is going to happen?
I work in the provincial system now, and I am waiting for the day that a Muslim woman with head covering comes to visit her husband and we need to ascertain identify – but she refuses. I will be the first one to file a work refusal under the Occupational Health And Safety Act.
Just because she believes she is naked does not make it reality, and is in fact, completely untrue.
Are we to deny millions of future Canadians a fair trial just to cater to a superstition? Muslims in Canada make up less than 2% of our population, lets not forget that adherents to this group are the ones responsible for plotting heinous terrorist attacks against our nation that were thankfully foiled.
Why bother bringing charges against persons when you know, or should have known, that removing ones veil is going to be necessary if you did not plan on removing the veil in the first place, while knowing full well that your refusal to do so will, without question, allow the accused to walk free? Something seems off about this whole case IMHO.
Why put yourself through an exercise in futility unless of course, your goal is not to have the men who allegedly assaulted you convicted, but to change Canadian Law to ensure that the niqab, veil, scarf, burka whatever one calls it, is not banned or limited in Canada as it has been in France.
It is immensely more difficult to catch criminals or terrorists when their faces are covered. It makes me wonder if she was not recruited and instructed to file charges for this very purpose.
If you think about it, it’s a risk free strategy. The men will not be convicted because at the time the alleged assaults were committed, the law on the books is that the accused is entitled to face their accuser – face to face – in court. She will not have to give testimony as long as she refuses to remove her veil, yet she achieves the setting of a precedence possibly resulting in a change of Canadian Law.
lawyer…
you’re still not making clear why this appeal decision is of no account…you are suggesting that it has no particular significance or i believe you suggest any cultural impact…
please expand on your post to the fullest…
…and i suppose it would be helpful to know what YOUR personal feelings are aside from the legal aspect…i’m curious to know why you don’t feel this decision is an affront…
are you biased in any way ?…are you muslim yourself?
So the Ontario Appeals court slaps a lower court judge upside the head, kicks him in the metaphorical nuts, and suggests that he failed to balance and fully inquire into her sincerity and a guy who signs his name “lawyer” picks nits and claims no precedent or forceful instruction to allow the wearing of the veil occurred. Kinda reminds me again why I hate lawyers.
Let’s put it another way. The upper court judges signalled which way they think the lower court judge should decide and then sent him a message ” Nice racket ya got here. Be a shame if sumpin were to happen to it.” But Nit the lawyer doesn’t see that it forces any decision in any direction…necessarily…kinda..legally.
curiously this exercising in respecting and giving precedence to religious sentiment does not apply to Christians who are fined and harassed for exercising religious based actions in the public sphere for example not renting to lesbians or refusing gay business.
So it’s not religious rights at all. it is special privilege for Islam. Sharia law imposed by politically appointed unaccountable judges
mojo at 5:54 PM: ““Forgive him, Theodotus, for he is a barbarian, and thinks the customs of his tribe are the laws of the universe.””
Works just as well this way, too: “Forgive him, Theodotus, for he is a lawyer, and thinks the customs of his tribe are the laws of the universe.”
“lawyer” is “redmeat” on ezralevant.com comments
mikeg81 @ 8:41, No-One @ 8:51 and Bruce @ 10:55 nail it.
Whoever said “inch by inch” is absolutely correct.
In jurisprudence, it’s important to distinguish between decisions that enunciate simple, straightforward, bright-line rules and those that do not prescribe a specific outcome but define the procedure that must be followed in reaching whatever outcome is deemed appropriate in the circumstances.
An example of a bright-line rule is that a conviction for murder requires subjective foresight of the death of the victim.
An example of a process-oriented rule is that which governs the admission at trial of evidence gathered in violation of the Charter. A judge that decides whether to include or exclude evidence must take certain factors into consideration in his reasons. Regardless of the outcome, if he fails to do so he has committed an error of law.
Stated differently, bright-line rules are concerned with the RESULT. Process-oriented rules are concerned with HOW YOU GET THERE, regardless of what the result is.
This case did not pronounce a bright-line rule on the issue of the niqab: it did not say that wearing the niqab is explicitly permitted, and it did not say that it is explicitly forbidden.
Instead, it pronounced a process-oriented rule that defines the procedure judges are expected to follow in determining whether a witness should be allowed to testify with her face partially or completely covered. There must be a fuller inquiry into both the sincerity of the belief held by the witness and the degree to which an order that she remove her veil would undermine her Charter-protected freedom of religion as well as a a fuller inquiry into whether or not the rights of the accused would be undermined if she testified while wearing the thing. As the preliminary inquiry judge did neither and, in addition, exercised his power to control process without considering much of the above, his order cannot stand.
The court of appeal did not tell the preliminary inquiry judge who will hear this case what he should do when he attempts to balance the rights that are in conflict in this case. Instead, it described the procedure that must be followed when doing the balancing. This means that whatever judge winds up hearing the matter next is free to force her to remove the veil if he wants; he just has to frame his reasons for doing so in a manner that complies with the general directive given by the court of appeal.
That said, if the accused frames his request that she be ordered to de-veil in terms of his ability to assess her demeanor _at a preliminary inquiry_, where credibility is irrelevant to the issue at play (a preliminary inquiry determines whether the accused should be committed to trial proper), the court of appeal has signalled, in sideline editorial comments, that a witness should not be ordered to remove her veil. It has also indicated that at trial, a whole host of other factors come into play.
See paras. 70-79 of the case, which detail what a judge hearing such an application must do.
