Muslim woman told she cannot wear veil in court - Historum

**diddyriddick** · August 19th, 2010, 09:14 AM

Please check your agendas at the door.

This brings up an interesting ethical dilemma.

On the one hand you have Tasneem's unquestioned right to practice her religion, and indeed her conscience in whatever way she sees fit. While I am not an expert on Australian law, I would think that there are such guarantees. Perhaps some of our Australian members can enlighten the rest of us.

On the other hand, you have the very real need of the jury to be able to assess each witness without any hindrance. Anybody who has ever spoken with another human being knows that there are some things that you simply can't pick up on without some facial cue. Moreover, here in the US, one of the bedrock principles of the law is that the accused is entitled to face his/her accuser.

What do y'all think?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38770538...s-asiapacific/

**tjadams** · August 19th, 2010, 09:17 AM

Judges always rule their courtrooms with an iron fist and they get to make the rules.

**Ri Fhionngaill** · August 19th, 2010, 09:20 AM

Security comes first. And I believe that identity is a crucial part of a court case. They need to verify that the person is who they say they are, and also to see their face and ensure that they're not lying.

**tjadams** · August 19th, 2010, 09:20 AM

Good point Ri.

**vera** · August 19th, 2010, 09:22 AM

Hmm, this is an interesting phrase:

Quote:

Western Australia state District Court Judge Shauna Deane ruled Thursday that it would be inappropriate for the woman, identified in court only as Tasneem, to be completely veiled while giving evidence because the jury should not be impeded in its ability to assess her demeanor.

Their point is clear. But is their solution the only - or the best - possibility?

Perhaps this is a case where her testimony should have been taken in a more private manner, with less people than a full (and open) courtroom. Or something like that.

corrocamino · August 19th, 2010, 09:24 AM

No masquerades in court! (I myself don't like them on the streets, either. When in Rome, do as the Romans do!)

**Ri Fhionngaill** · August 19th, 2010, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Perhaps this is a case where her testimony should have been taken in a more private manner, with less people than a full (and open) courtroom. Or something like that.

That still wouldn't be entirely fair on anyone else who feels uncomfortable about standing up in court, but isn't a Muslim.

**Rasta** · August 19th, 2010, 09:31 AM

I'm inclined to agree with the Australian courts. The point of a jury is for a group of peers to evaluate testimony.

Quote:

Prosecutor Mark Ritter told the court Tasneem generally only reveals her face to her family, though the court was told she also unveils her face when she visits the doctor, for customs inspections and when she has her driver's license photograph taken.

So it does appear that she reckognizes that there are circumstances where wearing a veil is inappropriate.

**Rasta** · August 19th, 2010, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ri Fhionngaill

That still wouldn't be entirely fair on anyone else who feels uncomfortable about standing up in court, but isn't a Muslim.

Good point.

**vera** · August 19th, 2010, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ri Fhionngaill

That still wouldn't be entirely fair on anyone else who feels uncomfortable about standing up in court, but isn't a Muslim.

I agree, but the question is not to be socialist-fair with people in court. She is not uncomfortable about giving testimony - but about uncovering her face in public. Is THAT fair? To make her expose herself to more people than necessary?

I understand the necessity, and totally agree to it in this case; don't think the solution in the end was considerate of the woman at all. I think they could be more creative, if they were more respectful. Why were they not? Because the burka draws strong negative feelings from non-wearers, probably.