The veil or death
The NZ Herald reports how a Muslim woman has told a court “she would rather kill herself than give evidence without wearing a veil.”
This does little to reassure me that Islam is not a religion that attracts extremism and has less regard for sanctity of life than is healthy. To value not showing your face over life??
I mean it is fine to be devout, but lets look at how we would react if say a devout Catholic proclaimed that if they were forced to miss Holy Communion, they would rather kill themselves?
Or a devout Jew proclaimed that if there is an earthquake on a Saturday he would rather stay inside and die than turn the lights on to find his way out.
Or a devout Buddhist said that if they accidentially ingested meat they would cut their stomach out rather than digest it?
I mean really we would think they are nuts, wouldn’t we?
October 27th, 2004 at 5:07 pm
So a traffic cop who stops a veiled Muslim woman, asks for her license (picture has no veil) and then asks woman to remove her veil to confirm photo id , will shame the woman so much she will kill herself?
No wonder the French made religious attire banned in schools, ( as it is in Turkey as well)
October 27th, 2004 at 6:48 pm
I didn’t realise the judge had that option.
October 27th, 2004 at 7:26 pm
My read is it’s a combination of a strict religion ( even in moderate Turkey ) and the propensity for religion to provide a framework that allows extremists to thrive. Personally I don’t think it’s just a problem with Muslims, though their religion is currently the most vulnerable, Christianity has had it’s own Inquisitions, Crusades, sexism problems historically, less now, but is that because it has less power or it’s inherent “goodness” I’d be inclined to say lack of power personally.
October 27th, 2004 at 9:34 pm
I will be watching this with interest – she should definately have to remove her veil. Religious freedom is a good thing but it has limits, just as the right of the state to interfere in peoples lives should have limits. I find it strange that a religion should not see itself as having civic responsibilities.
October 27th, 2004 at 9:59 pm
Not to defend Islam, as I don’t defend any organization purporting to know absolute moral truth from a text with extremely dubious backgrounds and premises, but Moderate Islam allows for women to be unveiled in polite company.
Surely she should feel much less than oppressed in a court, as it is a place for justice.
October 28th, 2004 at 9:06 am
Surely she has to remove her veil every time she goes through customs and immigration? She should be required to do so in court. The judge should show deference to her religion by clearing the public and media from the court while she gives evidence.
October 28th, 2004 at 9:06 am
Surely she has to remove her veil every time she goes through customs and immigration? She should be required to do so in court. The judge should show deference to her religion by clearing the public and media from the court while she gives evidence.
October 28th, 2004 at 9:12 am
FYI, Orthodox Judaism explicitly permits breaking the laws of the Sabbath if life is at stake.
As far as I know, most varieties of Islam also allow exceptions to normal prohibitions in order to spare life. What we’re seeing here is the freaky end of Islam, comparable with those wacky Christians who don’t allow blood transfusions.
October 28th, 2004 at 9:24 am
Well stephen, if a person doesn’t want blood transfusions, it’s his choice isn’t it?
Things get more difficult when their children are involved, but letting the state choose what’s best is surely the worst outcome.
I don’t think blood transfusion and veil in courts are in any way comparable.
October 28th, 2004 at 11:02 am
The Judge who allowed this hearing within a hearing has, with the best of (PC) intentions, allowed a mountain out of a molehill. There is no way in the current NZ Justice system that a witness should be allowed to give evidence with her face covered. Possibly she could be screened from the public gallery as a matter of politeness (although public proceedings are important) but the Judge, Jury (if there is one) and counsel must be able to see her face.
October 28th, 2004 at 11:41 am
Im not sure on this but the Koran only asks for ‘modesty ‘ in dress. The full Burqa is only worn by a minority of Muslim women worldwide, and seems to be a ‘fashion’ in the broad sense of the word.
Charlotte dawson would be shamed too if she was seen in Ponsonby rd wearing something from Farmer’s. Australia which has had muslim immigration for a lot longer than we have, now finds young muslims take up the headscarf/burqa, which wouldnt have been seen a generation ago.
October 28th, 2004 at 12:49 pm
Most Westerners have a cultural aversion to appearing naked in public. This cultural aversion has no more rational basis than that some Moslem women have to showing their faces and may be a good deal less deep-seated. If a pakeha woman were required to give evidence topless because the judge, jury and/or cross-examining counsel believed they could assess her truthfulness from the way her breasts moved we would be rightly appalled.
The situation here seems to be the same except that it hinges on a minority cultural view. If the judge is satisfied that this is a genuine “conscientious objection” and not just a ruse to foil cross-examination it would be proper to exercise his (or her?) discretion and allow the witness to testify wearing her burkah. At a purely pragmatic level the witness’s “demeanour and body language” should she be forced to uncover her face are unlikely to signal anything other than acute distress at her exposure.
October 28th, 2004 at 1:21 pm
Greyshade, I am sorry but you are full of shit on this one. The aversion to nakedness does have a very rational basis. Seeing people’s genitals and breasts tends to lead to signs of sexual attraction, which to be blunt is best to be avoided when shopping, working etc. And it is incomparable to what this woman has claimed as preferring death.
