A senior judge, leading members of Parliament and human rights activists are calling for an urgent debate on the explosive issue of whether Muslim women should be allowed to wear veils when they testify in court.
The call for national debate follows Judge Peter Murphy’s Sept. 16 ruling that a 22-year-old Muslim woman standing trial on charges of intimidating a witness at a north London mosque must remove her facial veil, called a niqab, when testifying so the jury can better evaluate her facial expressions.
If she refuses, the woman ”“ known only as Defendant D ”“ could face a prison sentence for contempt of court.
I have to say I am conflicted on this issue. I am all for religious liberty and freedom of speech, even liberty and speech I don’t agree with. Wearing of a head covering is certainly a type of speech and religious belief, though I don’t agree with it. I have no problem with people doing that in their normal everyday lives if that’s what they want to do, much to my chagrin.
Does that trump someone’s right to face their accuser in court though? That is where I am conflicted. For one reason, someone here is going to be forced to give up rights, so what side do we err on. In terns of courts, one has to think of precedent. Yeah, it is easy for non-Muslims to say, what’s the big deal, but where does it end? If, in an increasingly secular culture, does that become no wearing of religious objects at all when testifying?
I guess I have to err on the side of the defendant, but I am very hesitant to do that. I also fear for the woman’s safety. If she does face her accuser and show her face, does she risk being abused by her family once she gets home for having done that? Whew…that’s a tough one.
I am not conflicted about this at all. I have no concern if the woman wishes to cover herself from head to wrists to toes, including hijab and gloves if she so prefers. But a defendant, and his attorneys, judge and jury, should be able to see a woman’s face as she testifies in court. There is no way otherwise to determine with any confidence who the witness actually is. If her religion makes this difficult, I would have no objection to clearing the courtroom of press, photographers, and observers, and taking her testimony and cross-examination with only the attorneys, judge and jury, and court reporter present.
This business of respecting personal preferences can be carried too far. In Western countries, people do not hide their faces in public, and certainly not while giving court testimony.
See [url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaelnazirali/100236556/sometimes-we-cannot-allow-the-niqab-to-be-worn-in-public/]here[/url] the opinion of Bishop Nazir-Ali, with which I agree.
Head coverings are fine. Facial coverings are not. As noted by Katherine, a court of law is a place where accused and witnesses both have rights. Anonymity, which is what is basically being called for here is not one of them. It is incompatible with the basic tenets of the Anglo-American legal system.
Just a question to those who may know: Are these facial coverings actually a requirement in Muslim law or is it something Islamist fanatics came up with on their own? Just really curious.
An excellent question, Alli B. I lived in Cairo for two years and had learned Muslim neighbors. The answer is no! There is a passage in the Qur’an which uses a word now obsolete which no one is quite sure of any more, but scholars believe it refers to a shawl which covers the head and down to about waist length. This is usually clipped together under the chin, covering the hair, neck, and bosom. The hijab is a more modern version of this. Not only is a face covering NOT required in Islamic law, in fact, it is PROHIBITED when praying and when performing the Hajj in Mecca. My landlady did not ordinarily cover, although she was devout, but she showed me the abaya and hijab she wears when in Saudi Arabia. No face covering.
Very informative, Katherine. Thank you! It would seem to me that in light of what you say, that should weigh heavily into decisions about the necessity of allowing these full coverings due to religious concerns.
I agree, Alli B. We hear a lot about being “culturally sensitive” to Muslims in the West. How about asking them to be culturally sensitive, too, and not cover their women’s faces in public? I don’t argue with Orthodox Jewish women wearing wigs over their real hair, or with Amish or Mennonite women with long skirts and caps, and am prepared not to fuss over head coverings and long sleeves on Muslim women. But having a face and showing it is the only way we can know each other, unless we are unable to see at all.
Even my Muslim friends would cross the street to avoid walking past one of those faceless frights swathed in black, because, they said, you really can’t know who that is, or even whether it’s a woman in some cases. Plus, their menfolk are likely to be radicals, and you really don’t want anything to do with them.
I agree with Katherine and Ad Orientem. There is simply no question about this – if you are in a British court of law (or Australian, American or whatever) you uncover your face and let your whole demeanour be assessed by the judge or jury when you give evidence. Most Muslims don’t have a problem with this.
The fanatical minority of Muslims that try to raise a ruckus over this issue should be given no shrift whatsoever (apart from extra surveillance by police and intelligence organisations – it wouldn’t surprise if they are flouting our laws in some way).