Burqa decision ripples across world

Source: Sydney Morning Herald

IT WAS just one decision made by one judge in one case in Perth and Judge Shauna Deane was at pains to make that clear.

But the impact of her decision yesterday to order a Muslim woman to remove her burqa in Western Australia's District Court is unlikely to remain so localised.

A prosecution witness known only as Tasneem, 36, has kept her surname a secret but will have to show her face in the fraud trial of a former Muslim school director called Anwar Sayed.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/burqa-decision-ripples-across-world-20100819-12s43.html

Some of these women would consider such an order to be tantamount to being required to testify in a swim suit, or nude. At least if anyone but another woman was viewing them.

The real conflict here is between a society that considers women "equal" (in some general sense) and a community of women who don't agree and want to live their lives that way. Society places demands upon them because of the perceived equality, not just benefits. And there is no way for them to "give up" this equal status.

Facial expressions are very important - as is body language.

Unfortunately in the US system, it would tend to demand more than just a judge or jury. There is a strong tendency to allow the accused to "face their accuser". It is no small problem when children have to testify.

masks. I mean, I'm sorry she's a repressed doormat, but the court doesn't need to pander to that.

The conflict is basically society presuming one level equality, and someone wanting a lower one. We really aren't set up to grant such requests. And it isn't clear we would want to.

"I just need to see your darn face, so I can communicate fully with you" to "the real conflict" is between society and women and equality and ... blah, blah, blah? Pretty amazing.

As I said in the original post, many of these women would consider a demand to do so the same as being told to testify in a swim suit or nude. We have standards however that say they are NOT the same thing. That allows us to create a standard which dictates that we all get to "confront" our accusers. In another system, they wouldn't be allowed to testify, and the conflict would never occur. In our system, they are consider equal and subject to these kinds of demands because of it, and the conflict arises.

a society that considers women equal's and cannot follow the norms of said society, she may want to consider moving. I would immediately be suspect of any witness whose face I couldn't see.

And it's one of the many places that "relgious freedom" runs into societies larger need to "ensure domestic tranquility and secure the blessings of liberty".

The accused has a right to see the face of their accusers.

Confronting ones accuser does not mean looking into their face.

she chooses to live in Australia, so she must abide by Australian rules.

Besides, this is not like "on the street". This is a special place for a special purpose.... a court of law. Allah won't mind. ( and I'm sure the judge won't mind clearing the court of all unnecessary people)

clearing the courtroom is rarely an option. Granted, there may be different rules down under.

Remember, the trial needs to be fair to the accused, not to the witnesses.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

to face his accusers.

Witnesses give up a lot of things when they testify.

Mr Sayed's defence team - to their client's apparent dismay - had argued the jury should be able to see her facial expressions.

Tasneem had a ''right to religious expression'', Judge Deane found, but she had to be fair to everyone involved in the trial.

The decision was reported around the world and will be popular in Western Australia, with about 80 per cent of 3000 recent respondents to the watoday.com.au and 6PR radio websites believing the witness should be made to remove her burqa.

And their rights don't include remaking society at large on the spot in order to accommodate, according to the situation, dozens of different cultural norms.

This is especially true of minorities that choose to be minorities by virtue of immigration or conversion. Even if they're economic or political refugees, there are still often places that are more culturally "sensitive" and places that are less culturally sensitive.

When having minority status in a couple of European countries I knew that I was expected to not claim more rights than the majority. And as a kind of self-selected minority in the US, I was also respectful of majority rights. I would ask for accommodations but had enough self-respect and dignity not to whine when not accommodated.

how DARE the court system not pander to me. Do you know how USELESS and really naked I would feel if I had clothes on and what the god Hungria would do to me if I didn't get my sacrafices in? RESPECT MY RELIGION! It's not fair that you only respect the more popular ones!

... Asking someone to show their face! The NERVE! And in Australia too! I figure if she feels naked with her face shown then she has even more issues than moving to a country and refusing to follow that countries customs in court.

...with other fundamental freedoms and laws.

You don't have the right to sacrifice your first born. People don't (or shouldn't) have the right to mutilate their daughters. Your legal marriages are confined to one spouse at a time. Sharia Law should always trumped by civil law.

This "minority rights" argument is nonsense here..

the fact that Churches/religions have to be drug kicking and screaming into the future. Frankly without a swift kick to the ass of the Church we would still be having witch trials. I side with the court on this one.

most religions, including Islam, can and do issue "holy" or "inspired" modifications to previous traditions, as times and circumstances change. Islam is probably the best of the Abrahamic traditions in this respect; any imam can issue a statement about almost anything and it's "valid" to any muslim who wants to follow it.

technology makes "confront your accuser in open court" a more flexible thing than back in the day. we have cameras, video technology, and a host of other ways to bring someone "into court" without actually putting them there physically.

what we need here is a court official and friendly aussie imam willing to say, "let's figure this out." let veiled women testify without the veil, live/real time, but put them behind a camera in another room, or a room with only women, or whatever. let some religious figure come forward with a theological justification (cause you can always craft one of those out of holy books, for anything and everything if you're clever enough) and respect this woman's wishes not to be literally bare faced in front of strangers. problem solved. "Allah says that a woman's digital image shown to strangers doesn't violate the modesty thingee" etc.

of course, i don't expect any of that to happen. and i'll point out how it *does* happen much more frequently, when men are involved. religions are funny like that, they always manage to find a way around prohibitions on men's behaviors when it's convenient, not so much for da wimminfolk. sigh.

boilerplate: i'm an atheist.