Sure most of us prefer not to walk around naked (to which those who know me let out a great sigh of relief) but most of us have been seen naked or near naked hundreds of times by strangers – at school, in changing rooms, sometimes in flats, on beaches, or by accident etc. We tend to be embarassed not suicidal.
Next you’ll claim Black Power or Mongrel Mob should be allowed to appear in court wearing balaclavas, as it is culturally offensive not to be able to do so.
October 28th, 2004 at 1:36 pm
Does anyone really think that an Islamic country would be even considering changing their laws or rules for the sake of a Infidels point of view on things – no bloody way. If these people want to move to our country they should abide by the rules and laws that we have – this is a clear case of the tail wagging the dog. I also don’t know how come when we take in 1 refugee another dozen relatives get to come in as well (Dominion Post 28/10) Winston is a clown but he’ll get some votes next election.
October 28th, 2004 at 3:14 pm
I’ll be interested to see whether she follows through with her promise, or is it just more Islamobabble that we are expected to swallow?
October 29th, 2004 at 2:00 pm
David
(1) We find nakedness erotic (and embarassing) only because it’s abnormal. Naturists do not (I am reliably informed) sport permanent erections. Men in cultures which require women to wear the burqah experience sexual arousal at the sight of an uncovered female face similar to that experienced by western men at a quick flash of nipple or beaver.
(2) Some western women (and maybe more men) might quite enjoy testifying naked but most would find it embarrassing and many would be acutely distressed. Particularly if their naked bits were subject to close scrutiny by cross-examining counsel
(3) Whether this woman would, in fact, commit suicide if forced to remove the burqah is not the point. Causing unnecessary distress is wrong even if the victim survives it.
(4) The ability of counsel, judge or jury to assess a witness’s truthfulness from their facial expression (demeanour and body language are equally visible with or without the burqah) is greatly overrated – particularly with a subject from a different culture. It is also arguable that the witness’s distress at appearing unveiled would mask any useful signals that her facial expression might give. It is also at least as likely that the main motivation of defence is to intimdate the witness from testifying.
(5) Ultimately it is the judge’s decision to determine whether the advantage (if any) to justice of making the witness unveil overrides the distress that would cause the witness. That decision should (and will) be based on a fair judgement of the severity of that distress and the relevant extent of any problems in evaluating testimony with or without the veil. It should have nothing to do with any notion that immigrants must conform to the majority culture.
October 29th, 2004 at 5:48 pm
The whole thing is a put up by Colin Amery, the women doesnt testify ( shes related to the defendant) so the defendant doesnt get a fair trial.
Unnecesary stress ?. 90% of witnesses are stessed, try going to any trial, murder, rape, and see the stress witnesses go through just reliving their experience. Tears and such are very common. Some dont want to testify, I dont know why this doesnt occur in this case.
This thing about men getting aroused by seeing the eyes/nose lips of a women is ridiculous. The case is being heard in Auckland, far more flesh is available in any cafe. The women know they attract much more attention with a burqa ( by the way i was passing 2 women in burqa, the foul language they spouting, made me wonder if they were a rugby league team.
The women merely has to reveal her face, to the judge and lawyers if she cant handle that, life in Afganistan may be her option.
Often western women journalist have to cover their arms ,hair etc when interviewing muslim politicians. Nobody has the slightest worry about following cultural norms when in Muslim countries, its an inconvienece but no big deal. If this women wasnt being force to testify against a family member she would drop the veil quick as flash
October 31st, 2004 at 11:51 am
I wasn’t suggesting that any man in NZ was likely to be sexually aroused by the sight of an unveiled face. That has never been part of our culture and any migrant from a different culture will have already got over it or gone blind. My point was a response to DPF’s suggestion that our cultural aversion to exposing breasts or genitals was more rational than a cultural aversion to exposing the face.
Western journalists may find it an inconvenience to cover-up in a muslim country. They may even find it culturally offensive – but that’s all. They don’t find it personally degrading or feel violated as they would if required to appear in public naked.
The woman, in this case, states that she has a personal conviction that she cannot remove her burqah in public at least as strong as a Western woman’s objection to testifying naked. It is for the judge to assess the sincerity and strength of this conviction and to try and find the best balance between protecting the respective rights of the witness and the defendant.
October 31st, 2004 at 7:48 pm
The interesting distinction to make on your comment Greyshade is that it tends to only apply to Western journalists on temporary visits to Arab/Islamic cultures, whereas the Islamic women refusing to remove their burkas are not journalists here on temporary work assignments but are here to live in this country. Therefore the standard is somewhat different.
Western journos who go to Islamic countries and cover up their faces are being respectful to local customs. They are not living there – they are simply there temporarily to get the story and leave.
Islamic women who demand that we accept their customs (in certain focused environments like courtrooms) when they choose to live here are arguably being disrespectful to our customs.
I have no problem with Islamic women covering up their faces partially or wholly if they so desire when out in the streets and engaging in everyday life. But in the eyes of the state and the law, we must all be equal. Thus I believe that no religious belief should enable a woman to hide her face when applying for a passport or drivers license, and equally, should a judge decide that it is proper and right for her to remove her facial covering in the courtroom, then we must respect the judgement and demand that she do so.