Stated again: IT IS OPEN TO A JUDGE TO PERMIT OR TO PRECLUDE A WITNESS FROM TESTIFYING FROM BEHIND A VEIL. THIS DECISION LAYS OUT THE PROCEDURE THAT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IF SUCH AN ORDER, WHATEVER WAY IT GOES, IS TO SURVIVE ON APPEAL.
That clear?
This is an insult to every Canadian women who was abused, yet had the courage to face her abuser in court.
You can hear Adler read his editorial here.
Ricardo @ 8:04 PM: “I strongly suspect that the sudden appearance of niqabs is more a political provocation than any sort of “spiritual” devotion.”
=================
And you’d be right. My ex (an Iraqi Muslim Arab by birth) and I did a tour of the Middle East in 1973. I don’t recall seeing a single woman with her head covered, let alone her face, in either Lebanon, or Egypt. This is a modern movement and it’s entirely political. It has nothing to do with the Muslim religion, even the despicable version.
But, but, but Mr. Lawyer, you are forgetting the bag! With the eye holes. This should give this court and this judge all of the respect that is deserving, no?
GD lawyers. No wonder the legal INDUSTRY is a joke!
lawyer just used a lot of words to say that the means has no influence on the ends.
I completely disagree.
Lawyer,
Thanks for your legal insights, but I think you complicate and confuse the issues somewhat.
i) Wearing a niqab in court is not a matter of religious freedom, as no one here is denied practicing his/her religion.
ii) Niqab is not a part of Islam as a religion, it is part of Islam as a culture (as someone pointed out above).
iii) The norm & practice in the West is that witnesses, accusers, and accused, all face the court and each other openly, not hiding behind a niqab, paper bag, or whatever. There are presumably several good reasons for this, including the fact that one can often determine the truth content of a statement from facial expressions.
iv) When immigrating/visiting the West, one must accept the common values and norms of the West, of else do not visit. Correspondingly, when I visit Muslim countries, which I do from time to time, I modify my appearance & behavior to the extent needed in order not to disturb social peace in that country (other reasons might include the intrinsic intolerance and peculiar modes of punishment prevalent in many Muslim countries).
This wrong in so many ways….
It is an offense to operate a motor vehicle with a tinted windshield and tinted side windows that prevent recognition of the operator from a distance of 30 ft in normal daylight(4 lux).
It is a criminal offense to wear a disguise….
It is SOP for either Police or Border agents to DEMAND removal of sunglasses….
We have endured the indignity and inconvenience to photo ID for such as drivers licences, FAST cards, PALs, OHIP cards…..for what?
By One law, one statute, one bi-law over time, all accumulate into the Magic mania of Sharia Law. No wonder the World has such disdain for Canada.
We are being Colonized by Barbarians, while kissing there rears.
JMO
Cross posted at Ezra’s blog a few days ago:
As you say, Ezra, we effectively have Shari’a law now in Canada, ushered in by our own progressive (sic) courts which, supposedly, believe in equality for all but, in practice, give certain visible minorities special privileges and rights.
Does this mean, then, that I, a Canadian woman, can walk into a bank with a niqab on — or, if not a niqab, a face covering of my choosing? If Muslim women are allowed to cover their faces in court and in public then, under the “equality” label, shouldn’t I be able to as well? What would the laydown, surrender monkeys at LEAF have to say about that? And, as a Christian woman, can I have all of the pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-feminist, anti-Christian bigots cleared out of the courtroom?
When does this madness end? Why is it even beginning? Mark Steyn got it right when he began billing Canada as the Deranged Dominion. This latest ruling is unconscionable.
The other issue here, apparently, is what good does this woman’s wearing a niqab do, anyway? How is it to protect her identity? Presumably, the men she is accusing know exactly who they’ve been accused by, so how’s a flimsy piece of black material going to help her situation?
Such a to-do about, presumably, nothing. And this is the way the world ends …
Holy Conundrum Kate, if the accuser has to reveal themselves to the courts then all those devious felons apprehended by Batman, Boy Wonder and the Lone Ranger would go free.
As a wise man said. “The Fish Rots From The Head”. What other result can we expect when most Judges are Liberals appointed by Liberals. Maybe it is time that Judges are elected with a set term limit.
“Stated again: IT IS OPEN TO A JUDGE TO PERMIT OR TO PRECLUDE A WITNESS FROM TESTIFYING FROM BEHIND A VEIL. THIS DECISION LAYS OUT THE PROCEDURE THAT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IF SUCH AN ORDER, WHATEVER WAY IT GOES, IS TO SURVIVE ON APPEAL.”
A judge is no more special than any one of us, and it shouldn’t be up to him to decide where some loser’s “freedom of religion” ends, and my non-human granted right to know who is accusing me begins. Do you get that yet?
“Stated again: IT IS OPEN TO A JUDGE TO PERMIT OR TO PRECLUDE A WITNESS FROM TESTIFYING FROM BEHIND A VEIL. THIS DECISION LAYS OUT THE PROCEDURE THAT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IF SUCH AN ORDER, WHATEVER WAY IT GOES, IS TO SURVIVE ON APPEAL.”
A judge is no more special than any one of us, and it shouldn’t be up to him to decide where some loser’s “freedom of religion” ends, and my non-human granted right to know who is accusing me begins. Do you get that yet?
lawyer being a lawyer, yawn.
Protecting the trough, dude?
Basically he is saying that the judge’s error was that he did not explain in capital letters to the woman why she is required to remove veil, and that’s why it is now supposed to cost millions to the taxpayers to get things reviewed by the courts all the way up.
One day they will be beaten all the way back into the sands, they just did not play with fire long enough. Bacon anyone?